In search of James Bond 007 - is he disappearing ?

barryt007

Brilliant @bondjames ...so you are American though ? Harrow on the Hill is the posh area...you didnt go to Harrow school did you ?

bondjames

Canadian citizen @barryt007, but I spend a lot of time in NYC on assignments. No, I went to the sister school, John Lyon. Same founder.

barryt007

Canadian ? ...then you have a big say in Bond,being in the Commonwealth..respect @bondjames !

bondjames

Thanks @barryt007, even though I'll never recommend a Canadian for the job, despite Gosling not being all that bad. Keep him British I say.

barryt007

bondjames wrote: »

Thanks @barryt007, even though I'll never recommend a Canadian for the job, despite Gosling not being all that bad. Keep him British I say.

Definately British my cousin....definately...

barryt007

Birdleson wrote: »

Iff topic. I just caught a few minutes of SF on television. I know we all have are favorites, etc, but for the life of me I don't understand how anyone, regardless of it's issues and problems, cannot see this as an overall great Bond film.

That is my statement of the day,i agree 1,000000% .......i dont get the bile thrown at this film...if you treat it as a stand-alone Bond film and ignore the comment in SP about Silva being part of Quantum/Spectre then just go with the flow..a great Bond flick.

Murdock

I had my best viewing of Skyfall in my last Bondathon. I enjoy it very much.

barryt007

I need to re-ignite my SF appreciation thread which i have somewhere on here ,give SF a bit of love...or someone else can if they can find it : @murdock or @Birdleson !!

Murdock

Here you go @barryt007
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/9169/did-i-overcomplicate-the-plot-skyfall-appreciation-thread/p17

barryt007

Murdock wrote: »

Here you go @barryt007
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/9169/did-i-overcomplicate-the-plot-skyfall-appreciation-thread/p17

Nice one @Murdock ,thanks pal !

Murdock

No problem buddy! :)

Legionnaire

Since I’m a fan of both the Ian Fleming books, and the Bond movies, I’m intrigued by this question of “classic spy” vs. “action figure” vs. real world activities of the cloak and dagger crowd. Were the guys in Libya as depicted in the movie 13 Hours, spies or merely action figures types. According to news reports their primary role in Libya was looking for shoulder fired missiles that could be used to bring down commercial aircraft (a bit James Bondian or so it seems). In his published memoir The Craft We Chose, My life in the CIA, the author Holm, talks about his time in the Congo during a tumultuous time similar to the violence in Libya with several harrowing moments including an attempted assassination at his home, though he claims to rarely have felt a need of or carried a firearm of any sort. A family friend once boasted of doing spy work that consisted of collecting certain agricultural data while visiting a country and attending a conference for scientist (that seems pretty easy). On the other hand there is the le Carre Tinker, Taylor, Solder, Spy series with its assortment of Headhunters, Watchers, etc. I’ve no idea what constitutes a spy but it seems that in some places being captured, tortured, killed or escaping all of the above by the skin of your teeth are very real possibilities. James Bond of course is just a fabrication, but the stories capture the imagination in the absence of having your fingernails pulled out one by one by some sadistic interrogator in a dark room where nobody who cares about you can hear you scream.

barryt007

I actually think the 'story-arc' has damaged Dan's tenure as Bond now...if he just did stand-alone or ,like Connery,involved SPECTRE but in individual missions then he could easily have hit Moore's 7 films.

It's come back to bite them,they took it too far..it should have stopped with CR-QOS....SF is fine as i see it as stand-alone,and i think it was made that way originally.

SP has really taken the 'arc' too far,and people are now getting bored...Bond is NOT a soap-opera,he is a British agent who gives us something positive on the screen in the bad world we really live in.

BMW_with_missiles

barryt007 wrote: »

I actually think the 'story-arc' has damaged Dan's tenure as Bond now...if he just did stand-alone or ,like Connery,involved SPECTRE but in individual missions then he could easily have hit Moore's 7 films.

