Who killed James Bond ?
- Thread starter Alan Castillo
- Start date
IMIM2
Sr Member
Alan, thank you for the appreciation
Solo, I know it is not perfect explanation, but I just wanna sleep tonight having this thought.
With this in mind, I hope I can enjoy DC as Bond.
It's a win-win situation. All the RM/PB lovers and SC/DC lover (if it can be said like that), can have Bond will long life span.
Well, ini original CR, Bond is retiring in a nice mansion, having lions on his backyard.
I wanna finish my Starwars marathon first. After that, I wanna rewatch TD's Bond.
Peace
Sent from my Lenovo P770 using Tapatalk
Solo, I know it is not perfect explanation, but I just wanna sleep tonight having this thought.
With this in mind, I hope I can enjoy DC as Bond.
It's a win-win situation. All the RM/PB lovers and SC/DC lover (if it can be said like that), can have Bond will long life span.
Well, ini original CR, Bond is retiring in a nice mansion, having lions on his backyard.
I wanna finish my Starwars marathon first. After that, I wanna rewatch TD's Bond.
Peace
Sent from my Lenovo P770 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
It's all the same guy. The producers have gone out of their way in multiple films to link these guys together (however DC's Bond is indeed a reboot. He's the legit Bond though, gravestones and all).
Plenty of room in the loony bin!
Solo4114
Master Member
It's all the same guy. The producers have gone out of their way in multiple films to link these guys together (however DC's Bond is indeed a reboot. He's the legit Bond though, gravestones and all).
Yeah, that's been my take. It's a true reboot. Same guy, but a reboot of the continuity. In a sense, all the previous films "didn't happen" within the context of Craig's continuity. There was never an "Operation Thunderball" as depicted in Connery's film of the same name, which involved Craig's Bond. That said, the Bond of the Dr. No to DAD films shares many characteristics and background facts with Craig's Bond. But that's all. It's implied in Skyfall that he's had several adventures under Dench's M's command, likely involving his tricked out DB5 and several other gadgets, and that by the time of Skyfall, he's a seasoned, even maybe-past-his-prime agent...but we didn't see those stories and likely never will. And, they weren't all the films involving Connery up through Brosnan.
So, yeah. Same guy, same general background, but new continuity.
IMIM2
Sr Member
Please stop talking about continuity. It doesn't exist, and we are being screwed by the movie makers.
They use bits of everything just to tickle our mind, to keep emotionally attach to something they wanna change but afraid to loose.
How to explain that DC won DB5 over a bet, and later on it turned out it is "the DB5"? How about MI6 is out in the open by having a massive building by the side of Thames, but after the attack, now becomes Universal Export, where SC and RM started out from UE, ended up with MI6 HQ.
I am probably going to be killed by writing this. Better sleep with my P99 under my pillow
Sent from my E1000 using Tapatalk
They use bits of everything just to tickle our mind, to keep emotionally attach to something they wanna change but afraid to loose.
How to explain that DC won DB5 over a bet, and later on it turned out it is "the DB5"? How about MI6 is out in the open by having a massive building by the side of Thames, but after the attack, now becomes Universal Export, where SC and RM started out from UE, ended up with MI6 HQ.
I am probably going to be killed by writing this. Better sleep with my P99 under my pillow
Sent from my E1000 using Tapatalk
It definitely exists prior to the reboot:
OHMSS: Lazenby's Bond reminisces about prior missions by looking through props of the Connery films.
DAF: Connery is hunting for Blofeld, the killer of his wife under Lazenby.
FYEO: Moore places roses at Tracy's grave. A woman who married Lazenby and was avenged by Connery.
LTK: Felix remarks about Dalton's marriage to Tracy. Clearly a still sore point to Dalton. This links Connery all the way through to Dalton.
GE: Weakest link here but Brosnan's past marriage is eluded to several times regarding losing a woman close to him.
There are more but those are the bigger ones. The character from Dr. No through DAD is the same guy.
Everything from Craig's tenure linking it to the prior series has been fan service though. It's a proper reboot of the character so "continuity" is no longer a concern. There's no in universe explanation for this so it throws people off. What the Scottish home and gravestones mean however is that this character is in fact "JAMES BOND". Bond is not a code name passed on, it's a person. That's all.
IMIM2
Sr Member
It exists just to tickle our mind to keep the link from New Bond to the older one. Your examples show it. To keep the fans alive.
Now DC continuum is a bit different, because it is a reboot (which is the trend).
I stated in few post before, new Bond kicks in (in your case: proper reboot) and (unfortunately) he got the same name (so it is not a code name being passed on). Perhaps the name James Bond is common, just like DB5 car. He reported to the same M, in the same HQ. Why? To keep the fans alive.
And so the journey goes on.
