Dynamite's Bond comics and graphic novels

13637394142148

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    By the way, February 2017 solicitations might be coming to be unveiled by the end of the week. I'll be keeping an eye on the subject in case anything about Casino Royale might be said. I still think it's not possible they'll release it by January 2017, but anyway... Hammerhead #5 and Felix Leiter #2 cover artworks are due to be shown. @00Agent, this also goes for you, sir. Keep an eye on them if you can. :D
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    By the way, February 2017 solicitations might be coming to be unveiled by the end of the week. I'll be keeping an eye on the subject in case anything about Casino Royale might be said. I still think it's not possible they'll release it by January 2017, but anyway... Hammerhead #5 and Felix Leiter #2 cover artworks are due to be shown. @00Agent, this also goes for you, sir. Keep an eye on them if you can. :D

    Certainly will :) ...As much as I am enjoying Dynamite's contemporary Bond (especially since the film series seems stalled.) I am still looking forward to CR and to see what they do with the classic Bond.

    I make no apology though I enjoy the contemporary adventures and would be extremely disappointed without them.

    Only other present day stories other than the films since the novels seems to have decided to travel back to Fleming's world.

    Odd in a way since Fleming himself if I'm not mistaken attempted to keep Bond timeless in YOLT. I maybe wrong.

    Arguments for both and I enjoy both.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    When will be released Hammerhead #3 and Eidolon #12? Thanks.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    @mcdonbb, I believe another series set at the beginning of Bond's career as a 00-agent is also in the works, so Dynamite is also working on a prequel series to Fleming's timeline, as is Horowtiz's next novel. Dynamite is indeed making a real franchise out of Bond. Something not even the film series attempted to do.

    @ggl007: Eidolon's upcoming issue aka James Bond #12 is out on December 21.
    Hammerhead #3 arrives earlier, which would be December 14.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    By the way, February 2017 solicitations might be coming to be unveiled by the end of the week. I'll be keeping an eye on the subject in case anything about Casino Royale might be said. I still think it's not possible they'll release it by January 2017, but anyway... Hammerhead #5 and Felix Leiter #2 cover artworks are due to be shown. @00Agent, this also goes for you, sir. Keep an eye on them if you can. :D

    Ohh i sure will @ClarkDevlin, and thanks for the preview images
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    @mcdonbb, I believe another series set at the beginning of Bond's career as a 00-agent is also in the works, so Dynamite is also working on a prequel series to Fleming's timeline, as is Horowtiz's next novel. Dynamite is indeed making a real franchise out of Bond. Something not even the film series attempted to do.

    @ggl007: Eidolon's upcoming issue aka James Bond #12 is out on December 21.
    Hammerhead #3 arrives earlier, which would be December 14.

    Yes I am extremely impressed and surprised at how well Dynamite has handled Bond. Take note Eon. ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Precisely. :D
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What do people want the Bond films to do? There's continuity, but even fans seem way against that.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Oh no. Not about continuity, Braders. Just the way it's marketed.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    What do people want the Bond films to do? There's continuity, but even fans seem way against that.

    We want it to be fun and thrilling again. Not fun as in corny but enjoyable thrillers. Mendes was almost apologetic for making a Bond film. Had to spruce it up with a love story and family angle. SP was almost there but failed. The gunbarrel of SP pretty much explains it all. Started old school fun then a haphazard and pathetic attempt to be artful.

    Just shoot a damn gunbarrel at the start hide the gun and open into the first scene.

    The comics especially Hammerhead are giving us that. Hammerhead is what should have followed SF or at least a cleaned up SP.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Took a stab at doing a real life version of that panel from Hammerhead. Not a bad first attempt.
    flFxgTV.jpg
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Hammerhead should have been Brosnan's fifth in 2006.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2016 Posts: 15,423
    @Murdock, you sir, are a genius! :D

    Love how you used footage from The Tuxedo to adjust the fan-art properly. :D

    Place the girl (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) in the back holding a gun! Please! Please! Please!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Thanks! @ClarkDevlin, That was the best pose I could find, great eye for pointing it out. And I will add her soon! :D
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Murdock wrote: »
    Took a stab at doing a real life version of that panel from Hammerhead. Not a bad first attempt.
    flFxgTV.jpg

    You rock!!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    What do people want the Bond films to do? There's continuity, but even fans seem way against that.

