Dynamite's Bond comics and graphic novels

12425272930148

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    @Kronsteen, the story takes place after the events of The Man With The Golden Gun. So, Bond doesn't really care about the life of some bad guy now that his wife is taken away from him.
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    @ClarkDevlin, I've never read Golden Gun like that. The attempted murder of M is Bond at his lowest, true. He has lost his wife and been turned by the russians. But after Bond has been "re-turned" he is back to normal, a restart for the character. Once Bond is sent on the mission the whole amnesia story (and the Tracy story as well) is thrown out and never mentioned. For me it's an attempt by Fleming to show that, even though Bond has gone through hell, he is finally back to his usual self. It's a almost like a reboot for the literary character, he has gone full circle, gone through catharsis and is now back at square one.

    And besides, where does it state that it's after Golden Gun? I don't even see it as that universe, it's another timeline. Well it must be, as I can't see Flemings Bond acting like that. I would never happen, it feels completely wrong for me.

    And still, that's beside the point. A character can never lose it's fundamental personality. If Batman would suddenly start killing, the fans would revolt (oh wait, that happened with BvS...). Fleming never intended for Bond to be a brutal killing machine, then you can never, under any circumstances, portay him like that. You can change his motivation to become more persistent, more determined etc., but that's never shown in the Vargr story either.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Yes, @Kronsteen, but this is years after that. Plus, placing him in the 21st century, even though some indeed have had problem with Bond's "no-problem-with-killing" attitude, I can easily see him being adjusted to that notion seeing as the enemy of today is far more dangerous than the enemy of the past. One of my friends complained about Bond taking out the guards with a sniper rifle at the docks, saying his act wasn't necessary, but I personally did see why it had to be done. Surely he didn't do it just because he loves killing. Far from that. He could have been detected and alarms would have been raised. You can't think along the lines of Ian Fleming when reading a spy thriller set in the modern day. You'll have to think along the lines of what Chris Ryan or Andy McNab would do. Warren Ellis achieved that, and he's no stranger to Bond at all.

    In the comic, they never make references to the past, thankfully, but numerous times both the publisher's senior editor, Joseph Rybandt, as well as Ellis himself did state that the timeline is the same as Fleming's adventures, which have occurred, only moved up from their Cold War period to an adjustment that'd suit the modern setting. Say, if VARGR is set in 2016, You Only Live Twice and Blofeld's death happened around 2008. Dates are just my assumptions. But, they did say it was happening that way. Ellis also said that he is a continuation writer that picks up from Fleming's concept, ignoring Gardner and the rest. His Bond certainly wasn't a reboot with a Year One (even though, a period piece Year One story is in the works that takes place in the original Fleming timeline... Well... long before the events of Casino Royale, serving as prequels to Fleming's novels).

    It depends on which part of "fundamentalism" you're referring to. Some aspects can deeply change and even be overlooked. And to tell you the truth, the original Batman had no problem with killing. In fact, the earlier Batman comics read like pulp fiction, making him much of a brutal and sinister man. It wasn't until after mid-40s they converted him into a "monk" and took away the guns he had. And in Batman v Superman it was heavily understandable why was he a killer. Because he understood that ideology does not work. Just ask The Punisher. In VARGR, Bond is just that. Doesn't care about whoever stands in his way. He's not a complete Fleming's Bond rip-off. He's far more red-blooded than we'd assume, and I certainly have no problem with that. It's Warren Ellis at his best... Well, until Eidolon happened, far better than VARGR.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Delete (too tired to think)
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    Well, @ClarkDevlin, I simply just don't agree with that. I don't want to see Bond being a violent killing-machine, who uses excessive violence in every circumstance. Bond is smarter than that. Even if you move Flemings timeline up to our time, Bond is still back to normal in Golden Gun for me. So there's no difference in that case.