I like to think that DC era is not a reboot, because there would be a loop afterwards and it is already messed up.
I like to think that there are two JB (or maybe three, if we count NSNA, which we see SC's Bond is retiring for being too old) in one timeline. Again it is not perfectly explained, but that's how I can enjoy DC.
Sent from my E1000 using Tapatalk
Now DC continuum is a bit different, because it is a reboot (which is the trend).
I stated in few post before, new Bond kicks in (in your case: proper reboot) and (unfortunately) he got the same name (so it is not a code name being passed on). Perhaps the name James Bond is common, just like DB5 car. He reported to the same M, in the same HQ. Why? To keep the fans alive.
And so the journey goes on.
I like to think that DC era is not a reboot, because there would be a loop afterwards and it is already messed up.
I like to think that there are two JB (or maybe three, if we count NSNA, which we see SC's Bond is retiring for being too old) in one timeline. Again it is not perfectly explained, but that's how I can enjoy DC.
Sent from my E1000 using Tapatalk
"Just to tickle our mind"? Nah, look at the source. Ian Flemming wrote a series of books about one guy, James Bond. The films are that character in a different medium. A man with consistent traits and a track record. They had to reboot because what they had was getting very stale.
You ask why, but rather one should ask why the hell would they NOT use the same character? That character is the franchise, if you replace him with someone else it makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying that when Connery stopped making the films they should have cast Lazenby and "Richard Williams, 007" followed by Moore as "Jeffery Smithers, 007". People watch these films for James-Freaking-Bond. That would be like making another Harry Potter film but making it about a completely different student at Hogwarts... If it doesn't have Harry Potter it isn't a Harry Potter movie. Just like if it doesn't have James Bond, the character we know, it's not a Bond film.
Well, to each their own, but it is a reboot. There is one James Bond character and each film is a representation of that same character by different actors and production teams. There aren't two Peter Parkers out there that are both Spiderman just because there was a reboot. There's only one Bruce Wayne. Etc... Etc... Etc...
IMIM2
Sr Member
I agree, one James Bond, one franchise.
I need to step back and look at it differently.
There are certain traits that makes JB is JB. I tried to list it down. When it is missing, than it doesn't feel like a JB anymore.
In Alan's case, perhaps he is missing so much that he yelled "who killed JB? ".
In your case, perhaps it happened during RM era.
To me, bond movies brings the WOW effect. However, DC delivers less and less of that, moving towards typical (action) movies.
It really makes me wanted to yell: WHERE'S MAH BOND?
We love JB so much, that it is painful to see how JB changed into something that is not "right". So we tried to absorb it, live with it, and continue to like or dislike.
Having to think there are several JB is the way I deal with the death of JB I used to know.
I got sidetracked in continuity. Off course, one of the formula of JB is using same thing over and over in a different way (it is a limited source: novel). If it used properly, it is good. But sometimes it executed poorly, that leaves a bad taste.
Example of good ones : DB5, Jaws, Blofeld, MP, Q branch. Bad ones: DB5, Blofeld, MP, Maud Adams [emoji51]
Sent from my E1000 using Tapatalk
I need to step back and look at it differently.
There are certain traits that makes JB is JB. I tried to list it down. When it is missing, than it doesn't feel like a JB anymore.
In Alan's case, perhaps he is missing so much that he yelled "who killed JB? ".
In your case, perhaps it happened during RM era.
To me, bond movies brings the WOW effect. However, DC delivers less and less of that, moving towards typical (action) movies.
It really makes me wanted to yell: WHERE'S MAH BOND?
We love JB so much, that it is painful to see how JB changed into something that is not "right". So we tried to absorb it, live with it, and continue to like or dislike.
Having to think there are several JB is the way I deal with the death of JB I used to know.
I got sidetracked in continuity. Off course, one of the formula of JB is using same thing over and over in a different way (it is a limited source: novel). If it used properly, it is good. But sometimes it executed poorly, that leaves a bad taste.
Example of good ones : DB5, Jaws, Blofeld, MP, Q branch. Bad ones: DB5, Blofeld, MP, Maud Adams [emoji51]
Sent from my E1000 using Tapatalk
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I really like the Matt Helm movies with Dean Martin. He was just so cool.
That was one of the interesting things from the spoof Casino Royale with Peter Sellers: there was numerous james bonds trained by the original. It would work better to blend the cold war bond with boring Craig bond. The issues is the Bond films were never meant to be serious and reflect realism, they were pure fun escapism and the new people making them have no idea how to do that. To them they want to be dark and grungy like the dark knight stuff.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
In Pacific Rim, Gypsy Danger uses a cargo ship as a weapon. This is ludicrous. I didn't care, I was just into the movie.
The same goes with James Bond. I don't care about details or continuity, I just immerse myself in the story in front of me.