It's come back to bite them,they took it too far..it should have stopped with CR-QOS....SF is fine as i see it as stand-alone,and i think it was made that way originally.

SP has really taken the 'arc' too far,and people are now getting bored...Bond is NOT a soap-opera,he is a British agent who gives us something positive on the screen in the bad world we really live in.

Precisely.

Mendes4Lyfe

Thanks bazza for out me on to this thread, a place for old school fans like me who remember the 1962 - 2002 period and remember what Bond was. Perhaps this is a marvelous opportunuty to get a few things off my chest? Firstly, I have to take issue with the idea that the classic gentleman spy Bond is no longer possible to be portrayed on the big screen. I have never understood this truism which seems quige prevalent in among Bond fans. In 2006 - 2012 I would have believed this, as back then almost EVERYTHING was turning dark and gritty. The idea of a big franchise focused on fun escapist escapades was viewed as embarassing. Even Harry Potter took a dark turn. Harry F----'in Potter, a series about a magic school. But times aren't like that anymore. One of the most recent big blockbusters was Aquaman which was one of the most goofy overblown movies in years, but it was a massive hit. When you look at MI Fallout also, it is clear that spectacle is back in and realism is not as essential. So I can't see why a Gentleman Spy, classic era style Bond could not work in this climate. It would be very different from Craig era but surely thats the point - to be distinct and set yourself apart. It just seems so apparent to me this is what the franchise is screaming out for right now, and the main thing preventing is the fact that Craig is still in the role. Sorry but his performance of the one liners in SP left a lot to be desired, and thats being very polite.

Moving on, my second semi-complaint is the idea that seems to have arisen since Craigs casting that the next Bond has to be thuggish in appearance or he won't be accepted. This really drives me up the wall, with how much potential actors are swatted down with "too male model" or "too slight". So let me just say this, Bond is supposed to be attractive to women, right? He's also supposed to be quite slim and healthy looking, but certainly not stocky and buff like Craig is. Bond is not a bulldozer, and has never been that way. Even Lazenby was very refined, although much more physical in the fight scenes. And I think that conflict is essential to the character, the deadly but charming, refined but also able to get his hands dirty. For forty years there was a clear understanding that Bond needed both, and if he looks and acts like a wrecking ball, that illusion of charm and sophistication is broken and something is lost. To be fair they did get the balance right in CR, making sure to show Craig indulging in his expensive tastes, and his rich knowledge. And it did make sense that he was more of a loose cannon, this is Bond begins right? I always took that last scene to mean that Bond had actually finalmy gotten his armour on, and from that point he was the emotionally closed off, gentleman persona that we knew and loved, but then QoS opens uo, and it turns out this guys is a drunken wreck, more wrecking ball than ever before, and charming? Well what woman wouldn't melt at "I can't find the stationary", eh? Anyway my point is for forty years everyone had a clear undertstanding of who James Bond was, his basis from the books, and although they sometimes strayed from the trappings in order to tell a specific story, they never lost sight of that. Its only since Craig came on board that that image changed and now apparently the next guy needs to be lacking in the same areas, which I don't understand.

I care deeply for the franchise which meant so much for me growing up, and seemed to signify the British hero, good and bad. I hope the franchise can reclaimits former glory either with this final Craig outing, or a new Bond with BOND 26. And if not I may have to close the book on my relationship with the series, which is not done likely, and would be very sad. But no matter what, I will always hold 1962 - 2002 very close to my heart.

Roadphill

I think this an interesting thread. I can't really add too much to what @Mendes4Lyfe said, he has covered the base of my feelings fairly well.

