40 replies to this topic

[darthbond]

Mr. Teddybear said it best for me. I have no trouble with the films and their time-line.

darthbond

[Stephen Spotswood]

Hell no.

[Dustin]

I ponder this now for some time - under the influence of various amounts of alcohol, I might mention - and the really big thing I keep tripping over is - surprisingly, even for me - not the takeover of Dalton or Craig. It's Brosnan's first that to me feels really different, in spite of all the supposedly nostalgic allusions.

There's the monumental ugliness of the Vauxhall Cross headquarters that's so jarring. The classic films never identified their headquarters beyond the general London SW1 setting and the elegantly polished brass Universal Exports plate. The interior always denoted a classic Adam/Georgian/Regency building and modern abomination was for the most part confined to Q branch. That new "real" headquarter looked very much like it was the work of the villain's architect, interior and facade.

The new M is of course a concern, but the really alarming thing is that Moneypenny's attitude towards Bond has significantly changed. The insufferably childish and lovesick behaviour of TLD's Moneypenny model was embarrassing, but at least not entirely out of (film-)character. But Samantha Bond's first appearence lacks most of the complicity that one would expect between Bond and Moneypenny, the two old hands on the deck faced with the new broom. Here it seems Moneypenny and M are closer and more familiar with one another and Bond comes across as the outsider. Disturbing, to say the least.

Moreover, Bond is supposed to have closer ties with a fellow 00 agent, something that never before was mentioned (and never after, up to now). It's not entirely beyond Bond to have friends within the Service, but it's strange to see something supposedly so important mentioned so far down the road of Bond's career. To me this speaks the most of a different backstory and a different - or parallel, or rebooted, or whatever you want to call it - timeline.

The DB5 finally, that most iconic Bond vehicle, comes across as a terribly forced, ill-conceived appearence that perhaps better should have been avoided at all. Instead of conjuring the spirit of the classic past it merely reminds me, how anachronistic its presence really is and how much time has passed since 1964. And that goes for CR's model too.

So I'd argue that the most significant disruption in the series to me was GE.

Edited by Dustin, 06 April 2011 - 05:31 PM.

[jaguar007]

So I'd argue that the most significant disruption in the series to me was GE.

Very true and I agree with you. I know many people consider the Bond films from 1962-2002 the classic Bond films and 2006- the modern era. I am with you and if there is a significant difference between classic and modern it would be classic = 1962-1989. Modern = 1995 - present

Much of the reason for that is 1962-1989 represents the Cubby Broccoli (Harry Saltzman) era. LTK was the last BOnd film to feature production personnel from the early BOnd films of the 60s (Broccoli, Maibaum, Binder, Barry the previous film etc). GE onward no longer had Cubby Broccoli at the helm but now it is BB and MGW's Bond.

[iBond]

I ponder this now for some time - under the influence of various amounts of alcohol, I might mention - and the really big thing I keep tripping over is - surprisingly, even for me - not the takeover of Dalton or Craig. It's Brosnan's first that to me feels really different, in spite of all the supposedly nostalgic allusions.

There's the monumental ugliness of the Vauxhall Cross headquarters that's so jarring. The classic films never identified their headquarters beyond the general London SW1 setting and the elegantly polished brass Universal Exports plate. The interior always denoted a classic Adam/Georgian/Regency building and modern abomination was for the most part confined to Q branch. That new "real" headquarter looked very much like it was the work of the villain's architect, interior and facade.

The new M is of course a concern, but the really alarming thing is that Moneypenny's attitude towards Bond has significantly changed. The insufferably childish and lovesick behaviour of TLD's Moneypenny model was embarrassing, but at least not entirely out of (film-)character. But Samantha Bond's first appearence lacks most of the complicity that one would expect between Bond and Moneypenny, the two old hands on the deck faced with the new broom. Here it seems Moneypenny and M are closer and more familiar with one another and Bond comes across as the outsider. Disturbing, to say the least.

Moreover, Bond is supposed to have closer ties with a fellow 00 agent, something that never before was mentioned (and never after, up to now). It's not entirely beyond Bond to have friends within the Service, but it's strange to see something supposedly so important mentioned so far down the road of Bond's career. To me this speaks the most of a different backstory and a different - or parallel, or rebooted, or whatever you want to call it - timeline.

The DB5 finally, that most iconic Bond vehicle, comes across as a terribly forced, ill-conceived appearence that perhaps better should have been avoided at all. Instead of conjuring the spirit of the classic past it merely reminds me, how anachronistic its presence really is and how much time has passed since 1964. And that goes for CR's model too.

So I'd argue that the most significant disruption in the series to me was GE.

So I'd argue that the most significant disruption in the series to me was GE.

