30 replies to this topic

[return of the saint]

I'm confused.

I'm not sure what any of this talk means.

You see I voted NO in the reinvention thread because I want an addition to my on-going Bond series DVDs. I don't want an entirely unconnected film which has a guy called James Bond in it. I want some degree of continuity - yes in narrative (I don't want M to meet Bond for the first time) but mainly in style (gun barrel, music cues, pre-credits, tuxedo, etc). However - I'm also a supporter of Daniel Craig - because I want the series to go down a quite different route than it has been going for the last 10 years. I want them to shake things up a little.

I'm not sure now. When I voted NO to the 'reinvention' was I also voting NO to (what I've been calling) the 'reinvigoration' of the Bond films?

I've also said before, I don't want a Bond Begins like Batman Begins, because that grants the film makers licence to reintroduce characters (with built in public appeal) that have already died (Dr. No, Jaws, Odd Job, Goldfinger, etc.) I can't believe that ANYBODY in this forum wants this????

I've just remembered Casino Royale can also be considered within the 'remake' category - does that open the flood gates for more remakes? (Or Burtonesque 'reimaginations' - ala PoTA & CatCF?)

Now I'm really confused.
So I'd like to know what you guys interpret 'reinvention' to mean.
In particular I'm talking in terms of narrative, style and where the series could go post 'reinvention'.

please help.

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 04:39 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

After the last one I say we need an overhaul.I support it completey. How many more cheesy, uninspired cookie cutter Bond films do you want to see? I say, be bold! If it flops a la LTK go back to a 35-42 star and pick up after DAD.We'll pretend CR didn't happen.Or just retire Mr. Bond.

[return of the saint]

After the last one I say we need an overhaul.

But what is an 'overhaul'? and is a 'reinvention' the same thing?

.I support it completey.

What do you support?

Do you support changing the music?
Do you support changing the credit sequence?
Do you support the notion that the events of OHMSS never occured?
Do you support the notion that the events of Dr. No never occured?
Do you support opening the potenital to re-do other books?
Do you supoprt 'completely' reinventing Bond as a character - what if they reinvent him as a coward or as a psycho?
Surely you must like some of the aspects of the Bond films - or you wouldn't post on here - so do you support completely the notion of 'reinvention'?

I guess you have a different definition of 'reinvention' to me?
What is you definition?
Perhaps I can also support it, if I understand it.

[Kingdom Come]

Its the old thing of change for changes sake. I've read the 'new Bond writer' saying "its going to be good"!! 're-inventing the character of Bond. Hardly, arn't they just going backwards?

Casino Royale (how many kebab shops have been called that name?)

[H.M.Servant]

Re-issue, re-package, re-evaluate....

Sorry, I goy a bit carried away. But (if) the next Bond film (Casino Royale) will be a reinvention, it will most likely be a change in direction from the last films, rather than the reinvention of the 'formula' which has been more or less concistatant for the last 40 years.

First off, I don't think there will be a change in the time-line of the Bond films. There has been little continuity in the Bond films so far, so I don't think they will change that. So no Dr.No, Goldfinger or Jaws coming back. Also I don't think there will be any remakes of the earlier films.

I think Casino Royale will be a change in direction as OHMSS was to YOLT. Not so much as a reinvention of the series, but rather a different tone.

[Loomis]

Do you support changing the music? 
Do you support changing the credit sequence? 
Do you support the notion that the events of OHMSS never occured?
Do you support the notion that the events of Dr. No never occured?
Do you support opening the potenital to re-do other books? 
Do you supoprt 'completely' reinventing Bond as a character - what if they reinvent him as a coward or as a psycho?

Personally, I wouldn't support any of those things (unless by "changing the music" you mean hiring a composer other than Arnold - I suspect that you mean getting rid of the James Bond Theme). Make of that what you will.

[return of the saint]

First off, I don't think there will be a change in the time-line of the Bond films

But that 'jibes' with Campbells talk of Bond on an early mission doesn't it?

My interpetation of 'reinvention' of Bond (as a 28 year old) means exactly that they are going to openly monkey with the time line.

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 05:00 PM.

[H.M.Servant]

What do you support? 