    And yes, you can think along the lines of Fleming in a modern day thriller. A secret agent would never go barging in killing everyone he sees, it's stupid and clumsy. "Don't use more violence than the situation demands" is the normal modern day motto for any law enforcer, so why shouldn't Bond also follow that?

    And why would Bond even consider using those bullets that completely mutilates the enemy? That's just causing more suffering than is needed. It becomes a gory, blood-fest, and I never enjoy that anytime, Bond or not.

    This is just not my Bond, not the kind of Bond I want to read about.

    Batmans motivations in BvS are never shown, I don't understand it at all. He acts illogical and out of character. The interesting dynamic with Batman is that his ideology is his burden and motivation at the same time: stopping crime, but can never kill. If he kills he becomes the same as the man who killed his parents, and that must never happen. That is the interesting dynamic which makes Batman tick for me.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I think it's the visuals of the spattering blood quite massively that has gotten to you, @Kronsteen. That's Warren Ellis's trademark. However, story-wise, Bond didn't go anywhere near being clumsy and just had to do whatever he was supposed to do. He definitely wasn't that "killing machine murdering psychopath" you're claiming him to be. Perhaps it's the Lebanese crime clan's death that bothered you most, which I understand why... But, imagine the consequences had Bond not killed those thugs and just said "Sorry, chaps, I broke into the wrong warehouse." They wouldn't even have wasted a moment to think over other than raising their rifles and shot Bond on sight.

    Fleming's Bond in his respective novels was always in remorse, regret and doubt. For a secret agent in the 21st century, that doesn't work. His Bond was more of a hard boiled detective caught up in the spy game than he was a secret agent that we've seen with Sean Connery and onward. This Bond in the comics isn't violent for the sake of it, and he does come to be rung as crazy at times, but he isn't a serial killer psychopath. I didn't find that to be anywhere of all the panels I looked at. He just has no respect for the rival's life who threatens global and national security. Nowhere being clumsy. In this business, it's "kill or be killed".

    I think the bullet and the choice of it don't really fall upon Bond's shoulders. That's Boothroyd you should blame who's quite the gun enthusiast. Unlike the current film series' MI-6, here all the Secret Service staff are relics and are ready to do whatever means necessary to protect their fence or accomplish their objectives. Even Moneypenny has a gun around she constantly cleans to have it ready in case M is to be protected from an outsider (See issues #1 and #9, respectively). That kind of bullet was given to Bond because he was walking into a high-grade-artillery-equipped battleship crawling around mercenaries that is decommissioned. Not to mention, those who are dangerously armed with killer prosthetics. Even Fleming's Bond would have taken the matter as seriously as this Bond would have.

    Now, I understand this kind of portrait is not for everyone. And it has deployed many fans for that reason. But, I'm enjoying it as far as we go. It's definitely my kind of Bond. The one who stops at nothing.

    Batman's motivations weren't explained vocally, but Jason Todd's costume with Joker's handwriting "The Jokes Are On You, Batman!" was written with yellow spray made it quite clear. Indicating to the fact that the Death In The Family story has already happened, and Batman has gone berserk afterwards in the vein of The Dark Knight Returns. Sure, he still doesn't directly kill in that comics, but if the knife hits the gut, everyone get to have a final straw. It appears in this case Batman has already had it.

    I am one of the few existing around that actually encourages Batman to kill. Because if you constantly put an enemy in jail or an asylum (with Lord knows how many losses amidst), then have them escape, them put them back again, with the cycle looping around, is no different from having a virus hovering around your property and letting the infection grow bigger. If it were me, I'd simply kill the virus with no regrets, knowing it endangers me and those around me. That's how I see it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Quite an interesting discussion has brewed up. I didn't know there was such a tension between how people felt about this comic book Bond's portrayal, or how far from Fleming he appears to be in some ways at least.

