›

Would You Consider Goldeneye the Start of the "Modern" Bond Era?

The_ReaperThe_Reaper
in Bond Movies Posts: 1,092
I've heard people say this before and I agree. I just hit GE in my annual Bond-a-thon and it strikes me as so different from what came before. I think there is a clear delineation between it and all the others. M became a women, Moneypenny was replaced yet again, no John Barry, no directors left from the Golden Age... only Q remained of the "old guard."

Thoughts?
«134

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    I'd say Tomorrow Never Dies was really the beginning of the Modern Bond era. GoldenEye look and felt like an 80's Bond movie. Tomorrow Never Days was like wiping off a dusty lense and the bright new colors were shining in.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    IMHO, it was a crossover Bond. Plenty of new items and faces but good old
    Q still there.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Good points but I can't slide GE with Brosnan into the older ear. With that six year break from LTK, GE is clearly the start of something new and different. There are some hang overs from the previous era but... I dunno, it feels so different from the previous 16 films.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    it was done with a more modern director, and felt fresher and more exciting than the John Glen films, which the last two attempts were okay but definitely felt like they were being made by an older crew.

    Bond felt younger again.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Hmm, tricky one. I seen people class the Dalton entries into the modern era. As @Murdock said, GE feels like an 80's Bond film. It has a feel to it of being closer to LTK than TND, despite it being the other way round.

    So, to the original thesis, yes, I say that GE was the start of a bold new era. No Cubby, no Barry, no Maibaum, no Binder to name but a few.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I've heard people say this before and I agree. I just hit GE in my annual Bond-a-thon and it strikes me as so different from what came before. I think there is a clear delineation between it and all the others. M became a women, Moneypenny was replaced yet again, no John Barry, no directors left from the Golden Age... only Q remained of the "old guard."

    Thoughts?

    Actually not. I think it's the start of the end of the old Bond timeline (1962 - 2002). It's the start of a period in which both Barbara Brocolli and Michael Wilson are still trying to figure out how to produce, with what kind of legacy, since "Cubby" died. Brosnan's Bond films have a rather formularic quality to it. But it's also a bit of...."doing the same like "Cubby" did". A bit of a numb, unoriginal approach to Bond. Trying to "blend" all previous Bond outings too much.

    The start of the second, modern era, IMO is "Casino Royale". Complete new Bond timeline (2006 - present). Bond gets his 00-code. Moneypenny and "Q" are being re-introduced. Creative decisions are much "bigger", riskier, but work out wunderfully.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2014 Posts: 15,723
    I think GE is a bit like DAF, it's somewhat between 2 eras so bound to none, it doesn't enough similarities with either to be 100% set in a definite era. I mean sure it feels like a 1980's film with all the cold war legacy and the outcome of that period, but at same times Q is the only link to the previous era.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Yes, good point about DAF. Both films paved the way for the follow ups that were too come; fantasy and humour in the 70's, and in the 90's Hollywood action, with forumalic elements thrown in.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited November 2014 Posts: 6,432
    I would probably say Licence to Kill was the beginning of the modern era, it did not break the conventional mould though tried new things.
    You could argue it was a precursor for the Craig era!
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    How can License to kill be the start when it was so heavily influenced by Miami Vice?
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    How can License to kill be the start when it was so heavily influenced by Miami Vice?


    :)) Just my opinion.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I see it as the bridge. It was enough like the 80s films that it could easily be tagged alongside them, but there was enough of the 90s in it that it felt different from the Dalton films and 80s Moore films. I wonder if that's intentional, seeing as the PTS is set in the 80s, while the main course of the film is set in the 90s.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    fire_and_ice wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    How can License to kill be the start when it was so heavily influenced by Miami Vice?


    :)) Just my opinion.

    Check out Sanchez sandals.

    or lack thereof

    and the…immmm miami setting???


    lol
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Someone on another thread said TND is the perfect formulaic movie, so wouldn't it also be part of the 'old era'? Personally I view the Brosnan tenure as part of the 'old' era. More modernised for sure, but the films still largely follow the established formula. I think the modern era started with CR when the films finally broke free of the Bond formula (not entirely, I agree). I view 1962-2002 as one era. Even DAD felt old fashioned, atleast in it's 1st hour.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    I think the modern era started with CR when the films finally broke free of the Bond formula

    I agree with this.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    fire_and_ice wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    How can License to kill be the start when it was so heavily influenced by Miami Vice?


    :)) Just my opinion.

    Check out Sanchez sandals.

    or lack thereof

    and the…immmm miami setting???


    lol

    I get your point to a point lol Goldfinger started off in Miami. Lethal Weapon I would probably use as a comparison to LTK though I was more referring to the tone of the film, which I felt was a precursor to Craig's Bond.

  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    I certainly see the Daltons as a pre-Craig. A tougher Bond.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited November 2014 Posts: 6,432
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    I certainly see the Daltons as a pre-Craig. A tougher Bond.
    Also a more human Bond, would have been interesting to see what direction the series went in if there was not a six year hiatus. Though LTK at the time was not well received, not sure they would have carried on in that tone at the time. Thinking again about the question and someone else mentioned it, regards to continuity CR is a obvious cut of point as it was essentially a reboot. Though Skyfall seemed to forget that
    :-S
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Know SF forgot that, but still a strong picture.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    Know SF forgot that, but still a strong picture.

    I struggle with Skyfall, I like the first hour. The remainder of the film it defies logic by even Bond Standards, it sets it self up as one type of movie then totally disregards the setup and becomes totally unrealistic.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    I think the modern era started with CR when the films finally broke free of the Bond formula

    I agree with this.

    Agreed. CR was the true start of a new era for Bond, with the reboot.

    GE was a bridge between the 70s/80s & the overblown 90s that began with TND & thankfully ended with DAD.

    LTK was an earlier attempt at a break or 'start of a new era' that did not turn out too well, hence the return to tradition in GE that served as a bridge.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Brosnan's films were the transitional period, something old, something new...
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Good points but I can't slide GE with Brosnan into the older ear. With that six year break from LTK, GE is clearly the start of something new and different. There are some hang overs from the previous era but... I dunno, it feels so different from the previous 16 films.

    Totally agree with you . GE represented a seismic shift. With hindsight, although a quirky and quite original Bond film, LTK feels much closer to the Classic era than GE.

    GE didn't eve feel like a Bond film to me.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    fire_and_ice wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    Know SF forgot that, but still a strong picture.

    I struggle with Skyfall, I like the first hour. The remainder of the film it defies logic by even Bond Standards, it sets it self up as one type of movie then totally disregards the setup and becomes totally unrealistic.

    The first hour of SF is fantastic, the rest merely very good. I do prefer CR, but I find SF very entertaining.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    There is a spammer on the site
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Getafix wrote: »
    There is a spammer on the site


    Nope, just a solid opinion.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    There is a spammer on the site


    Nope, just a solid opinion.

    Yes there is. He's referring to this user.
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/profile/6561/happydididida
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Oh, I see.
    Thanks Murdock.
    Apologies, everyone.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    I'm a big boy. I can take it :)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    No, TSWLM was the start of the 'modern era' of Bondmovies.
    Gone were the sensibilities of the 60's (which still lingered on in TMWTGG) - Saltzman left the series and the films became far more focused on the visual aspect, with quicker editing, more action and less subtlety.

    Movie marketing also hit new heights as the submarine Lotus was mass produced as a toy.

    Essentially, the film industry changed dramatically post Star Wars, ie. 1977. And that includes the Bond films.
Sign In or Register to comment.