Do you support changing the music? 
Do you support changing the credit sequence? 
Do you support the notion that the events of OHMSS never occured?
Do you support the notion that the events of Dr. No never occured?
Do you support opening the potenital to re-do other books? 
Do you supoprt 'completely' reinventing Bond as a character - what if they reinvent him as a coward or as a psycho?

No

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

After the last one I say we need an overhaul.

But what is an 'overhaul'? and is a 'reinvention' the same thing?

.I support it completey.

What do you support?

Do you support changing the music?
Do you support changing the credit sequence?
Do you support the notion that the events of OHMSS never occured?
Do you support the notion that the events of Dr. No never occured?
Do you support opening the potenital to re-do other books?
Do you supoprt 'completely' reinventing Bond as a character - what if they reinvent him as a coward or as a psycho?
Surely you must like some of the aspects of the Bond films - or you wouldn't post on here - so do you support completely the notion of 'reinvention'?

I guess you have a different definition of 'reinvention' to me?
What is you definition?
Perhaps I can also support it, if I understand it.

Then it wouldn't be Bond....if EON did that, they might as well all kill themselves publicly. So let's hope they don't do that.

[return of the saint]

Then it wouldn't be Bond

But isn't that what 'reinvention' means?

To me reinvention means: It's no longer the old Bond, it's a new Bond - i.e. it's not Bond!

I guess I'm wrong. So what does 'reinvention' mean - for Bond?

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 05:08 PM.

[Pussfeller]

I really don't think we can be positive about what CR is going to be. Although Haggis said that Bond would be 28, etc, plans might easily change. We'll just have to see who they cast.

However, even if they go with what we've decided to call a "reboot", I highly doubt it will be an explicit, history-erasing "Bond Begins" affair. The Bond series actually involves very little canon, so there isn't much that can be rebooted. It would more or less be implied. There may just be a much younger Bond, a new M (perhaps) and a different Moneypenny, a slightly different format and feel (although I imagine they'll keep the gunbarrel, PTS, etc), and Felix may return, without his old injuries (considering that the Dalton era was already retconned into the Brosnan era by GE, I don't see the problem with this). I think the producers will leave it up to us: If you want this to be a "regular Bond adventure", fine. There won't be anything up on screen to prevent you from thinking of it that way. If you want it to be a "Bond Begins", fine. They just won't make references. It will depend on fan interpretation. I can guarantee they won't have a little text card at the beginning that says "James Bond is fresh out of spy school and on his first mission." Nor will they have M say "This is your first mission, 007, so don't balls it up" or anything like that. The only potentially incongruous scene would be James Bond meeting Felix, with the implication that he's never met him before. Would that really spoil the movie?

As I've said before, it isn't like the Bond franchise is a long, deeply interwoven story arc. The films have always been fairly episodic, and they very rarely make references to previous films. I think I can count on one hand the number of times a Bond film has even obliquely referenced a previous film. In fact, all these are references to Tracy's death:

1. DAF: Bond is furious at the beginning, presumably over Tracy's death.
2. FYEO: Bond lays flowers at Tracy's grave.
3. LTK: "He was married once, but it was a long time ago."

If you want to count all the times Bond has met up with Felix as "references" to their original encounter in DN, then here:

4. GF - Felix reappears as a middle-aged man.
5. TB - Felix has undergone rejuvenation treatment.
6. DAF - Felix is inexplicably channeling the spirit of Jackie Gleason.
7. LALD - Felix is thin again.
8. TLD - Boring Felix.
9. LTK - Felix reverts to an earlier form, then gets eaten.

That's all I can think of. After the Moore era, there weren't even any recurring villains. In the Brosnan era, there were no references to past films at all. They never even referred to other Brosnan-era films.

I can't help thinking this reboot controversy is all just a tempest in a teapot. No event, over the course of forty years of history, has ever altered the Bond character or changed the way future films proceed. He's simply not a dynamic character. So just because a few incidents are removed from Bond's past (namely, Tracy's death and his acquaintance with Felix), this "destroys forty years of history", as some have put it?

What's the big issue? How does this disgrace the franchise and keep one from enjoying new films?

[Tarl_Cabot]

After the last one I say we need an overhaul.

But what is an 'overhaul'? and is a 'reinvention' the same thing?

