›

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

24

Comments

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Absolutely not. For me, the start of the "New Modern Bond Era" is "Casino Royale". I put this a bit bluntly, but even "GoldenEye" is a continuation of the Dalton films. Remember this line? 007: "I recall your predecessor [Robert Brown] kept a bottle of cognac in there." Judi Dench as "M": "I prefer Bourbon!"
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    What other film could you really see as the start of the modern era than the first Babs and MGW film?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I see the original series ending with LTK..then tthe revival with GE on.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    The original series ended when Desmond Llewellyn died. 20th Century.

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Seeing Llewellyn's departure is eerily surreal and saddening considering his tragic death months later.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Goldeneye is definitely a strong contender in that regard. But as @Murdock stated one can also make an argument for Tomorrow Never Dies being the first modern Bond movie as GE was very much a Dalton Bond movie and more of a transitionary film than a new beginning. TND feels like the first Brosnan movie.

    For me Casino Royale is easily the film that truly started a new era. Rather than being the transitionary film GE was it wipes the slate clean and became the freshest and newest kind of Bond film since the series began with DN.

    Skyfall sort of ushered in a new kind of Bond film aswell but we'll have to wait and see how it's followed up. But CR still gets my vote.
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    By "modern", what do you mean? For me, "modern" began in the 1980s, which means that "For Your Eyes Only" was the start of that particular age for the franchise.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dr No was the start of the modern era.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Dr No was the start of the modern era.

    Nah, Casino Royale '54 is the start of the new era.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Dr No was the start of the modern era.

    Nah, Casino Royale '54 is the start of the new era.

    But it was in black and white. Hmmm, CR06 was too partly. I guess QOS was it.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    There all amazing. I finally found out how to post on here without upsetting others. LoL :D
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    edited December 2014 Posts: 2,107
    In a word - YES.

    Judi Dench / Babs - Female Power. Didn't much feel like the Bond of yesteryears.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    GE and the whole Brosnan era was imo transitional, as others said.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Ludovico wrote: »
    GE and the whole Brosnan era was imo transitional, as others said.
    Agreed. Arguing over whether GE or TND is more transitional is just splitting hairs really.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    pachazo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    GE and the whole Brosnan era was imo transitional, as others said.
    Agreed. Arguing over whether GE or TND is more transitional is just splitting hairs really.

    And that is why I find his era so darn frustrating. The ingredients were there, they never developed them into something truly fruitful.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    There all amazing. I finally found out how to post on here without upsetting others. LoL :D

    They're not ALL amazing. Some of them are downright awful!

    You can never please everyone! ;)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I don't know what to think anymore:

    -Dalton's films were signalling the way into the Craig era yet were directed by one of the old-guard directors.
    -GE featured an almost entirely new crew yet is seen as a step-backward into the Moore era.
    -Craig's debut was seen as a move forward yet was directed by the same person who directed that "Moore-rip-off" flick in 1995.

    It all seems so topsy-turvy.

    Help me :-t

    Can we just agree that GE was the right film for the time?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    No.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Well...I always enjoyed it :-S
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Can we just agree that GE was the right film for the time?

    Yes, I agree. For me it was the film that was needed to keep Bond alive. Made on a shoe string $60m or so budget, it had to bring back Bond after a long 6 yr absence, and after a final installment in LTK that underwhelmed at the box office.

    I don't think they had a choice but to go the direction that they went with it, which was somewhat of a throwback and somewhat cliched. It was a resounding success as it deserved to be.

    Where I think they missed the boat was with TND. After GE firmly re-established Bond in the 90's they should have taken some risks again, given PB was very popular as Bond at that time.

    Instead they fell back on Roger Moore-TSWLM/MR or Connery-YOLT excess for TND.

    While I enjoyed TND very much, that was the wasted opportunity in terms of moving the Bond character forward.

    I don't think they had a choice with GE, given the long break. They had to be conservative and cliched with that movie, also based on the shoestring budget.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Well...I always enjoyed it :-S

    Haha, and you should. Stupid Thunderfinger does not call the shots for everyone.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited December 2014 Posts: 15,723
    While I really enjoy GE, the first 15 to 20 minutes seem like a check-list of Bond's greatest hits - The famous gun pose (while leaving the bathroom), the Bond, James Bond line, the vodka martini shaken not stirred, Bond in a suit, Bond in a casino, the DB5.. Only thing missing was the traditional Bond theme (which they would put once every 10 minutes in TND). The plot for GE doesnt 'properly start' until they go through a 2nd round of cliches with the Moneypenny, M and Q scenes, which was about 35 mins into the film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It is like when you try to make Christmas dinner and cookies instead of your Grandma. And fails utterly.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    And black and white. I once watched it on a b/w tv and I sort of enjoyed it.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    While I really enjoy GE, the first 15 to 20 minutes seem like a check-list of Bond's greatest hits - The famous gun pose (while leaving the bathroom), the Bond, James Bond line, the vodka martini shaken not stirred, Bond in a suit, Bond in a casino, the DB5.. Only thing missing was the traditional Bond theme (which they would put once every 10 minutes in TND). The plot for GE doesnt 'properly start' until they go through a 2nd round of cliches with the Moneypenny, M and Q scenes, which was about 35 mins into the film.

    Funny how many fans will complain when Bond acts like Bond…and when he does not act like Bond.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    This seems like a silly discussion.
    The original timeline ended with DAD and started with CR.
    How is that not clear?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited December 2014 Posts: 18,348
    Would I Consider Goldeneye the Start of the "Modern" Bond Era? More or less, yes.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Goldeneye was the start of a very disappointing era. CR marked the beginning of a recovery. Overall I am not that impressed with what Babs and MGW have done with Bond though. Something was lost when Cubby died - may be that family vibe - and it still hasn't been replaced.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    This seems like a silly discussion.
    The original timeline ended with DAD and started with CR.
    How is that not clear?

    But of course.

    However, the purpose of this thread is more to do with the "modern feel" of the fims in general i.e.advancement in technology, post Cold War etc.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    This seems like a silly discussion.
    The original timeline ended with DAD and started with CR.
    How is that not clear?

    But of course.

    However, the purpose of this thread is more to do with the "modern feel" of the fims in general i.e.advancement in technology, post Cold War etc.

    This is why I consider the Brosnan era to be a transitional period, keeping old continuity in a new time period and trying to cram as many Bond tropes, essential or not, in every movie. But unable to create a true continuity the way the old movies did and often being far too by the nomber and generic (my main issue with TND).
Sign In or Register to comment.