Think of it as a story you've heard related by more than one person. The facts and circumstances may be a little different each time, depending on the person telling, but you still enjoy the tale. You might even enjoy the differences.
James Bond lives.
The same goes with James Bond. I don't care about details or continuity, I just immerse myself in the story in front of me.
Think of it as a story you've heard related by more than one person. The facts and circumstances may be a little different each time, depending on the person telling, but you still enjoy the tale. You might even enjoy the differences.
James Bond lives.
I would agree that DC is the closest thing to a reboot in the history of the franchise.
But they basically just said "***** it, we don't have to clarify whether this is a reboot or not."
The Batman franchise kept changing lead actors without always changing the tone. That put them into trouble as the movies slid towards suckage in the 1990s. By the time the Nolans took over they had call the movie "Batman Begins" just to send the public a message.
But Bond's producers aren't in that mess. They don't need to risk painting themselves into any continuity corners just to make the point that it's time to give Bond a fresh chance again. The public has already been conditioned to react this way - new Bond actor, new tone to the franchise.
But they basically just said "***** it, we don't have to clarify whether this is a reboot or not."
The Batman franchise kept changing lead actors without always changing the tone. That put them into trouble as the movies slid towards suckage in the 1990s. By the time the Nolans took over they had call the movie "Batman Begins" just to send the public a message.
But Bond's producers aren't in that mess. They don't need to risk painting themselves into any continuity corners just to make the point that it's time to give Bond a fresh chance again. The public has already been conditioned to react this way - new Bond actor, new tone to the franchise.
Solo4114
Master Member
Here's another way to think about it. There's the "literary" Bond and the "film" Bond. The films started out being very much simply a film depiction of the literary character. But over time, the "Bond formula" for the films became established, and the formula took over the franchise. Each time, they tried to re-ground Bond in the literary character from whence the film version came, but each time, they reverted to the formula. Alan laid out the formula pretty well, as have others in this thread.
Some people love the formula. They love the familiarity of it. They like knowing how it's going to go, which scenes will play out, etc. They like to see how this variation of the formula will go. Personally, I enjoyed the formula for a very long time. But after a while, it got kinda dull and stale. There were new elements introduced (like Bond's allies at MI6, Bond's occasional vulnerability, etc.), but eventually it'd just revert to formula, and after, oh, 19 movies or so...it was just kinda stale for me. It was a this point that I discovered the books, and REALLY enjoyed them. They have sort of a formula, but it's nowhere near as in-your-face as the films, and the formula they have also involves Bond as a far more nuanced character. Periodically, in the pre-release hype for a given film, the latest Bond actor would talk about how they were now trying to get back to the literary version. And they would, up to a point, but eventually he'd just have some gadget pull his ass out of the fire, rather than toughing it out himself. Anyway, I really liked the literary approach better, and now I find that my favorite Bond films are the ones that showcase that character first, and blend in the film formula elements second (or not at all).
I think there's still a desire among much of the audience to see "your" Bond, rather than just a retread of the Bourne films. But the thing about "your" Bond is that as exciting as it is, it's very, very easy for filmmakers to simply pick the most obvious, straightforward, and frankly (to me) dull elements -- namely the parts that aren't actually about Bond the character. The gadgets, the quips, the babes with puns as names, the f/x. When Bond himself is focused on, it's as a caricature, not a nuanced character. He's sauve, sophisticated, knows everything about everything, a master at seducing women...uh...he plays cards...he says "Bond, James Bond," um....he...uh...uses gadgets... That's a caricature. He has no vulnerabilities, no sense of remorse or inner conflict about his job, no sense of duty beyond occasionally saying "I do it all for England" just before he bangs some hot chick, etc.
Basically, the problem with your Bond in the present era, as I see it, is as follows:
They're trying to find the balance between "your" Bond and "my" Bond. The Craig era was very heavily about "my" Bond, but sometimes to the point where he was basically no longer Bond, but Bourne -- a tough assassin who punches and shoots guys...um....yeah, that's about it. The previous era was all about "your" Bond, but very, very often to the point where he was no longer Bond, but Austin Powers -- a cartoon character whose films are a series of cliches and plot beats that have been hit a gajillion times.
It's tough finding the balance between the two, but I really felt like Skyfall did it, and heralds a new era that will -- I really hope -- find the perfect balance between the two.
I'd put "Jaws" in the "bad" category, but whatever. I'll get to your continuity point in a second here...
I think the beauty of it is that they do, indeed, exist. If you want the old Bond, you can go and watch it any time you want, and the films are still enjoyable. But that era is done with. I hope we won't go back to it, or at least to the formula-as-film way that many of the films worked during that era. But I also hope we won't see any more outings like Quantum of Solace.
