238 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

Well, for those who want Bond back in a Lotus, this one looks kind of interesting:

http://www.honestjoh...rn-of-the-elite

[Aris007]

I'd love to see a Lotus again to speak the truth!

But I'd also like to see Bond driving a McLaren. The new MP4-12C is an example, although it's a supercar rather than a GT car.



And a video of the boys trying it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzBqdhAINU

[jaguar007]

Budget cuts finally hit MI6

[Aris007]

If so that's the car that Bond should drive.

Ta, dah!

The almighty Trabant!



Surely no other spy's car would be made out of cotton!

[marktmurphy]

Even better: the Lotus Esprit is back:



Oh I like it!

[Messervy]

As for me, I find it utterly ridiculous that Bond should drive such cars.
Sure, they are nice to look at as such. But they clearly should not be Bond cars. The more we use these kind of items in Bond films, the more we foster the cartoon caricature Bond has become of late. Those cars are for rich pretentious wankers, not for an Intelligence agent.
I'm not saying Bond should drive common trite everyday car; obviously that wouldn't be Bond. But there is a limit as to what is suitable.
If we were to have such cars in movies, we clearly should limit their use to the villains, not Bond.

[Simon]

A point well made.

And possibly considered when they made the Bourne films that had him first in a cab, and secondly a police car. Clearly then, the type of car has nothing to do with just how exciting a car chase can be as both of these chases were beyond exciting.

Anyway, Bond in Lotus or Aston?

[jaguar007]

Well Bond has always been about fantasy to a certain extent.

Personally I don't want to see Bond driving a fancy car in Bond #23. There have been plenty of films where a car is not a focal point but we have had these BMW and Aston Martins featured prominently in the last 6 Bond films. I say it is time for a break.

[Messervy]

Bond is indeed about fantasy. Bond is escapism.
But, that said, I don't think escapism means outrageous ridiculousness. And I fear those cars above would be just that.
We had Jaguars in previous movies. We also had Audi, Range Rover, etc. They're quite clearly stylish, but with none of the OTT features. That, to me, is where we should draw the line between fancy and grotesque.

[marktmurphy]

Bond is indeed about fantasy. Bond is escapism.
But, that said, I don't think escapism means outrageous ridiculousness. And I fear those cars above would be just that.
We had Jaguars in previous movies. We also had Audi, Range Rover, etc. They're quite clearly stylish, but with none of the OTT features. That, to me, is where we should draw the line between fancy and grotesque.

A bit late for that after 47 years of Bentleys, Aston Martin and Lotuses!

[Messervy]

Bond is indeed about fantasy. Bond is escapism.
But, that said, I don't think escapism means outrageous ridiculousness. And I fear those cars above would be just that.
We had Jaguars in previous movies. We also had Audi, Range Rover, etc. They're quite clearly stylish, but with none of the OTT features. That, to me, is where we should draw the line between fancy and grotesque.

A bit late for that after 47 years of Bentleys, Aston Martin and Lotuses!

Quite right. It actually was not the point of view I had some years ago. I grew up with Moore Bond and Lotus, and I found it cool and appropriate. At first. Now I'm more inclined to favour stylish fancy cars over gadget-toy cars.
Aston as such is not an issue: granted, they're sportscars for an elite, but they are not OTT per se. Invisible Aston (DAD), or Aston firing rockets (TLD) are utterly uncalled-for and should be banished.
And do bear in mind the fact that when you say "47 years", it's actually only with the 80's that we first got what I call "OTT" cars (submarine Lotus, etc.). At first we had only an Aston that could change its plates and slash tyres. Hardly rocket-firing or vanishing!
I'm quite satisfied with the fact that in the last 2 films we didn't get ridiculously OTT cars. We did have fancy ones (Aston & Jaguar), because after all this is Bond, but we had no rocket-shotgun-invisible-supercar.
I guess what I'm trying to express here is my fear that we might get always more OTT cars if we are to look only at Lotus or McLaren as pictured above.

[marktmurphy]

You think the Goldfinger car isn't fantastical? It has an ejector seat.
Submarine Lotus was the 70's, by the way. The one gadget car of the 80's was much less fantastical.

[Messervy]

I wouldn't indeed call GF's Aston fantastical: sure, it had an ejector seat, but this, to me, is technically credible and remains more or less "acceptable" in Bond-dom. On the other hand, invisble cars, rocket-firing cars, or submarine cars are clearly (to me, again) uncalled for OTT .
You're right, that began in the 70's (mainly TSWLM); fatfinger on my part. But it did go on for a while: TLD (although I love this film and the look of the car), TND (typically pointless Bond car caricature), DAD.
I'm quite greatful we don't have that anymore. May it last...