    I feel the need to make Batman clarifications, and it's kind of a must. The Batman in BvS isn't anything like The Dark Knight Returns Batman. That Batman gave up the second Jason died as he put the blame on his own shoulders and vowed to never bring that hell on another person/kid again, while this Batman just cares about nothing regarding humanity anymore and kills everyone that so much as looks at him wrong. He acts nothing like Batman in any way, beyond his fighting style. Adding to that, he thinks anybody who poses a 1% chance of doing harm (which is everyone) should die for certain. Now that's berserk.

    And I'll always be with Batman on the no-killing side. People use the excuse that Joker being alive means danger to innocents each time he escapes, but if Batman crosses that line he not only disgraces the laws he fights to safeguard, but also acts disloyal to Gordon and the entire GCPD, in addition to all in his Batman family he is a role model to. If Batman suddenly decided to kill his enemies, Gordon and Gotham's police would then have to mount a hunt for his head, and because he killed, he would have to go into hiding as armed cops chase after him, which would leave the city vulnerable to attack as they are all distracted. The cost of Batman killing both personally to him and societally in the scope of the larger Gotham City just doesn't make sense, just as it's wrong for a cop to take up arms and kill a perp who has been a repeat criminal. We have rules and regulations for a reason, and such a momentous choice (to kill) shouldn't be placed on any one man's shoulders, especially Batman.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,423
    That is true and very well said, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. It's true that Batman doesn't need to kill, and of course he doesn't bear much of a similarity other than the looks in comparison to The Dark Knight Returns when it comes to BvS. That isn't to say I didn't like it. On the contrary. I personally hold myself on the "Batman should kill when necessary" board and I know the ship itself is numbered with a few to count. Very few.

    However, there is something Batman could do. Say he is after to take Joker's life, he can actually hold himself from taking further lives. The man is determined to do anything, even when he had to battle his addiction to Venom he had to lock himself in the Batcave for quite sometime. I don't think crossing the line would be a problem if he develops a thought of a plan to execute. It's just me, perhaps. But, when necessary, I do believe he should take a life. That is when I'm complying to the "No Killing Rule".

    Batman001-24.1.jpg?1444257490?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1400
    This is one of the examples I'm referring to.

    Not everything is for everyone, I guess. It's one of the reasons I like The Shadow a lot better than Batman, which at first, he was a complete xerox of, right down to the Colt M1911s. The Case of The Criminal Syndicate is one of my favourite Batman stories just because for that reason when he points out that the man he kicked off the ledge to a tank full of acid, "deserved it".

    I actually liken the comparison I made two paragraphs before to John Drake of Danger Man. A spy who prohibits himself from carrying a gun and killing. He's the Batman of the secret agents. Always finds a way to apprehend the villains, and only kills as a last of the last resorts. I believe Batman, at least, should be like that. Do things that are justified.

    Coming back to Bond, I wouldn't wish him to resort to "not killing" just because it's "an awful thing". He's a government gun. Of course he should kill and do whatever means necessary to accomplish his mission. I am sure there are many who will agree with me on that case.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 3,566
    Batman doesn't kill for one very good reason: there would be no more Joker stories. Joker was, in fact, originally written as dying at the end of his second story in BATMAN #1 circa 1940. The editor objected: "This is too great a villain! You need to be able to bring him back again!" And again. And again. And again. Therefore, Batman doesn't kill, and there will be more cool Joker stories on & on into the future. It may not make sense to someone who believes in capital punishment in the real world, but Batman is a comic book character and he doesn't operate in the real world.