    We want it to be fun and thrilling again. Not fun as in corny but enjoyable thrillers. Mendes was almost apologetic for making a Bond film. Had to spruce it up with a love story and family angle. SP was almost there but failed. The gunbarrel of SP pretty much explains it all. Started old school fun then a haphazard and pathetic attempt to be artful.

    Just shoot a damn gunbarrel at the start hide the gun and open into the first scene.

    The comics especially Hammerhead are giving us that. Hammerhead is what should have followed SF or at least a cleaned up SP.

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess. The Craig era has been a return to Young's films in many ways for me, which is closer than the vast majority of the others, including the Moore and Brosnan films, could ever hope to be. 2006 was the end of a long history of self-parody in Bond, and may it go on.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    The whole this time it's personal, Bond disobeying MI6 to do his own personal missions and villains with angst against Bond/MI6 is starting to get old. I'd like some more Brosnan/Moore era fun and Adventure again and you can do that without reducing it to cheese.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I think we disagree on that case. The Craig era is entirely different from the Young films. They are their own beasts and certainly not a callback to the old. It subverted into a new medium, as does anything in their own time to keep themselves going.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    What do people want the Bond films to do? There's continuity, but even fans seem way against that.

    We want it to be fun and thrilling again. Not fun as in corny but enjoyable thrillers. Mendes was almost apologetic for making a Bond film. Had to spruce it up with a love story and family angle. SP was almost there but failed. The gunbarrel of SP pretty much explains it all. Started old school fun then a haphazard and pathetic attempt to be artful.

    Just shoot a damn gunbarrel at the start hide the gun and open into the first scene.

    The comics especially Hammerhead are giving us that. Hammerhead is what should have followed SF or at least a cleaned up SP.

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess. The Craig era has been a return to Young's films in many ways for me, which is closer than the vast majority of the others, including the Moore and Brosnan films, could ever hope to be. 2006 was the end of a long history of self-parody in Bond, and may it go on.

    Don't get me wrong I enjoy the Craig era... in fact I agree with you ...until SP which is the one Craig film I really didn't like.

    Now I enjoyed both the Moore and Brosnan eras. Grew up on Moore.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Like @Murdock, I really would rather if the Bond films returned to the fun era and straightforward adventures without 007 having to go rogue again just because a man like him "doesn't trust the government" or "doesn't fit in with the current system."

    Warren Ellis easily changed that. I am sure the filmmakers can do that, too.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Second attempt!
    hGpxlyj.jpg
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    The whole this time it's personal, Bond disobeying MI6 to do his own personal missions and villains with angst against Bond/MI6 is starting to get old. I'd like some more Brosnan/Moore era fun and Adventure again and you can do that without reducing it to cheese.

    When does Bond ever, ever do his own personal missions? In CR he does his job, in QoS he goes after Greene when the Americans are purposely avoiding doing that, and without Bond both Green and Medrano (and Quantum by association) would have succeeded. Bond never once even acts to get revenge for Vesper, not once, even when given every opportunity while being sanctioned by M to do so in the case of Yusef. In Skyfall Bond does his mission, given by M to stop Silva from wreaking any more havoc on the world to get at her. In SP Bond is again doing his mission, getting all the leads he needs to get Blofeld and SPECTRE into a corner, even when M doesn't want to trust him and when the British government is being infiltrated by SPECTRE to stop Bond from foiling their plans. In each case it's Bond who rises amongst the corruption and bullshit to do what is necessary, like only he can. Mission first, everything else second.

    We can talk about the Bond films getting personal, because there's at least some evidence to back it up, but to say Bond ignores MI6 to achieve his own personal missions and gains is just wholly incorrect.
    I think we disagree on that case. The Craig era is entirely different from the Young films. They are their own beasts and certainly not a callback to the old. It subverted into a new medium, as does anything in their own time to keep themselves going.

