47 replies to this topic

[doublenoughtspy]

I want a "history" that the audience actually sees.

In the Brosnan era, they gave us Alec, Zukovsky, Paris, etc. - all people he had a past with, even though Brosnan was a new Bond.

I'm not suggesting that you start with Bond's first day at kindergarten, but you don't need to make up characters from the past if you are doing a reboot - you get to create that past for future films.

[JimmyBond]

I do enjoy the main credit sequences with a rousing theme song sung by whoever is popular at the moment. Watching the older films they play like a "who's who" of the music world during whenever that film was made.

I'd love for that to remain too, along with what Loomis said, keep the gunbarrel and have the Bond theme present (but not overbearing). Just the bare ingredients of the Bond formula, having those things does seperate the films from the rest of the pack.

[Kara Milovy]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='526447' date='2 March 2006 - 16:40']
Personally, I want a Bond who isn

[JimmyBond]

In every Bond movie, you've got to plausibly explain why last film's gadget isn't in use here. Remember blowing up the Lotus in FYEO? So this gets them out of blowing up the "Vanish."

Suddenly I had a vision of Bond searching the parking lots and going "Where did I park it? Damn invisible car..."

[Mister Asterix]

In every Bond movie, you've got to plausibly explain why last film's gadget isn't in use here. Remember blowing up the Lotus in FYEO? So this gets them out of blowing up the "Vanish."

Suddenly I had a vision of Bond searching the parking lots and going "Where did I park it? Damn invisible car..."

<<spittake>>

[Stratus]

I do not think they understand the full value of a reboot. Maybe if they stopped making Bond films for 10 years and replaced the producers... maybe. It looks like the next film will turn into the same old crap. Not to sound pessemistic.

[Mister Asterix]

I do not think they understand the full value of a reboot. Maybe if they stopped making Bond films for 10 years and replaced the producers... maybe. It looks like the next film will turn into the same old crap. Not to sound pessemistic.

Wrong thread to discuss that.

[avl]

It looks like the next film will turn into the same old crap. Not to sound pessemistic.

I love that Stratus old chap

[Kara Milovy]

I don't want it to get too cheesy, or go down a WWII superhero/Indiana Jones path, but I'd love to see 007 going up against Islamofascist terrorists AND their allies (there's no short supply of non-Islamic terrorists), all of whom are based out of real countries (screw political correctness). Not always, but occasionally (I still wish there had been more direct Western-Communist conflict in the Cold War Bonds).

I hate fake countries, but the Bond films have always been careful to keep out of real politics. They inserted SPECTRE into Dr. No and FRWL purposely to avoid using SMERSH or real Cold War politics. You can't pin "pc" onto a situation that pre-dates pc. The only Russian general out to take over Europe was Orlov--a rogue, going against his government leadership.

Real politics dates the movies. Badly. The Mujahadeen in TLD are embarrassing now. I'd be happy to have a SPECTRE type organization back, that has nothing to do with real world politics that'll be old and boring twenty years from now.

[Publius]

I hate fake countries, but the Bond films have always been careful to keep out of real politics. They inserted SPECTRE into Dr. No and FRWL purposely to avoid using SMERSH or real Cold War politics. You can't pin "pc" onto a situation that pre-dates pc. The only Russian general out to take over Europe was Orlov--a rogue, going against his government leadership.

Of course, and it's an Orlov type (albeit frighteningly more reasonable and therefore more dangerous) that I would like to see here and there (again, not always). In the case of modern terrorism, it could be a rogue reactionary with very plausible yet sinister goals in mind.

The political correctness comment was in reference to any possible fear over avoiding political/religious/ethnic topics or overtones in future movies, largely due to the currently apparent sensitivies of certain groups. My sentiments about the old movies weren't meant to be seen in light of the same charge of political correctness.

Real politics dates the movies. Badly. The Mujahadeen in TLD are embarrassing now. I'd be happy to have a SPECTRE type organization back, that has nothing to do with real world politics that'll be old and boring twenty years from now.

Good point. But I still would like to see it done sometimes, or loosely enough where it works without failing the test of time. Striking a better balance between the operations of a generic crime syndicate and the intricacies of real world politics is the ideal.

[Stratus]

I do not think they understand the full value of a reboot. Maybe if they stopped making Bond films for 10 years and replaced the producers... maybe. It looks like the next film will turn into the same old crap. Not to sound pessemistic.

Wrong thread to discuss that.

You take the second half of the script, you basically have the same old Bond story. What I would have is impossible to do now. For an example I wanted a completely new M, that would constitute as complaining. I want the Bond that smokes, that constitutes as complaining. I want Bond with more semblance to the literary material, perhaps re-interpret/re-adapt the Fleming stuff (Live and Let Die as the next film., or even the Gardner/Benson stuff, but that won't happen, therefore I am complaining. I want new writers to write something different, but P&W is already writing the next script, I guess I am complaining. My point is this thread is kind of redundant.

Campbell said it will be the "same Bond" we all know, the same cinematic Bond. Anything even remotely different aside from an "origin" film won't happen, it would be "complaining".

Tell me exactly what they doing that is different from all 20 films? Outside the fact it is an "origin" film for the 21st century?

Edited by Stratus, 04 March 2006 - 02:30 AM.

[Rusty Cage]

I would personally like to see just one film were he doesn't use any sort of machine gun or assault rifle...just his wits and his Walther.

[Andrew]

I would personally like to see just one film were he doesn't use any sort of machine gun or assault rifle...just his wits and his Walther.

I agree. Thats what I loved about the Connery films, I don't believe Dalton used a machine gun either.

[Flash1087]

I think heavier weapons are completely fine if the situation calls for it. If you're assaulting Elliot Carver's heavily-armed and -guarded stealth boat with just a midly attractive Chinese spy, are you going to want the P99 or a MP5?

[Andrew]

But when Bond uses a machine gun I no longer get the feeling of super-spy but instead machine gun touting action hero. That's just me though.

[Rusty Cage]

[/quote]But when Bond uses a machine gun I no longer get the feeling of super-spy but instead machine gun touting action hero. That's just me though.[quote]

My feelings exactly.

[JimmyBond]

I don't believe Dalton used a machine gun either.

He did briefly, in The Living Daylights.

[Loomis]

The only Russian general out to take over Europe was Orlov--a rogue, going against his government leadership.

And the only North Koreans bent on trouble were rogues, going against government and military leadership that the filmmakers seemed to bend over backwards to portray as entirely fair and reasonable.

(In case there's anyone reading this who's only just getting into Bond thanks to Craig, the film I am referring to is DIE ANOTHER DAY.)

That said, though, it seems to me that the last Bond film did push something of a Bush world view: America and Britain police the world, while "evil" (albeit "rogue" evil, rather than, erm, "officially-sanctioned" evil) comes out of countries like Cuba and North Korea (but China is fine and dandy, even though it's also a one-party state ruled by [nominal] communists, 'cause it's big and powerful and mustn't be offended, and, wow, isn't Beijing doing an absolutely brilliant job of running Hong Kong?).

So I don't think the Bond films exist in a bubble, screening out all "real politics", and neither do I think it desirable that that should be so. It's not just THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS that's "dated" because of its use of Afghanistan (and, frankly, I find things like the ghettoblaster gag much more embarrassing and '80s-ridden than anything political in the film) - look at any of the films from DR. NO on, and you'll find references to current affairs that anchor them in particular eras (Bond taking a call from Maggie Thatcher, anyone?). And I'm sure that many have claimed that the Bonds have often been, effectively, weapons in a propaganda war waged by the West.