    Coming back to Bond, he kills when necessary because it's part of his job. License to kill & all that. Various versions of Bond approach the task differently. Roger Moore's Bond would probably be aghast if he could look through the years/dimensions/whatever else separates them and see Daniel Craig's Bond racking up the body count. Is one Bond more "valid" than the other? I think not. I may enjoy one more than the other, you may have exactly the opposite assessment. They're both still Bond. So is Fleming's and so is Warren Ellis's.
  • I haven't read the comics so I'm a bit uninformed but I think the more brutal Bond could also be justified by TMWTGG. He spared Scaramanga in the car, and then later let him pray before his death, a decision that nearly cost him his life. Maybe he was desensitised to violence anyway after Tracy's death (I mean he was pretty determined to kill Blofeld himself and not let anyone take that kill away from him) and decided after what happened with Scaramanga to not take any chances, show no mercy since his enemies wouldn't spare him the same courtesy. Fleming's Bond definitely wasn't a cold blooded killer but after all he went through and the bodycount he racked up over the course of the books, I don't think it'd be a stretch for him to eventually become one. So I don't mind these comics portraying him as such, since they're set after Fleming. But to be honest I'm pretty accepting of all different interpretations of Bond, no matter how different they are to the source material, as long as they commit to their take on the character and do it well I don't see it as an issue.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Thank you, @thelivingroyale. You've given the greatest definition of all things at their best.
    Is one Bond more "valid" than the other? I think not. I may enjoy one more than the other, you may have exactly the opposite assessment. They're both still Bond. So is Fleming's and so is Warren Ellis's.
    +1
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    I can accept many ways to portay Bond, and I do, but you can't break a characters fundamental characteristics without telling the reader/viewer why. That is bad story-telling. As I said earlier, Craigs Bond acts out of character in QOS, but I accept it because they've shown me why. Nothing in the Vargr comic explains to me why Bond uses excessive violent, he just does. I don't know why, I don't understand it. I need to see a characters motivations, his driving force.

    And yes, @ClarkDevlin, the blood splattering is a big problem with me. It is an aesthetics I don't associate with Bond and cannot accept. I just don't like it. "My Bond" doesn't brutaly kill anyone, without a juste cause.
    Fleming's Bond in his respective novels was always in remorse, regret and doubt. For a secret agent in the 21st century, that doesn't work.

    Of course it would work in the 21st century, why wouldn't it? These days the difference between good and evil is so gray, while in Flemings days it was more black and white. A man with remorse, regret and doubt is normal, it's probable, it's even extremely likely that a man that has to kill deals with those emotions, no matter what era we're in. I would actually say that those emotions where far more unusal back in the 50s/60s. I suspect that in the post-WW2 era it was much more easy for a British agent to justify their causes. The russians and communists were the "bad guys", and you could kill them without hesistating becasue they were "commies". Nowadays the threat feels more hidden, and with that a feeling of uncertainty.

    I don't understand why an agent in the 21st century can't have emotions. I think Flemings Bond would fit perfectly in todays world (minus the racisty stuff and all that....). Doesn't Craig deal with those exact emotions in his respective movies?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    I can accept many ways to portay Bond, and I do, but you can't break a characters fundamental characteristics without telling the reader/viewer why. That is bad story-telling. As I said earlier, Craigs Bond acts out of character in QOS, but I accept it because they've shown me why. Nothing in the Vargr comic explains to me why Bond uses excessive violent, he just does. I don't know why, I don't understand it. I need to see a characters motivations, his driving force.
    There isn't any kind of bad storytelling. Your only problem is seeing the blood and gore on the pages and the panels. Bond is no more a psychopath here than he was in the previous eras, save for Roger Moore. He killed when he had to, as this Bond does, and did whatever means necessary to complete his objectives. I think you're giving Fleming's Bond too much of an underestimation. See the post from the other user above. Bond doesn't "brutally" kill anyone in VARGR without a reason.