    I think there's much about the Craig era that screams Young's style. We again have a Bond who actually reacts to what it going on around him, with an actor who can truly express what Bond is dealing with on the inside in a truly remarkable way not seen since Connery. When he is punched, he bleeds, and when he loses someone, he understandably acts angry and forlorn, as a human would. Bond isn't a superman, he's a real character that can be understood without hearing him say anything, which Sean and Dan do magnificently like no others outside of some of Dalton. The more messy and brutal action of the Young films return, most visible in QoS, with an editing style akin to something Hunt would produce, if a bit more frantic. There's sweat and blood in these fights, and Bond and the baddies really go at it, like they really are trying to kill each other on camera, capturing that realism Young strived to film when he was the director. Bond once again has gentlemanly debates and retorts with his villains in the way of the 60s, moments where there's tension from just watching Bond and the baddie go verbally toe-to-toe, interactions that made the series iconic. The gadgets of the Craig era are stripped down and when they appear, they are largely real world, as in the Young films, where almost everything we see was practical and possible in the science of the day. On the other hand, those that aren't scientifically viable never feel impossible. The style of Young's films return, with a Bond that looks the part of a debonair agent again, and Dan like no actor since Sean feels like he lives in his suits. Everything about the ensembles is perfect, and Dan and the team make conscious efforts to recall Sean's famous suits many times from CR to SP to recreate that timeless fashion best seen in Young's movies, created by the director himself.

    I could go on all day, but I truly think Dan's films are as close to Young's style of Bond film as we have gotten since he left the series with Thunderball. It certainly wasn't in the campy and parodic Moore era, the Dalton films lack too many important Youngian elements to truly nail it, and Brosnan's films most certainly don't get there. Just my observation, but I think it's quite supported with empirical data.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Is there a reason why it is Brosnan? While I have not read Hammerhead, the Bond featured looks tougher and more masculine than Brosnan.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    He looks like Brosnan to me.
    Murdock wrote: »
    The whole this time it's personal, Bond disobeying MI6 to do his own personal missions and villains with angst against Bond/MI6 is starting to get old. I'd like some more Brosnan/Moore era fun and Adventure again and you can do that without reducing it to cheese.

    When does Bond ever, ever do his own personal missions? In CR he does his job, in QoS he goes after Greene when the Americans are purposely avoiding doing that, and without Bond both Green and Medrano (and Quantum by association) would have succeeded. Bond never once even acts to get revenge for Vesper, not once, even when given every opportunity while being sanctioned by M to do so in the case of Yusef. In Skyfall Bond does his mission, given by M to stop Silva from wreaking any more havoc on the world to get at her. In SP Bond is again doing his mission, getting all the leads he needs to get Blofeld and SPECTRE into a corner, even when M doesn't want to trust him and when the British government is being infiltrated by SPECTRE to stop Bond from foiling their plans. In each case it's Bond who rises amongst the corruption and bullshit to do what is necessary, like only he can. Mission first, everything else second.

    We can talk about the Bond films getting personal, because there's at least some evidence to back it up, but to say Bond ignores MI6 to achieve his own personal missions and gains is just wholly incorrect.

    QoS and SP are the biggest offender of this trope, Those were missions he wasn't assigned he just stumbled into them, It's sloppy. I'd like to see more classic Bond gets a mission from M and is on his way adventure again. Not Bond is a loose cannon playing by his own rules like a renegade cop. It's not wholly incorrect, It's there. Oh as for CR when his breaking into M's apartment and hacking into her laptop and networks, that's not government sanctioned. It's too convenient.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    He looks like Brosnan to me.
    Murdock wrote: »
    The whole this time it's personal, Bond disobeying MI6 to do his own personal missions and villains with angst against Bond/MI6 is starting to get old. I'd like some more Brosnan/Moore era fun and Adventure again and you can do that without reducing it to cheese.

