36 replies to this topic

[Syndicate]

Are the James Bond trademakes thing of past or slowly going away to become a thing of the past, like his famous lines "My names Bond, James Bond", "Bond, James Bond, Shaken Not Stirred. The famouse gun barrel is that going to be thing of the past, like how it was done in Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, For Yor Eyes Only, A Vew To A Kill, The Living Daylights, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. Maurice Binder was very smart at greating that in the James Bond movies. Hopfuly Q and Miss moneypenny will come back, but not reinvent them. As for Q, I like how he Bond interact with each other in Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loves Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill, Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough. Those shows the best of Q with Bond and not with Bond. As fof Moneypenny, the best of her is in Dr. No, Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever, For Yor Eyes only, A View To A Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies. I hope they will make how Q and Miss Moneypenny look and act from those past movies on now Bond interact with them. What Daniel Craig wants done might not be a good thing. How Bond is in all those situation, is part of what makes James Bond, James Bond. It can also be said it is what makes a James Bond movie, a James Bond movie

Edited by Syndicate, 12 November 2008 - 06:00 AM.

[00Twelve]

The "line" and the martini and such and sundry aren't disappearing; it's just that the producers are realizing that Bond can be mature enough not to need those staples in every film just to give some of the viewership warm fuzzies. I'm all about not having to shoehorn the exact same "Bond, James Bond" into every single film (It definitely got to the point that the line felt shoehorned before the reboot). Same goes for the martini. Bond drinks much more than martinis; must he have one in every film?

And though I'm already on my way to be burned at the stake, I'll throw in that I wouldn't mind having another film where Bond isn't seen in a tuxedo.

Taboo, I know.

[Bondian]

I think your first sentence says it all. I doubt if we'll ever see 'Q', 'Miss Moneypenny' or now even 'M' as we used to. Seems like these parts would need to fit into Bonds new drab world of vengeance and revenge. If the next film lightened up a little, I can still see 'M', 'Q' and 'Miss Moneypenny' treating Bond like some nonchalant microscopic being.

[mccartney007]

I like where we are now and I really don't miss any of the old trademarks which were starting to become an anchor for the series. I won't mind if they return, but I can't say I'm missing them.

[SecretAgentFan]

I like where we are now and I really don't miss any of the old trademarks which were starting to become an anchor for the series. I won't mind if they return, but I can't say I'm missing them.

Same here. The only thing that would make sense is - as Craig has said it - if characters like Q and Moneypenny were re-invented as well. The famous incarnations should not be repeated - they were great as they were. Now it´s time for a new take on them.

And actually, the biggest James Bond trademark, has been there all along in both Craig movies - the character of James Bond. It does not rely on stating his name or ordering Wodka-Martini.

[mccartney007]

And actually, the biggest James Bond trademark, has been there all along in both Craig movies - the character of James Bond. It does not rely on stating his name or ordering Wodka-Martini.

Quite.

[Jim]

Let them disappear. Time to set some new standards.

[Syndicate]

Let them disappear. Time to set some new standards.

Well only so much can go away and so will always have to stay or it not a James Bond movie at all, it be like any superspy movies out there or a rouge James Bond movie.

[Judo chop]

What are the James Bond Trademarks™?

I need an exhaustive list in order to evaluate which are expendable and which aren’t.

As for MP and Q… bring ‘em back fresh and squeaky clean. Bring ‘em back with actors who are serious about what they’re doing.

I don’t really understand the ‘get rid of ‘em’ attitude. The Anti-Trademarkers™ seem to think that their absence from Casino Royale has everything to do with why Casino Royale was great. As if getting rid of something is the same as doing something new.

Casino Royale was great because the writing was (mostly) good, and the direction was good, and because the acting was all good, and because they found a real man to play Bond. Had a real actor shown up to play Q, with smart dialogue and a look as fresh as the one Bond was given, what harm would it have done?

[Roebuck]

Let them disappear. Time to set some new standards.

Well only so much can go away and so will always have to stay or it not a James Bond movie at all, it be like any superspy movies out there or a rouge James Bond movie.

You think? Ian Fleming did OK without most of this stuff people are insisting is ‘essential’ to Bond. Moneypenny and the Quartermaster feature very little in the novels. Blofeld doesn’t stroke a white cat and I don’t remember Bond driving the Aston Martin other than in Goldfinger. Whatever it is that’s kept Bond alive since 1952, it’s something more than gimmicks and catchphrases.

[double-O-Durg]

My only gripe, although not a major one is that the producers have made a deliberate attempt not to have them in where they could have been easily put in. Villiers in CR could easily have been Moneypenny (practically was in some scenes), just because shes there doesnt mean she has to flirt with Bond all the time. And the geezer who put the tracker in Bonds arm could easily have been Q. Look at the early films, Q/Boothroyd appeared for about 3mins in M's office. Just because its a reboot doesnt mean you have to trim them out, they could be just trimmed down.

[Mister E]

Let them disappear. Time to set some new standards.

Bingo. James Bond is still a womanizer with a licence to kill, spouts dry witted humor, travels to exotic locales, and is a hell of a dresser. That's all that matters.

My only gripe, although not a major one is that the producers have made a deliberate attempt not to have them in where they could have been easily put in. Villiers in CR could easily have been Moneypenny (practically was in some scenes), just because shes there doesnt mean she has to flirt with Bond all the time. And the geezer who put the tracker in Bonds arm could easily have been Q. Look at the early films, Q/Boothroyd appeared for about 3mins in M's office. Just because its a reboot doesnt mean you have to trim them out, they could be just trimmed down.