    1-First kill: Unnamed thug who appears to have assassinated 008.
    2-Second kill (overall): The Lebanese crime clan and his thugs. Justified. Why? Survival. He actually ended the man's pain fair and square, no way the latter would have survived after such wounds. I am sure all the Bond shootouts aren't that different in the films, either. Had they been R-Rated, all these fictitious blood spattering would have been added.
    3-Third kill: Bryan Masters. The psychopathic prosthetically-equipped maniac sent by Slaven Kurjak to kill Bond as he also killed the MI-6 staff. Bond did whatever he found necessary. Both interrogated the man with the syringe with the intention of having him give up the information he has, and disabled his foe.
    4-Fourth kill: Dharma Reach. After a struggle on the docks, he kicks her off the ledge into the water where her prosthetics explode. Bond did much worse before in both literary and cinematic form.
    5-Fifth kill (overall): The guards on the Norwegian docks. That's called disabling enemy eyes while sneaking around.
    6-Sixth kill (overall): The HNoMS Vargr mercenaries, who are as psychotically insane as Masters and Reach were, and dare I say with heavier artillery in their possession. Bond couldn't have won a fistfight with them, and dare I say he didn't have much time to pick on them one by one. So, he did the right thing and cleared his way out with whatever he found in his possession.
    7-Seventh kill: An injured Slaven Kurjak. What's the point of keeping him alive, knowing he'll lie his way into going down the same path as he was before? Men like Bond are hired to put men like Kurjak down. Elliot Carver was no different. And that's just one example.

    So, in analysis of all this "psychopathic killing" criteria, I don't see much of a drift headed away from the regularity of whatever James Bond is.
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    Of course it would work in the 21st century, why wouldn't it? These days the difference between good and evil is so gray, while in Flemings days it was more black and white. A man with remorse, regret and doubt is normal, it's probable, it's even extremely likely that a man that has to kill deals with those emotions, no matter what era we're in. I would actually say that those emotions where far more unusal back in the 50s/60s. I suspect that in the post-WW2 era it was much more easy for a British agent to justify their causes. The russians and communists were the "bad guys", and you could kill them without hesistating becasue they were "commies". Nowadays the threat feels more hidden, and with that a feeling of uncertainty.

    I don't understand why an agent in the 21st century can't have emotions. I think Flemings Bond would fit perfectly in todays world (minus the racisty stuff and all that....). Doesn't Craig deal with those exact emotions in his respective movies?
    I'm afraid you lost me there. I wasn't commenting on who the enemy was and what was in the past, never was either the communists or the Russians were the subject of discussion. We were speaking of it as a threat, and it was merely a subsidiary of the topic we had. Fleming's Bond had different methods that don't work now. Just as before Fleming's Bond, the era of Sir Mansfield Smith-Cumming's operational system of the spy agency and its agents were different. The spy game is not the same as it was 30 years ago. It's not George Smileys out there anymore, it's the Jason Bournes and Jack Reachers. Combatant systems are way more different as spies are no longer relying on Judo chops or Roundhouse Kung Fu kicks. It's Krav Maga they employ as their martial arts primarily. They don't use old guns. Just as they don't use old strategies to spare the life of an enemy.

    Doubt is always there. It has to be. Bond is the kind of person, however, who kills first asks questions later. I believe that's a common knowledge. He doesn't spare a villain's life (save for Dominic Greene, and that's because he tauntingly had different perspective in mind for him. He didn't kill him, but didn't save him either, knowing he'll die in the desert), I don't remember such an event anyway, only in Carte Blanche (which is panned by many fans) where he's a bit too over-sensitive who refuses to shoot a thug to death even though it imposes as a danger to him. In 21st century, a spy acts more in the vein of what Chris Ryan and Andy McNab introduced in the 90s in their respective books (Try Bravo Two Zero), and definitely doesn't employ a more diplomatic approach to converse with the opposition. The enemy nowadays, which by the way are no longer nations but corporations and organizations, is more blood-thirsty and radical than they were in Fleming's days after WWII. You don't know which way they'd come so you don't have a moment to waste to question yourself whether you should pull the trigger or not. Safety first. Or die... They know the consequences.

    Clearly emotions were definitely not part of the subject. Whether Bond cries over or grieves someone's death is not pointed out. Remorse and regret are different things. If Bond has to regret what he does and sees killing as a bad thing, he would have quit his job a long time ago. He wouldn't have become a spy, at all. He doesn't glorify it nor enjoys it, but he doesn't feel bad about it, either. It's his job, as I said before, he's a government gun. A blunt instrument.