BMW_with_missiles

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Thanks bazza for out me on to this thread, a place for old school fans like me who remember the 1962 - 2002 period and remember what Bond was. Perhaps this is a marvelous opportunuty to get a few things off my chest? Firstly, I have to take issue with the idea that the classic gentleman spy Bond is no longer possible to be portrayed on the big screen. I have never understood this truism which seems quige prevalent in among Bond fans. In 2006 - 2012 I would have believed this, as back then almost EVERYTHING was turning dark and gritty. The idea of a big franchise focused on fun escapist escapades was viewed as embarassing. Even Harry Potter took a dark turn. Harry F----'in Potter, a series about a magic school. But times aren't like that anymore. One of the most recent big blockbusters was Aquaman which was one of the most goofy overblown movies in years, but it was a massive hit. When you look at MI Fallout also, it is clear that spectacle is back in and realism is not as essential. So I can't see why a Gentleman Spy, classic era style Bond could not work in this climate. It would be very different from Craig era but surely thats the point - to be distinct and set yourself apart. It just seems so apparent to me this is what the franchise is screaming out for right now, and the main thing preventing is the fact that Craig is still in the role. Sorry but his performance of the one liners in SP left a lot to be desired, and thats being very polite.

Moving on, my second semi-complaint is the idea that seems to have arisen since Craigs casting that the next Bond has to be thuggish in appearance or he won't be accepted. This really drives me up the wall, with how much potential actors are swatted down with "too male model" or "too slight". So let me just say this, Bond is supposed to be attractive to women, right? He's also supposed to be quite slim and healthy looking, but certainly not stocky and buff like Craig is. Bond is not a bulldozer, and has never been that way. Even Lazenby was very refined, although much more physical in the fight scenes. And I think that conflict is essential to the character, the deadly but charming, refined but also able to get his hands dirty. For forty years there was a clear understanding that Bond needed both, and if he looks and acts like a wrecking ball, that illusion of charm and sophistication is broken and something is lost. To be fair they did get the balance right in CR, making sure to show Craig indulging in his expensive tastes, and his rich knowledge. And it did make sense that he was more of a loose cannon, this is Bond begins right? I always took that last scene to mean that Bond had actually finalmy gotten his armour on, and from that point he was the emotionally closed off, gentleman persona that we knew and loved, but then QoS opens uo, and it turns out this guys is a drunken wreck, more wrecking ball than ever before, and charming? Well what woman wouldn't melt at "I can't find the stationary", eh? Anyway my point is for forty years everyone had a clear undertstanding of who James Bond was, his basis from the books, and although they sometimes strayed from the trappings in order to tell a specific story, they never lost sight of that. Its only since Craig came on board that that image changed and now apparently the next guy needs to be lacking in the same areas, which I don't understand.

I care deeply for the franchise which meant so much for me growing up, and seemed to signify the British hero, good and bad. I hope the franchise can reclaimits former glory either with this final Craig outing, or a new Bond with BOND 26. And if not I may have to close the book on my relationship with the series, which is not done likely, and would be very sad. But no matter what, I will always hold 1962 - 2002 very close to my heart.

I need this engraved on a plaque on my wall. Excellent post @Mendes4Lyfe . You’ve spoken not only your mind but apparently mine as well.

Torgeirtrap

This is my opinion of the current era, as well. Although CR is good and QoS has it's moments, I find the Craig films a chore to watch. The way Bond is presented these days isn't for me, and more of the same post-Craig will limit my interest in future films considerably.

RC7

Each to their own. If you’re not on board with this era that’s cool, I get it.

What I do think is misguided to some degree is dividing the canon into two distinct fields, 62-02 and 06 onwards. The latter are as integral to the overall image of ‘Bond’ as the rest. I remember people saying exactly the same from 95-02. 62-89 were the golden years, whose this Brosnan chump?

If you aren’t a fan - this era has dragged on twice as long as the previous, so in that regard I have some sympathy. But it will course correct, as it always does.

I don’t think this era has tainted Bond, it’s enriched it in the way each era did previously.

Once we ‘move on’ feelings will settle and while some may still hold a grudge it’ll be just another chapter in the canon.