.I support it completey.

What do you support?

Do you support changing the music?
Do you support changing the credit sequence?
Do you support the notion that the events of OHMSS never occured?
Do you support the notion that the events of Dr. No never occured?
Do you support opening the potenital to re-do other books?
Do you supoprt 'completely' reinventing Bond as a character - what if they reinvent him as a coward or as a psycho?
Surely you must like some of the aspects of the Bond films - or you wouldn't post on here - so do you support completely the notion of 'reinvention'?

I guess you have a different definition of 'reinvention' to me?
What is you definition?
Perhaps I can also support it, if I understand it.

I support a change from the norm however that occurs.Take FRWL: The is no "My name is Bond..." and yet it's the best film period.So, I say make an unconventional Bond film that is recognizably a James Bond film but see it through...DAD was bold for 25 minutes but didn't have the guts or smarts to stay consistent and as a result it's a two headed monster,mess.

[Loomis]

My interpetation of 'reinvention' of Bond (as a 28 year old) means exactly that that are going to openly monkey with the time line.

Not crazy about that idea. If I were in charge, I'd hire Owen and make a fairly "standard" Bond outing, be it a relatively "serious" affair like Bourne or THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, or be it something more along the lines of DIE ANOTHER DAY.

Pretty simple, I know. Nothing revolutionary. No obvious risk-taking. But sometimes the best ideas are the most simple ones. And, frankly, I'm not too thrilled with the (admittedly remote) prospect of Daniel Craig, a 37-year-old actor who sometimes looks 55, as the 28-year old beginner Bond commanded by the 70-year-old Dench's M in a militantly "gritty" (yet, curiously, Bahamas-shot) adaptation of a 1953 novel set in the present. Seems a bit of a mishmash of elements that don't belong together.

[return of the saint]

I've just it checked out dictionary.com and 'reinvent' is quite a tricky word to tie down.

here's a tatse of what I got:

1. "To make over completely"
Well I don't like the idea of 'completely' - that means dumpping everything that has gone before.

2. "To bring back into existence or use"
OK, I do like the idea of bringing back the old Bond charisma.

In terms of the idiom 'reinvent the wheel:

1. "To do something again, from the beginning, especially in a needless or inefficient effort."
That's my take on what is going on with Campbell and Higgis.

2. "To recast something familiar or old into a different form"
I guess this is the 'reinvention' supporters take on things?

So I agree with those above who said we can't be sure what will happen in CR - but I would like to read a few more people's considerations as to how they think the 'reinvention' of Bond will be realised.

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 05:22 PM.

[Jim]

[quote name='return of the saint' date='18 September 2005 - 16:52']
What do you support?

[Loomis]

The only potentially incongruous scene would be James Bond meeting Felix, with the implication that he's never met him before. Would that really spoil the movie?

It would mar it for me, yes, although I freely admit that this attitude is a bit trainspottery and pasty and wifeless. If Leiter turns up, I hope he'll have a few injuries that would permit me, should I choose, to imagine that the events of LICENCE TO KILL did indeed take place. This should apply even if we're explicitly told that Bond is 28 and has only recently joined MI6 (and I'm not sure why you think you this is such a remote possibility, Pussfeller), because then I'll be free to imagine that M or whoever got it wrong and that Bond isn't a 28-year-old rookie, but the exact same age-defying "seasoned pro" as in the films DR. NO - DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[return of the saint]

It would mar it for me

me also - I would find it to be a stupid scene.

In the Brosnan era, there were no references to past films at all.

Well - other than seeing the old missions equipment room in DAD and Bernard Lee's picture hanging on the wall in TWINE. And well it was made clear that Brosnan's Bond had been doing the job for some time. Brosnan's Bond had a previous M, he had gone on missions with 006, he had had 20 watches, he was known to use a walther PPK, he had had affairs (Paris), that Bond saw similarities between Elektra's willingness to gamble away millions and his first (proper) meeting with Tracy was clear, Q was very familiar with Bond, etc, etc, etc.

Take FRWL: The is no "My name is Bond..." and yet it's the best film period

And it does feature a pre-credit sequence, it does feature Q, it does feature a near unbeatable henchman, it does feature the Bond theme, it does feature the briefing room, and most importantly it does feature a strong womanising well experienced, confident, assured James Bond. It's clearly a Bond film.