    Your only problem with it is the display of the red colour that represent blood which is all over the place during the action sequences. That's what I understood. Had they not included that one single element, yet kept the action sequences, shootout and everything else the same, I don't think I would have heard all this complaint that overshadows other excuses to extend your disdain of one element that ruined the experience for you.
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    I'm flickering through the comic now just to get a sense of what it really was that I reacted to when I read it. You're absolutely right, it is the blood splattering panels that genuinly do disturb me, and when I read those panels the only thing I see is a James Bond killing more brutal than he would've have to. Maybe he doesn't, he kills fairly straight-forward and objectively, but the blood makes me wince. Once I see those x-ray-panels with the fragmented bullet destroying someones insides or someones brains splattered to a wall, I'm drawn out of the story. It doesn't add to the story-telling, it's just there for chock and shallow effect. I get the feeling that Ellis/Masters wants to show graphic violence because this is a "modern Bond", and in a modern Bond story you must show blood and gore to be relevant. I have similar problems with some of the movies (and books for that matter), that when the producers want to reinvent Bond, make him "relevant", make him "serious", he suddenly becomes more violent and less caring. For me, that is the wrong way to go. With no difficulties you can make a contemporary Bond which is relevant and interesting without having to resort to superficial, cheap effects that blood and gore is. I don't want my Bond stories to be gory and messy, which makes Vargr not feel like a Bond story. Nothing feels right to me, except for Bonds ironical humour, which I genuinely liked. The problem is that it's a disconnect for me to in one spread see this graphic violence and the next see a happy, joking Bond.

    Bond doesn't spare bad guys' life, but he never makes anyone suffer. If I see panels with people suffering, even bad guys, I feel that Bond has done wrong. It's an important part for me: Bond can't do wrong. Well... of course he can do wrong, all people do from time to time, but you have to show his emotions if he does. I get the feeling that this Bond is a happy-go-lucky guy who enjoys killing.

    Bond kills, of course he does, it's his job, but because he doesn't enjoy killing he doesn't want to cause suffering. Even if it's a horrible, evil villain Bond doesn't torture, doesn't prolong anyones suffering. In the Helsinki sequence, why does Bond cut off the thugs foot and fingers with a shovel? It's a way too brutal act for "my Bond" to do. He could without a doubt have solved the situation far more cleanly and effectively.

    I often refer to "my Bond", because all people tend to see Bond differently. We know so little about his background and who he is. He's almost like a blank sheet where you, as a reader or viewer, fill in the blanks. That is what makes Bond so damn interesting, that's why I think Bond works so well for so many people. You take the character as you want to see it. I think I even reflect my own values a bit in "my Bond". That is also why this discussion is so interesting, when you realize that other people see Bond in other ways. As it should be!

  • Posts: 1,296
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    In the Helsinki sequence, why does Bond cut off the thugs foot and fingers with a shovel?
    I don't think I'll be reading this anytime soon. :(
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    From what I recall of the sequence, Bond doesn't do that for the hell of it. Aren't they fighting, when Bond grabs the shovel. In which case, what's the problem?
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    From what I recall of the sequence, Bond doesn't do that for the hell of it. Aren't they fighting, when Bond grabs the shovel. In which case, what's the problem?

    Bond would never mutilate anyone, not even a bad guy who killed a fellow agent, and especially not the kind of lowlife thug that man seems to be. Bond is larger than that, he can never resort to the criminal methods of brutality and unnecessary violence he's supposed to work against. He should always aim for the clean kills, the smart ways to get rid of someone. Especially in the Helsinki sequence I feel he doesn't do that, which is against the Bond character I have in my mind.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    From what I recall of the sequence, Bond doesn't do that for the hell of it. Aren't they fighting, when Bond grabs the shovel. In which case, what's the problem?