Eh, I think they basically were. Continuity-wise...Craig is a reboot. As I recall, the pre-release stuff for Casino Royale said as much. This wasn't the same continuity as the Connery-through-Brosnan films. Bond was a new agent, on his first major assignment.
I loved it, but a lot of people found it not very familiar. The end of the film, with Craig saying "Bond. James Bond" was a tip of the hat to the familiar, but I think QoS just strayed way too far from what people recognize as Bond. Skyfall seeks to right that balance with Moneypenny, Universal Exports, M's office, etc. all being re-introduced to, I think, provide a bit of familiarity, without (hopefully) getting stale and reverting directly to formula.
Really, I think what people miss isn't so much the formula as much as it is familiarity. Be honest. Do you really just want to see Bond go through the same motions he always has? The opening sequence that's mostly unrelated. The mission from M. The visit to Q branch. The casino scene introducing the villain. The villain's unstoppable one-note henchman ("Allow me to introduce my associate: Mr. Tines. His weapon of choice? An ordinary dinner fork, dipped in poison and hurled with deadly accuracy. Pray that you don't end up on his menu, Mr. Bond..."). The femme fatale. The good girl. The elaborate trap that Bond gets out of with a deus-ex-machina gadget that was apparently designed ONLY for this purpose. The plot to ransom the world for ONE HUNDRED GAJILLION DOLLARS!!! Some orbital satellite that will blanket the world in potpourri, triggering rampant allergic reactions, unless Bond can stop him. The commando raid. Yadda yadda yadda.
I doubt people want Austin Bond anymore. I think what they want is a familiar, recognizable Bond, but one who at once also feels fresh. I think the producers know this and are trying to do that, and Skyfall is their opening gambit towards that end.
At least, that's what I hope for. If not, well...we'll always have From Russia with Love...
Very clearly a reboot. We get to see him earn his 007 status and as Solo said, the pre-release stuff said as much as well.
Amen brother. :thumbsup
Ya, me too. :lol
Definitely on the same page!
Last edited by a moderator:
:lol
The character wasn't too bad in TSWLM but he's just embarrassing in Moonraker. First he's hired from some kind of Henchman Agency, "Oh, he's available?". There's a scene where his balls are apparently steel as well. Oh, and this happens (forward to 1:50):
The premise of him is ridiculous as it is (sure, metal teeth, but how exactly are his jaw muscles strong enough to bite through a padlock or the cable for a cable car?) but Moonraker just went from unbelievable to stupid REALLY quick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, sorry, Jaws falls into "bad."
The Spy Who Loved Me is a reasonably entertaining re-hash of You Only Live Twice, but Jaws is not one of the more entertaining parts of it, to me. I get that he's unstoppable. I get that Richard Kiel is a physically imposing guy. All that's cool. But isn't that enough? I mean, ok, in the 60s, I could accept Oddjob's hat. But that was because the whole idea was new. After a while, though, the henchmen just became a schtick unto themselves. The only ones that really broke the mold there were Wint and Kidd, and that was just because they were...a bit fey...rather than physically imposing. But in addition to having the usual physically imposing henchman (as opposed to the obligatory armies of disposable goons), the henchman always has his "thing." In the 90s it was "His senses are reversed! Pain = pleasure to him!" or whatever.
To me, that stuff is just part of the bad aspects of the formula. And, again, is rightly skewered in the first Austin Powers film with Random Task. "Honestly! Who throws a shoe?!" Fortunately, the 60s Bond films usually just stuck with big tough guys, rather than guys with a schtick, but by the time you hit the 70s, they pulled out all the stops and just went with as ridiculous a bunch of henchmen as they could. Jaws included.
The Spy Who Loved Me is a reasonably entertaining re-hash of You Only Live Twice, but Jaws is not one of the more entertaining parts of it, to me. I get that he's unstoppable. I get that Richard Kiel is a physically imposing guy. All that's cool. But isn't that enough? I mean, ok, in the 60s, I could accept Oddjob's hat. But that was because the whole idea was new. After a while, though, the henchmen just became a schtick unto themselves. The only ones that really broke the mold there were Wint and Kidd, and that was just because they were...a bit fey...rather than physically imposing. But in addition to having the usual physically imposing henchman (as opposed to the obligatory armies of disposable goons), the henchman always has his "thing." In the 90s it was "His senses are reversed! Pain = pleasure to him!" or whatever.
To me, that stuff is just part of the bad aspects of the formula. And, again, is rightly skewered in the first Austin Powers film with Random Task. "Honestly! Who throws a shoe?!" Fortunately, the 60s Bond films usually just stuck with big tough guys, rather than guys with a schtick, but by the time you hit the 70s, they pulled out all the stops and just went with as ridiculous a bunch of henchmen as they could. Jaws included.
Similar threads