Very true and I agree with you. I know many people consider the Bond films from 1962-2002 the classic Bond films and 2006- the modern era. I am with you and if there is a significant difference between classic and modern it would be classic = 1962-1989. Modern = 1995 - present

Much of the reason for that is 1962-1989 represents the Cubby Broccoli (Harry Saltzman) era. LTK was the last BOnd film to feature production personnel from the early BOnd films of the 60s (Broccoli, Maibaum, Binder, Barry the previous film etc). GE onward no longer had Cubby Broccoli at the helm but now it is BB and MGW's Bond.

You guys make a very good point, both of you. I agree and it does make sense. The classic Bond era would be from 1962-1989. I mean, that's when we see the old MI6 headquarters on Westminster and all that good stuff. It does make sense. At the same time however, what with Desmond as Q and Brosnan mentioning that M's "...predecessor kept cognac on the top." makes sense and a reference to Robert Brown's M. In addition, remember that the MI6 headquarters was made a year before GoldenEye came out. So, who knows, if that building existed during the realer Bond films who knows if they would have used it or not.

But yeah, you guys are right about how the classic era would be from 1962-1989. At the same time, would be another one of those people who also think that the classic era would be from 1962-2002. I'm just glad that Judi Dench is still our M!

Edited by iBond, 07 April 2011 - 05:01 PM.

[Dustin]

Classic here maybe defies exact definition beyond the simple facts Jaguar007 gives with Cubby not being on deck any more with GE. Then again many of the new team would have been around for years and several "classic" productions presumably, so the break would not have had to be that significant. And apparently for many people at the time it wasn't, or the discussion would have picked up on it earlier. I suppose it just becomes noticable in hindsight and with a more than casual knowledge of the series up to then.

[bdjr007]

I pulled an old Starlog magazine that featured an interview with Michael G Wilson, re The Living Daylights. Extended conversation there, with the introduction of Timothy Dalton, on the idea of an "origins" story. He, Wilson, himself, was against that.

I have that Starlog himself, if I recall, Wilson actually penned an "origin"story but it was Cubby who was against it, not Wilson. If I recall he was sad not to see it happen because he felt there was some really good stuff in the story. He then said that he understood and agreed where Cubby was coming from.

When he returned, "GoldenEye" was - you guessed it - an arguable "return to the original Fleming." Again, placing myself in the minority here, I think that this one certainly failed in the Fleming regard,

I don't think there was much desire to return to "Fleming" with GE but rather recapture the spirit of the earlier movies.

Are there any - websites/publications/peoples - out there that can shed more light on Wilson's proposed "origin" story ???

[Rufus Ffolkes]

The DB5 finally, that most iconic Bond vehicle, comes across as a terribly forced, ill-conceived appearence that perhaps better should have been avoided at all. Instead of conjuring the spirit of the classic past it merely reminds me, how anachronistic its presence really is and how much time has passed since 1964. And that goes for CR's model too.

That's something that annoyed me, as well. I liked how they gave Moore his own car rather than trying to invoke the spirit of Connery Bond.

[Dustin]

The DB5 finally, that most iconic Bond vehicle, comes across as a terribly forced, ill-conceived appearence that perhaps better should have been avoided at all. Instead of conjuring the spirit of the classic past it merely reminds me, how anachronistic its presence really is and how much time has passed since 1964. And that goes for CR's model too.

That's something that annoyed me, as well. I liked how they gave Moore his own car rather than trying to invoke the spirit of Connery Bond.

Lazenby's and Dalton's Aston Martin models also used to be state-of-the-art models of their day, instead of the classic DB5. Switching back to that was a somehow John-Steedish move, as if Bond had suddenly discovered a liking for Edwardian/vintage transport. Not that I couldn't see Bond adore a classic car. It's more that I doubt he'd indulge in all the fussy care and polish these machines require. In my opinion the DB5 should have been left well alone in his Goldfinger-verse of 1964 where it belongs.

[Safari Suit]

It was meant as a little nod at the series' 25th anniversary. Seems harmless and all in good fun to me, I may have felt differently had I seen it in 87, I don't know.

[Guy Haines]

Casino Royale should be viewed as: James Bond volume 2, issue 1. It's basically a new franchise from 2006 onward.

As for TLD, I always saw Timothy's performances as not really a return to Connery's cinematic Bond, but for the first time people might actually see Fleming's Bond onscreen.

I believe that if Wilson had stood his ground and compromised with Cubby, the origin idea would have gone through and had been something keen to see.. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the time it seemed that Cubby held the reigns alittle bit too tightly.

From the outset that is how I viewed Casino Royale 2006. So much about the story - the references to Bond's recent promotion to Double O status, for example - suggested we were meant to see this film as the start of a new series of Bond films, even though the producers and writers inserted some familiar references and items, and one familiar face (Judi Dench), to remind us that, yes, it is still a Bond film. Same stuff but different?

As for TLD, I always saw it as a great Bond film, and Dalton was a fine Bond and a shot in the arm for the then series. But it also struck me as a film where the star had one vision of Bond (Fleming's) and the people behind the camera and the scenes still adhered to another (the film Bond, which has never been exactly the same as the one in the books.) A change of actor, but not a complete change of attitude on the part of the film makers.