    Bond would never mutilate anyone, not even a bad guy who killed a fellow agent, and especially not the kind of lowlife thug that man seems to be. Bond is larger than that, he can never resort to the criminal methods of brutality and unnecessary violence he's supposed to work against. He should always aim for the clean kills, the smart ways to get rid of someone. Especially in the Helsinki sequence I feel he doesn't do that, which is against the Bond character I have in my mind.

    There's nothing there to show what happened was un-Bondian. One panel shows the bucket, having been thrown by Bond, hit the thug in the chest, then the next panel shows Bond jumping through the air with the shovel at the ready, then in the next panel after that, we see the gun and the thugs fingers fall through the air. There is no evidence to suggest that it was mutilation. For all we know, Bond aimed for the aim, but given how unwieldy the shovel was, took off the fingers by accident. With the other guy ready to drop Bond at the first opportunity, the chance of a clean kill might not be on the table. That sequence was well within what I would accept/expect from Bond.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    In the Helsinki sequence, why does Bond cut off the thugs foot and fingers with a shovel?
    I don't think I'll be reading this anytime soon. :(

    Try it at least... Bond used the shovel as a weapon to stop the bad guy from retrieving his gun. He didn't completely sever the guy's leg ...he did however chop off his fingers and shoot him in the head. Much different :D

    Being serious I do recommend the comic especially the follow up Eidolon. The violence is a bit over the top but Ellis I believe is trying to portray the violence and realism of Bond's job.

    Bond has been violent in novels and increasingly so in film.

    What's missing in Ellis's Bond are more of those quiet moments to stop and let Bond be Bond... such as a nice meal.

    Hammerhead is expected to be more campy but better than the stripped gritty Ellis intros.

    Don't write off the comics yet. I'm my opinion this is the best thing we have in Bond now.
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Don't write off the comics yet. I'm my opinion this is the best thing we have in Bond now.

    I won't give up on them yet, I'm stubborn and extremely curious where Ellis takes Bond next. Comics is a fairly new media for me, but I will continue to explore it.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,116
    Good I'm glad @Krongsteen.

    Also good to see this series gaining more attention and debate. We've been hashing out SP longer now than it took to film the thing.
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Good I'm glad @Krongsteen.

    Also good to see this series gaining more attention and debate. We've been hashing out SP longer now than it took to film the thing.

    By the way, any word on when the Eidolon volume will be released? I'd rather read the whole story collected than the single issues.
  • There are arguments in favor of both formats. Personally, I buy the floppies (single issues) for two reasons: 1) I'm too impatient to wait for the collection, and 2) original printings of single issues can appreciate in value. Collections don't. And there's a third reason to buy the single issues of most other comics titles that doesn't really hold true for Bond: if it doesn't sell enough issues in the original single issue format, it won't be collected at all. The publisher may even cancel the title before the storyline is even completed.

    Like I said, this third reason doesn't hold true for the Bond titles. They'll sell enough to be collected, that's pretty much a given here. Not the same for most other comics. Also, the single issues PAY THE RENT for the artist & writer during the several months' time it takes for the work to actually get done. These are concerns for me because I've worked in the comics biz. You don't have to think this way, I do.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    There are arguments in favor of both formats. Personally, I buy the floppies (single issues) for two reasons: 1) I'm too impatient to wait for the collection, and 2) original printings of single issues can appreciate in value. Collections don't. And there's a third reason to buy the single issues of most other comics titles that doesn't really hold true for Bond: if it doesn't sell enough issues in the original single issue format, it won't be collected at all. The publisher may even cancel the title before the storyline is even completed.

    Like I said, this third reason doesn't hold true for the Bond titles. They'll sell enough to be collected, that's pretty much a given here. Not the same for most other comics. Also, the single issues PAY THE RENT for the artist & writer during the several months' time it takes for the work to actually get done. These are concerns for me because I've worked in the comics biz. You don't have to think this way, I do.