[jaguar007]

I agree with Merrervy. Not just as far as gadgets, but the design of the cars as well. I like my cars to look elegant and like cars, not a futuristic spaceship. For a supercar, the Aston at least still has classic lines. My favorite era for sports cars is the 50s and 60s.

Look at the 77 Lotus Esprit. It looks quite dated these days (especially the interior). Compare that to a 1977 Jaguar, they still look classic today.

[marktmurphy]

I wouldn't indeed call GF's Aston fantastical: sure, it had an ejector seat, but this, to me, is technically credible and remains more or less "acceptable" in Bond-dom. On the other hand, invisble cars, rocket-firing cars, or submarine cars are clearly (to me, again) uncalled for OTT .
You're right, that began in the 70's (mainly TSWLM); fatfinger on my part. But it did go on for a while: TLD (although I love this film and the look of the car), TND (typically pointless Bond car caricature), DAD.
I'm quite greatful we don't have that anymore. May it last...

I genuinely can't see the difference between the TLD Aston and the GF one. Why is one more fantastical than the other? They're both equally preposterous; surely you see that? Unless you think that rockets are somehow intrinsically more ridiculous than mounted machine guns: in which case you're just splitting hairs. Much of a muchness.

I agree with Merrervy. Not just as far as gadgets, but the design of the cars as well. I like my cars to look elegant and like cars, not a futuristic spaceship. For a supercar, the Aston at least still has classic lines. My favorite era for sports cars is the 50s and 60s.

Not much they can do about that. Bond can't drive around in a 50's car.

Look at the 77 Lotus Esprit. It looks quite dated these days (especially the interior). Compare that to a 1977 Jaguar, they still look classic today.

The 77 Esprit is a beautiful shape. As is the XJS (if that's what you're on about), but that looks equally dated now. The Lotus is a more modernistic design of its time, and I probably prefer that line of thinking. No subsequent Esprit looked quite as elegant, I think. It's fresh and contemporary and exquisitely well-proportioned, much like the XF of today.

[Goodnight]

For you Mr Bond...The Bond Bug. (that's it's actual name)

[Achille Aubergine]

Even better: the Lotus Esprit is back:



Oh I like it!

Oh what a beautiful "beast" ! I want it for Christmas ! (Scale 1:18 will be allow...)

[MrKidd]

I wouldn't indeed call GF's Aston fantastical: sure, it had an ejector seat, but this, to me, is technically credible and remains more or less "acceptable" in Bond-dom. On the other hand, invisble cars, rocket-firing cars, or submarine cars are clearly (to me, again) uncalled for OTT .
You're right, that began in the 70's (mainly TSWLM); fatfinger on my part. But it did go on for a while: TLD (although I love this film and the look of the car), TND (typically pointless Bond car caricature), DAD.
I'm quite greatful we don't have that anymore. May it last...

I genuinely can't see the difference between the TLD Aston and the GF one. Why is one more fantastical than the other? They're both equally preposterous; surely you see that? Unless you think that rockets are somehow intrinsically more ridiculous than mounted machine guns: in which case you're just splitting hairs. Much of a muchness.

I agree with Merrervy. Not just as far as gadgets, but the design of the cars as well. I like my cars to look elegant and like cars, not a futuristic spaceship. For a supercar, the Aston at least still has classic lines. My favorite era for sports cars is the 50s and 60s.

Not much they can do about that. Bond can't drive around in a 50's car.

Look at the 77 Lotus Esprit. It looks quite dated these days (especially the interior). Compare that to a 1977 Jaguar, they still look classic today.

The 77 Esprit is a beautiful shape. As is the XJS (if that's what you're on about), but that looks equally dated now. The Lotus is a more modernistic design of its time, and I probably prefer that line of thinking. No subsequent Esprit looked quite as elegant, I think. It's fresh and contemporary and exquisitely well-proportioned, much like the XF of today.

Interesting discussion guys. I have to agree with MarkMurphy's comments on the TLD vs. GF Aston comparison i.e. I can't see the difference either - and to be honest I can't think of a more appropriate car for Craig-Bond to be driving than the AM. It works for him. I just can't see him driving a Lotus Esprit although I remember how super cool the Moore one was back in the day. Not sure if you were implying the XF would be a good choice - I'd have to disagree with you there. I do like the XK and XJ but the XF isn't enough car for Bond, as nice as it is in real life. There are some beautiful cars out there, that's for sure, but as I said, I can't think of a better car for Craig-Bond than the AM. Someone mentioned the Bentley - lovely car but there's too many on the road for it to be exotic enough IMO.