CR also showed how easily they could be written out. They have never been characters of importance but the actors who portrayed them made them worth putting on screen. They are gone now so they should be retired from the series permenantly, no trimming down or rebooting. I much rather see Tanner and Ponsonby finally become series regulars.

[Bondian]

Since my second viewing. There's even more Bond "trademarks" here that I realised. So many nods to the previous movies, and Craig is almost a Connery/Dalton/Moore clone here.

Another reason why I say that Casino Royale is the re-boot, and Quantum of Solace is a prequel in terms of "tradition".

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

[Mister E]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

[Bondian]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

[Mister E]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

[Bondian]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

[Mister E]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

Well that's a manly man's charisma because that trait isn't limited to Connery. I think you are thinking Connery he is really the only other manly man to play James Bond.

[Bondian]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

Well that's a manly man's charisma because that trait isn't limited to Connery. I think you are thinking Connery he is really the only other manly man to play James Bond.

It's just my opinion. Why not judge the actual film when you can get the chance to see it.

[Mister E]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

Well that's a manly man's charisma because that trait isn't limited to Connery. I think you are thinking Connery he is really the only other manly man to play James Bond.

It's just my opinion. Why not judge the actual film when you can get the chance to see it.

Fair enough.

[Bondian]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

Well that's a manly man's charisma because that trait isn't limited to Connery. I think you are thinking Connery he is really the only other manly man to play James Bond.

It's just my opinion. Why not judge the actual film when you can get the chance to see it.

Fair enough.

Popcorns on me.

[Mister E]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

Well that's a manly man's charisma because that trait isn't limited to Connery. I think you are thinking Connery he is really the only other manly man to play James Bond.

It's just my opinion. Why not judge the actual film when you can get the chance to see it.

Fair enough.

Popcorns on me.

Screw that ! I am sneaking my own food in.

[Bondian]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

Well that's a manly man's charisma because that trait isn't limited to Connery. I think you are thinking Connery he is really the only other manly man to play James Bond.

It's just my opinion. Why not judge the actual film when you can get the chance to see it.

Fair enough.

Popcorns on me.

Screw that ! I am sneaking my own food in.

LOL.

[jaguar007]

There is a difference between trademark and cliche.

[Blonde Bond]

If only we'd know how to re-animate Desmond and Lois...

But that's that. No mad geniuses amongst us. I don't think there's even one amongst the EON staff.

[Capt Britain]

Another thing I have noticed, is that there are no references To James Bonds Naval background anymore He was seconded to the Secret Service from the Royal Navy at the rank of Commander.
Can you imagine Daniel Craig in a Naval uniform.

[Zorin Industries]

No, of course the trademarks are not disappearing. The deadwood is just being shaved off to save the franchise by folding in on itself.

[bond 16.05.72]

I have said this before and I'll say it again if you need all this in place to remind you it's a Bond film then you have no time for the character you just want cliches.

This is the damage the Moore era has done to the series, turned Bond in to a caricature, Dalton tried to bring back to the character again but EON with Brosnan wanted the Moore factor back.

Maybe if they's carried through with TD's model for longer people would start to see a diffrent type of Bond but with PB giving the Moore we never had the chance.

Even in the new Craig era people will still crave the cliches.

Will we ever be rid of this junk or will people still continue to think this is what defines a Bond film instead of charaterisation and some depth?

I do find these questions very annoying because after the majority of the series being like this people just can't except that it beyond parody, DAD was more of a joke than any of the Austin Powers movies.

I like Rog and respect him but his portrayal of the role has done nothing but turn Bond into a joke, will Craig or the next one finally put this vision to bed?

[sorking]

Craig was Craig Bond ™ in Casino Royale, and in Quantum of Solace he's a copy of Connery/Dalton/Moore.

Christ I hope not. I don't want a compilation Bond, I want Craig's Bond.

Bud. I'm sorry, my post should have contained spoilers, probably. But it may not be necessary as maybe I'm just totally wrong, but I saw more Connery than Craig in this one. But you may see different.

I find that very hard to believe. Craig has came under alot of criticism for being far too straight faced and Connery never was that way even in his first two films.

It's the way he moves. Walks past a person. Waits. Thinks, then turns around to ask an impertinent question.

This is Connery in my mind.

I think you'll find that's Columbo.

[Syndicate]

I think people want both the character and cliches. Well at least I do, I think both is better not just or the other. That way is better,but just sometime one is used more then the other, even when there is both.

I have said this before and I'll say it again if you need all this in place to remind you it's a Bond film then you have no time for the character you just want cliches.

This is the damage the Moore era has done to the series, turned Bond in to a caricature, Dalton tried to bring back to the character again but EON with Brosnan wanted the Moore factor back.

Maybe if they's carried through with TD's model for longer people would start to see a diffrent type of Bond but with PB giving the Moore we never had the chance.

Even in the new Craig era people will still crave the cliches.

Will we ever be rid of this junk or will people still continue to think this is what defines a Bond film instead of charaterisation and some depth?

I do find these questions very annoying because after the majority of the series being like this people just can't except that it beyond parody, DAD was more of a joke than any of the Austin Powers movies.

I like Rog and respect him but his portrayal of the role has done nothing but turn Bond into a joke, will Craig or the next one finally put this vision to bed?