ShakenNotStirred

While that is true @RC7 , in 2006 it was the first time the producers decided to officially "reboot", wiping away all previously established hmm, 007 lore ;)

Big question for me is, will the next Bond actor return to the old timeline, will they continue in Craig's canon, OR hit the official reboot button for the next generation?

DewiWynBond

.

w2bond

DewiWynBond wrote: »

Skyfall is where we start.

A thousand miles and poles apart?

DewiWynBond

w2bond wrote: »

DewiWynBond wrote: »

Skyfall is where we start.

A thousand miles and poles apart?

Sorry, I should have quoted the post above mine. Y'know if a reboot occurs again, then it'd be cool to begin at Skyfall with a younger Jimmy, maybe get to see his parents, maybe the fatal accident. Or maybe not.

A chance to find a phoenix for the flame.

Univex

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Thanks bazza for out me on to this thread, a place for old school fans like me who remember the 1962 - 2002 period and remember what Bond was. Perhaps this is a marvelous opportunuty to get a few things off my chest? Firstly, I have to take issue with the idea that the classic gentleman spy Bond is no longer possible to be portrayed on the big screen. I have never understood this truism which seems quige prevalent in among Bond fans. In 2006 - 2012 I would have believed this, as back then almost EVERYTHING was turning dark and gritty. The idea of a big franchise focused on fun escapist escapades was viewed as embarassing. Even Harry Potter took a dark turn. Harry F----'in Potter, a series about a magic school. But times aren't like that anymore. One of the most recent big blockbusters was Aquaman which was one of the most goofy overblown movies in years, but it was a massive hit. When you look at MI Fallout also, it is clear that spectacle is back in and realism is not as essential. So I can't see why a Gentleman Spy, classic era style Bond could not work in this climate. It would be very different from Craig era but surely thats the point - to be distinct and set yourself apart. It just seems so apparent to me this is what the franchise is screaming out for right now, and the main thing preventing is the fact that Craig is still in the role. Sorry but his performance of the one liners in SP left a lot to be desired, and thats being very polite.

Moving on, my second semi-complaint is the idea that seems to have arisen since Craigs casting that the next Bond has to be thuggish in appearance or he won't be accepted. This really drives me up the wall, with how much potential actors are swatted down with "too male model" or "too slight". So let me just say this, Bond is supposed to be attractive to women, right? He's also supposed to be quite slim and healthy looking, but certainly not stocky and buff like Craig is. Bond is not a bulldozer, and has never been that way. Even Lazenby was very refined, although much more physical in the fight scenes. And I think that conflict is essential to the character, the deadly but charming, refined but also able to get his hands dirty. For forty years there was a clear understanding that Bond needed both, and if he looks and acts like a wrecking ball, that illusion of charm and sophistication is broken and something is lost. To be fair they did get the balance right in CR, making sure to show Craig indulging in his expensive tastes, and his rich knowledge. And it did make sense that he was more of a loose cannon, this is Bond begins right? I always took that last scene to mean that Bond had actually finalmy gotten his armour on, and from that point he was the emotionally closed off, gentleman persona that we knew and loved, but then QoS opens uo, and it turns out this guys is a drunken wreck, more wrecking ball than ever before, and charming? Well what woman wouldn't melt at "I can't find the stationary", eh? Anyway my point is for forty years everyone had a clear undertstanding of who James Bond was, his basis from the books, and although they sometimes strayed from the trappings in order to tell a specific story, they never lost sight of that. Its only since Craig came on board that that image changed and now apparently the next guy needs to be lacking in the same areas, which I don't understand.

I care deeply for the franchise which meant so much for me growing up, and seemed to signify the British hero, good and bad. I hope the franchise can reclaimits former glory either with this final Craig outing, or a new Bond with BOND 26. And if not I may have to close the book on my relationship with the series, which is not done likely, and would be very sad. But no matter what, I will always hold 1962 - 2002 very close to my heart.