Edited by MrKidd, 09 December 2010 - 10:00 PM.

[marktmurphy]

No; you're right- lovely though the XF is it isn't a Bond car- I just meant that today's Jags are much more modern and contemporary and much the better for it.

[jaguar007]

I also have to agree. While the XF is a good looking car, it is certainly not distinctive enough as a Jag. From the side profile it is hard to tell the difference between the XF and a Lexus. While the modern Jag look is certainly...well...modern, I'm not certain they will retain classic looks and mystique in the future that older Jags do.

[Messervy]

I wouldn't indeed call GF's Aston fantastical: sure, it had an ejector seat, but this, to me, is technically credible and remains more or less "acceptable" in Bond-dom. On the other hand, invisble cars, rocket-firing cars, or submarine cars are clearly (to me, again) uncalled for OTT .
You're right, that began in the 70's (mainly TSWLM); fatfinger on my part. But it did go on for a while: TLD (although I love this film and the look of the car), TND (typically pointless Bond car caricature), DAD.
I'm quite greatful we don't have that anymore. May it last...

I genuinely can't see the difference between the TLD Aston and the GF one. Why is one more fantastical than the other? They're both equally preposterous; surely you see that? Unless you think that rockets are somehow intrinsically more ridiculous than mounted machine guns: in which case you're just splitting hairs. Much of a muchness.

Well, I can tell the difference, when it involves laser-gun wheel rim, sights windscreen display, rockets (indeed, way more ridiculous than machine-gun, that's pretty obvious), etc. Granted, it's less OTT than a submarine car, but it still is uncalled for.

[marktmurphy]

I also have to agree. While the XF is a good looking car, it is certainly not distinctive enough as a Jag. From the side profile it is hard to tell the difference between the XF and a Lexus. While the modern Jag look is certainly...well...modern, I'm not certain they will retain classic looks and mystique in the future that older Jags do.

No way; it's pretty much the best-looking car on the road at the moment. I think the new Jags are fantastic and much better than the horrible staid old designs of the S-Type and X-Type; they were terrible, old man looking things and nearly killed the company. The XJS looked nothing like a Jag in its day either, but now it's a classic shape. The XF is one of the best looking Jags ever.

Well, I can tell the difference, when it involves laser-gun wheel rim, sights windscreen display, rockets (indeed, way more ridiculous than machine-gun, that's pretty obvious)

How? It's just a logical next step up; hardly 'more ridiculous'- cars don't have machine guns behind their indicators. They do, however, have heads-up displays. That isn't ridiculous in any way; much more realistic than an ejector seat or tyre slasher which can impossibly emerge from a rear wheel drive car's rear axle.
Both cars are equally preposterous. If anyone really thinks a secret agent driving an Aston Martin with an ejector seat is realistic then they need a reality check!

[Messervy]

If anyone really thinks a secret agent driving an Aston Martin with an ejector seat is realistic then they need a reality check!

That is precisely the substance of what I've been trying to say in this topic for quite some time! Glad to have you on board sharing this view!

Eventhough I have an issue with the latest AM (too much of a sportscar for rich meaningless playboys, in my opinion; I'd rather Bond drove a Jaguar), at least the one in CR was well adapted, in that it had none of the ridiculous gadget nonesense.

[MrKidd]

I also have to agree. While the XF is a good looking car, it is certainly not distinctive enough as a Jag. From the side profile it is hard to tell the difference between the XF and a Lexus. While the modern Jag look is certainly...well...modern, I'm not certain they will retain classic looks and mystique in the future that older Jags do.

No way; it's pretty much the best-looking car on the road at the moment. I think the new Jags are fantastic and much better than the horrible staid old designs of the S-Type and X-Type; they were terrible, old man looking things and nearly killed the company. The XJS looked nothing like a Jag in its day either, but now it's a classic shape. The XF is one of the best looking Jags ever.

Yep, I agree. I think the older jags look dated but I like what they’ve done with the new models, especially the XJ. Saying that, I don’t want to offend Jaguar007 – I hate car p**ssing contests as at the end of the day it’s all just down to personal tastes, so take this as just my very subjective opinion.