I support a change from the norm however that occurs

Really? Is the 'norm' not what makes Bond Bondian?

JIM: Yes - you seem to have the same extreme definition of 'reinvention' as I do. I define 'reinvention' as dismissing everything that has happened so far, starting again from scratch, and I suspect that they would use it as an opportunity for 'reimagining' other books (perhaps in publication order). However I guess you have more confidence in the filmmakers than I do (I don't think that MGW, BB et al could give us a better Bond then Fleming or Cubby - but I bet they'd try and do it their way) + I like the Bond theme, some gadgets, Bond girls, in fact I like most of the elements that make a Bond film (it's the employment that I have issues with, and I don't gather that they're going to reinvent the producers).

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 05:49 PM.

[Gri007]

I'm confused.

I'm not sure what any of this talk means.

You see I voted NO in the reinvention thread because I want an addition to my on-going Bond series DVDs.  I don't want an entirely unconnected film which has a guy called James Bond in it.  I want some degree of continuity - yes in narrative (I don't want M to meet Bond for the first time) but mainly in style (gun barrel, music cues, pre-credits, tuxedo, etc).  However - I'm also a supporter of Daniel Craig - because I want the series to go down a quite different route than it has been going for the last 10 years.  I want them to shake things up a little.

I'm not sure now.  When I voted NO to the 'reinvention' was I also voting NO to (what I've been calling) the 'reinvigoration' of the Bond films?

I've also said before, I don't want a Bond Begins like Batman Begins, because that grants the film makers licence to reintroduce characters (with built in public appeal) that have already died (Dr. No, Jaws, Odd Job, Goldfinger, etc.)  I can't believe that ANYBODY in this forum wants this????

I've just remembered Casino Royale can also be considered within the 'remake' category - does that open the flood gates for more remakes?  (Or Burtonesque 'reimaginations' - ala PoTA & CatCF?)

Now I'm really confused. 
So I'd like to know what you guys interpret 'reinvention' to mean.
In particular I'm talking in terms of narrative, style and where the series could go post 'reinvention'.

please help.

I completely agree. I don't want Bond on his first assgnment in modern times. I just want it to be an ordinary Bond film. If CR will be the begining of Bond then it will flop and will be as worst as the 1967 spoof.

[return of the saint]

I don't want Bond on his first assgnment in modern times. I just want it to be an ordinary Bond film.

But some people don't think that this is what the 'reinvention' is.

A) Some people think that 'reinvention' means "the first of a new series of films about James Bond that have virtually nothing to do with the old series".

B) Some people think that 'reinvention' means "a prequel to the old series but set in the modern day".

C) Some people think that 'reinvention' means "an ordinary Bond film - but better".

I'm still unsure what to think.

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 05:57 PM.

[Jim]

[quote name='return of the saint' date='18 September 2005 - 17:38']JIM: Yes - you seem to have the same extreme definition of 'reinvention' as I do.

[triviachamp]

it's more about changing the approach to the music generally

I presume you mean "get rid of David Arnold" and/or stop imitating John Barry?

I am not to sure what to think of this reinvention. It could be good or bad. It could flop but then they would go back to regular stuff. I agree with Pussfeller that all the worrying over "Bond Begins" is silly. I mean didn't they forget the GE precredits scene apparently erases Dalton? Or Leiter's and Blofeld's constantly changing appearances? Not to mention Bond's?

[return of the saint]

I am not to sure what to think of this reinvention. It could be good or bad.

But what do you take 'reinvention' to mean?

A)The first of a new series of films about James Bond that has virtually nothing to do with the old series.

B) A prequel to the old series but set in the modern day.

C) An ordinary Bond film - but better (i.e. more dramatic less fantastic).

[Moore Not Less]

Call it what you will. Re-invention, Re-boot, Re-launch etc.

My preferred option:
C) An ordinary Bond film - but better (more dramatic less fantastic)

I don't see the need to make any radical changes to the Bond formula. A well written and more realistic storyline with no CGI, invisible cars etc. Use real location's as much as possible and make them look like a million bucks (e.g. Moonraker). Have no more than two action set pieces, and use real people to do real stunts. A Bond girl more like Natalya Simonova and less like Wai Lin and Jinx.