    I agree with you. I purchased to support but also I wanted to do my part to see the series continue.

    But honestly I couldn't have waited anyway. I need my Bond fix.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Kronsteen wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Good I'm glad @Krongsteen.

    Also good to see this series gaining more attention and debate. We've been hashing out SP longer now than it took to film the thing.

    By the way, any word on when the Eidolon volume will be released? I'd rather read the whole story collected than the single issues.
    My estimation is that it will come out sometime in February next year.

    By the way, @Kronsteen, since you're not quite familiar with the comics, and seeing that I know now where you're coming from with your expressions of disdain towards VARGR, I do propose you to read one of the old Bond comics which is outright Fleming and definitely not violent. In fact the art itself has this "old timey ancient" feeling which I am more than sure you'll enjoy. It's called Permission To Die. My second favourite James Bond comic book after Serpent's Tooth (that, you won't like, too sci-fi).

    Here's an excerpt. Click here.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I didn't know you worked in comics once. Care to share your experiences? It's a pipe dream of mine to be a comics artist.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    delete..
  • KronsteenKronsteen Stockholm
    Posts: 783
    My estimation is that it will come out sometime in February next year.

    By the way, @Kronsteen, since you're not quite familiar with the comics, and seeing that I know now where you're coming from with your expressions of disdain towards VARGR, I do propose you to read one of the old Bond comics which is outright Fleming and definitely not violent. In fact the art itself has this "old timey ancient" feeling which I am more than sure you'll enjoy. It's called Permission To Die. My second favourite James Bond comic book after Serpent's Tooth (that, you won't like, too sci-fi).

    That far off? My oh my...

    Thank you very much @ClarkDevlin! I'll see if I can get hold of it!

    I've read some of the older comics that were published here in Sweden. There was a regular comic book called "James Bond Agent 007" that existed here between 1965 and 1996(!), 111 issues. You might have heard about it. Basically it's the comics published as newspaper strips in Daily Express (58-83) collected into full issues. For some reason I've just read some of them, and they're not really my thing. I prefer the more modern way of drawing comics, a bit faster, a bit more interesting in way of visuals. Older comics tends to feel a bit stiff to me. So Permission To Die is definately worth looking into!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    You're welcome, @Kronsteen!

    I know what you mean about those old comics, which were actually the comic strips as you mentioned, some of them coloured, and dare I say rather blatantly (remember Bond wearing an orange tuxedo? Haha!), with the earlier versions based on Fleming's works up until the publishers decided to go on a new route. The thing is, they are fully coloured (or I may have confused it with the Indian re-issued prints?) but nowhere near as sophisticated as a real comic book company would do. Far from it. Permission To Die is beautifully coloured and constructed, you won't have problems with it and its pacing at all. Definitely not stiff, and the action sequences are fascinating you'd feel you're actually watching a true successor to From Russia With Love in the first two issues.

    The thing is, I also would have recommended you A Silent Armageddon, but sadly, that comic book was never completed, despite how exciting the story had gotten (and left us with a cliffhanger) and beautiful the artwork is inside. They certainly got the Fleming spirit in it with an updated tone.

    Now, before Eidolon's issue-per-issue installment runs its course, there's another comic book coming ahead, Hammerhead which has less of that violent tone, definitely toned down despite the previews showing some blood and all that. The characterization of Bond, as well is more in the vein of what you want, according to the official synopsis, where he's more human less robot, who develops his doubts in everything he's believed in so far.
  • @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I didn't know you worked in comics once. Care to share your experiences? It's a pipe dream of mine to be a comics artist.

    Mostly did distribution and promotion. Wrote only a few short published scripts. No artwork, sorry but I'm not that sort of an artist. These days I'm in a different field entirely but I worked in the comics biz for 15 years and got to rub elbows with a few big names. I do have a little more awareness of the business side of comics than some others may have, that's all...
Sign In or Register to comment.