[jaguar007]

I also have to agree. While the XF is a good looking car, it is certainly not distinctive enough as a Jag. From the side profile it is hard to tell the difference between the XF and a Lexus. While the modern Jag look is certainly...well...modern, I'm not certain they will retain classic looks and mystique in the future that older Jags do.

No way; it's pretty much the best-looking car on the road at the moment. I think the new Jags are fantastic and much better than the horrible staid old designs of the S-Type and X-Type; they were terrible, old man looking things and nearly killed the company. The XJS looked nothing like a Jag in its day either, but now it's a classic shape. The XF is one of the best looking Jags ever.

don't tell me you don't think the XF looks like a Lexus from the side view


and when I refer to older Jags, I'm talking about pre-Ford Jags (although I do like the S and X types, I agree they lack the soul of the pre-Ford Jags which are the ones I really fell in love with. Keep in mind, I do like the XF and especially the new XJ, I have driven both and they are fantasic cars. I just think the older ones were more distinctive.

[MrKidd]

I also have to agree. While the XF is a good looking car, it is certainly not distinctive enough as a Jag. From the side profile it is hard to tell the difference between the XF and a Lexus. While the modern Jag look is certainly...well...modern, I'm not certain they will retain classic looks and mystique in the future that older Jags do.

No way; it's pretty much the best-looking car on the road at the moment. I think the new Jags are fantastic and much better than the horrible staid old designs of the S-Type and X-Type; they were terrible, old man looking things and nearly killed the company. The XJS looked nothing like a Jag in its day either, but now it's a classic shape. The XF is one of the best looking Jags ever.

don't tell me you don't think the XF looks like a Lexus from the side view


and when I refer to older Jags, I'm talking about pre-Ford Jags (although I do like the S and X types, I agree they lack the soul of the pre-Ford Jags which are the ones I really fell in love with. Keep in mind, I do like the XF and especially the new XJ, I have driven both and they are fantasic cars. I just think the older ones were more distinctive.

Love the E-type! That still works today. The other, not so much - but it IS very distinctive, yes. And I'm with you that the XF is a bit meh.

Edited by MrKidd, 10 December 2010 - 03:26 PM.

[marktmurphy]

don't tell me you don't think the XF looks like a Lexus from the side view

It looks better. It's a gorgeous, beautifully resolved shape. The Lexus is hugely lacking in comparison- your images show that; look at the swollen rear end, tiny wheels, out of proportion windows... I see XF's everywhere: I don't see Lexi selling as well on these roads. Obviously many people find them more distinctive: distinctively gorgeous.

and when I refer to older Jags, I'm talking about pre-Ford Jags (although I do like the S and X types, I agree they lack the soul of the pre-Ford Jags which are the ones I really fell in love with. Keep in mind, I do like the XF and especially the new XJ, I have driven both and they are fantasic cars. I just think the older ones were more distinctive.

I'd rather something was truly beautiful than just different. Bangle BMWs were distinctive; everyone hated them. And I find the XJ hugely distinctive- there's nothing else like that on the road.

[jaguar007]

I agree about the new XJ. When you see one on the road you may not immediately recognize it as a Jag, but you know it is something special The XF is a good looking car, especially from the front and back, it is the side view profile I find rather ordinary. It does have an aggressive look but I am not fond of the high waistline (I wish it looked more like the prototype). I find them striking and good looking cars, but I don't think of them as beautiful in the same way I find the origial series 1-3 XJ sedans beautiful, in fact I think those are by far the most beautiful car with four doors ever built. The Series III XJ was the first Jag I really fell in love with back in the 80s and to this day it still holds the softest spot in my heart.

[Goodnight]

Jaguar007 -I agree with you, you certainly know your stuff!


A proper old skool Jag enthusiast! Just like my dad

[Achille Aubergine]

I also have to agree. While the XF is a good looking car, it is certainly not distinctive enough as a Jag. From the side profile it is hard to tell the difference between the XF and a Lexus.

don't tell me you don't think the XF looks like a Lexus from the side view


The Lexus IS was born before the Jag' as you probably aware. Maybe Jaguar has been inspired by "the other brand" ?
It happens I own one and it's a great car, very reliable and very well equipped.
I owned a Mercedes just before and I can't say I have some regrets !

I've always liked the "Big Cat" like Steed's. Beautiful beast ! Custom Jaguar XJ12 Coupe Automatic, BRG and huge tires.
Date of First Registration 03 05 1976
Year of Manufacture 1976
Cylinder Capacity 5343 CC

Edited by Achille Aubergine, 12 December 2010 - 08:36 AM.