And Pierce Brosnan as Bond?

[Pussfeller]

I didn't care much for Natalya's ball-busting, especially when combined with Brosnan's "soulful" introspection, but she was easily the best Bond girl of the Brosnan era. I like the idea of a random woman being "caught in the crossfire" and becoming the Bond girl, although I doubt such a character would be appropriate for CR. I'd like to see someone more along the lines of Tatiana Romanova.

[trumanlodge89]

whos to say the films happened in the order they were made anyway? please please please, lets just see what happens with this movie. if it doesnt work, we'll see something else.



but the bond theme will be in it, so will the gunbarrell. the producers arent that stupid.

[Pussfeller]

I'm with you, Trumanlodge. We really shouldn't take things so seriously when we don't know the producers' final intentions. After all, this is going to be a Bond film. Larger, better protected perhaps, but nevertheless a Bond film! Even if I have serious reservations about their choices, I'll still go see it once, and if it's not totally awful, I'll see it again.

[Johnboy007]

After the last one I say we need an overhaul.I support it completey. How many more cheesy, uninspired cookie cutter Bond films do you want to see? I say, be bold! If it flops a la LTK go back to a 35-42 star and pick up after DAD.We'll pretend CR didn't happen.Or just retire Mr. Bond.

Yay for Tarl!
I'm about as open-minded and one of the biggest fence sitters of all time. But for Christ's sake I don't want another Die Another Day, that I'll like once, and cringe at every other time I see it. The last three have been the same, and they've pretty much sucked each time. The series needs fresh air, or Bond will become "uncool" beyond the point of repair.

You have an oscar-nominated writer polishing the script of a movie everyone has begged for since the beginning. You have the director of Goldeneye who is trying to save everyone from the "oh so dreaded" Daniel Craig. The films don't have continuity anyway, so what's the big deal?

[Pussfeller]

The films don't have continuity anyway, so what's the big deal?

That's why I can't understand this uproar! The Bond films almost never refer to previous films, and they haven't done so at all during the Brosnan era.

[Moore Not Less]

I'm with you, Trumanlodge. We really shouldn't take things so seriously when we don't know the producers' final intentions. After all, this is going to be a Bond film. Larger, better protected perhaps, but nevertheless a Bond film! Even if I have serious reservations about their choices, I'll still go see it once, and if it's not totally awful, I'll see it again.

Yes, some folks are a little too concerned that the previous 20 films and all that they stand for are somehow going to be totally cast aside and be replaced with something completely new. That is not going to happen. Casino Royale may be different, but it will still be recognisable as a Bond film.

Let's wait and see before we are too critical. I will certainly give Eon the benefit of the doubt, at least until I have seen the film.

[Craptacular]

What do you support? 

Do you support changing the music? 

No, unless you're talking specifically about anything from Shirley Bassey.

Do you support changing the credit sequence? 

Absolutely not. I'd contract outside of the production to get a cutting edge visual artist to make it even more surreal, if anything.

Do you support the notion that the events of OHMSS never occured?
Do you support the notion that the events of Dr. No never occured?

I absolutely love OHMSS, but it really depends on where you're placing the story in terms of timeline. For CR, you can be faithful to the book and have it occur before the other films or rework it to blend in with the other films without specifically referencing previous events.

Do you support opening the potenital to re-do other books? 

I'm okay with that, unless we end up with another Moonraker.

Do you supoprt 'completely' reinventing Bond as a character - what if they reinvent him as a coward or as a psycho?

That's a dangerous topic. What I love about OHMSS so much is that it does delve a bit more into the Bond character outside of drink or automobile preferences. That said, going too far out of the box (Teen Bond! Bond in a rock band! Shaved head and tattooed extreme-sports Bon... oh, wait...) and you might as well just make a spy thriller outside of the Bond series.

Surely you must like some of the aspects of the Bond films - or you wouldn't post on here - so do you support completely the notion of 'reinvention'?

I support a Bond film change. Changing to good scripts would be a good start, as opposed to the last few. Other than that, I'd rather they focus on overall film quality (script, dialogue, performances, effects) than on trying to make the character more trendy.