    When does Bond ever, ever do his own personal missions? In CR he does his job, in QoS he goes after Greene when the Americans are purposely avoiding doing that, and without Bond both Green and Medrano (and Quantum by association) would have succeeded. Bond never once even acts to get revenge for Vesper, not once, even when given every opportunity while being sanctioned by M to do so in the case of Yusef. In Skyfall Bond does his mission, given by M to stop Silva from wreaking any more havoc on the world to get at her. In SP Bond is again doing his mission, getting all the leads he needs to get Blofeld and SPECTRE into a corner, even when M doesn't want to trust him and when the British government is being infiltrated by SPECTRE to stop Bond from foiling their plans. In each case it's Bond who rises amongst the corruption and bullshit to do what is necessary, like only he can. Mission first, everything else second.

    We can talk about the Bond films getting personal, because there's at least some evidence to back it up, but to say Bond ignores MI6 to achieve his own personal missions and gains is just wholly incorrect.

    QoS and SP are the biggest offender of this trope, Those were missions he wasn't assigned he just stumbled into them, It's sloppy. I'd like to see more classic Bond gets a mission from M and is on his way adventure again. Not Bond is a loose cannon playing by his own rules like a renegade cop. It's not wholly incorrect, It's there. Oh as for CR when his breaking into M's apartment and hacking into her laptop and networks, that's not government sanctioned. It's too convenient.

    In QoS, Bond is ordered by M to track Mitchell's Haiti contact, and that spins into everything we see in the film. In SP, M literally sends Bond a video to order him to complete a mission. Neither instance has Bond "stumbling into" the missions.

    His break-in to M's apartment was done solely to continue the mission he was stationed in Madagascar to pursue, and though Bond was being audacious in doing so, the information was what he required to pursue his leads, knowing that after what happened in the embassy M would cut him off from helping out when only he knew what plans were taking form.

    The Craig era is full of moments where Bond has to work around red tape to do what he knows has to be done because people are blind to what he sees or bought off and trying to stop him from completing his mission. Whether it's sanctioned or not in any particular instance, he is consistently the only one operating with his priorities in order and not being driven by personal motives.

    Throughout these instances, M nearly always gives him the approval to act as he does, because she knows he can be counted on to pursue his mission and do it well, just as Lee's M always did with Sean's Bond. There were moments where Bond got flippant, as in sleeping with Jill instead of pursuing Goldfinger or being late to a briefing because he was having some fun, but when the mission was on M didn't question what Bond deemed necessary to complete his mission as long as his acts stayed within international limitations and were done to stop their enemies with minimal damages.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Is there a reason why it is Brosnan? While I have not read Hammerhead, the Bond featured looks tougher and more masculine than Brosnan.

    Yes, the Hammerhead Bond is quite muscular and looks rather young. But the way he "moves" and the face, hairdo, everything above the shoulder screams Brosnan.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    @mcdonbb, I believe another series set at the beginning of Bond's career as a 00-agent is also in the works, so Dynamite is also working on a prequel series to Fleming's timeline, as is Horowtiz's next novel. Dynamite is indeed making a real franchise out of Bond. Something not even the film series attempted to do.

    @ggl007: Eidolon's upcoming issue aka James Bond #12 is out on December 21.
    Hammerhead #3 arrives earlier, which would be December 14.
    Thanks, @ClarkDevlin

    Great work, @Murdock!
    =D> :P
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2016 Posts: 4,116
    Is there a reason why it is Brosnan? While I have not read Hammerhead, the Bond featured looks tougher and more masculine than Brosnan.

    Yes, the Hammerhead Bond is quite muscular and looks rather young. But the way he "moves" and the face, hairdo, everything above the shoulder screams Brosnan.

    Agreed. The Brosnan circa TWINE on where he had aged nicely into the role after GE.

    Some disagree on Brosnan's portrayal but he looked and moved great no doubt.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Another prediction from my part. Next month we might learn about Benjamin Percy's Bond thriller and its title, seeing as Eidolon is coming to an end. At the end of VARGR we knew the next chapter was going to be called "Eidolon". With the final chapter of the latter concluding, we might learn the title of the upcoming Bond adventure in the regular ongoing series.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    You're right @ClarkDevlin
Sign In or Register to comment.