I have to say I quite agree with what you said here @Mendes4Lyfe. Can't, for the life of me, understand your username, though. And your avatar, for that matter. Would've thought you would choose something more classically bondian. Very good post, @Mendes4Lyfe. Very well put.

w2bond

DewiWynBond wrote: »

w2bond wrote: »

DewiWynBond wrote: »

Skyfall is where we start.

A thousand miles and poles apart?

Sorry, I should have quoted the post above mine. Y'know if a reboot occurs again, then it'd be cool to begin at Skyfall with a younger Jimmy, maybe get to see his parents, maybe the fatal accident. Or maybe not.

A chance to find a phoenix for the flame.

Thought you were cleverly incorporating the lyrics into your reply!

Skyfall is where we start
A thousand miles and poles apart
Where worlds collide and days are dark
You may have my number, you can take my name
But you’ll never have my heart

JeremyBondon

Univex wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Thanks bazza for out me on to this thread, a place for old school fans like me who remember the 1962 - 2002 period and remember what Bond was. Perhaps this is a marvelous opportunuty to get a few things off my chest? Firstly, I have to take issue with the idea that the classic gentleman spy Bond is no longer possible to be portrayed on the big screen. I have never understood this truism which seems quige prevalent in among Bond fans. In 2006 - 2012 I would have believed this, as back then almost EVERYTHING was turning dark and gritty. The idea of a big franchise focused on fun escapist escapades was viewed as embarassing. Even Harry Potter took a dark turn. Harry F----'in Potter, a series about a magic school. But times aren't like that anymore. One of the most recent big blockbusters was Aquaman which was one of the most goofy overblown movies in years, but it was a massive hit. When you look at MI Fallout also, it is clear that spectacle is back in and realism is not as essential. So I can't see why a Gentleman Spy, classic era style Bond could not work in this climate. It would be very different from Craig era but surely thats the point - to be distinct and set yourself apart. It just seems so apparent to me this is what the franchise is screaming out for right now, and the main thing preventing is the fact that Craig is still in the role. Sorry but his performance of the one liners in SP left a lot to be desired, and thats being very polite.

Moving on, my second semi-complaint is the idea that seems to have arisen since Craigs casting that the next Bond has to be thuggish in appearance or he won't be accepted. This really drives me up the wall, with how much potential actors are swatted down with "too male model" or "too slight". So let me just say this, Bond is supposed to be attractive to women, right? He's also supposed to be quite slim and healthy looking, but certainly not stocky and buff like Craig is. Bond is not a bulldozer, and has never been that way. Even Lazenby was very refined, although much more physical in the fight scenes. And I think that conflict is essential to the character, the deadly but charming, refined but also able to get his hands dirty. For forty years there was a clear understanding that Bond needed both, and if he looks and acts like a wrecking ball, that illusion of charm and sophistication is broken and something is lost. To be fair they did get the balance right in CR, making sure to show Craig indulging in his expensive tastes, and his rich knowledge. And it did make sense that he was more of a loose cannon, this is Bond begins right? I always took that last scene to mean that Bond had actually finalmy gotten his armour on, and from that point he was the emotionally closed off, gentleman persona that we knew and loved, but then QoS opens uo, and it turns out this guys is a drunken wreck, more wrecking ball than ever before, and charming? Well what woman wouldn't melt at "I can't find the stationary", eh? Anyway my point is for forty years everyone had a clear undertstanding of who James Bond was, his basis from the books, and although they sometimes strayed from the trappings in order to tell a specific story, they never lost sight of that. Its only since Craig came on board that that image changed and now apparently the next guy needs to be lacking in the same areas, which I don't understand.

I care deeply for the franchise which meant so much for me growing up, and seemed to signify the British hero, good and bad. I hope the franchise can reclaimits former glory either with this final Craig outing, or a new Bond with BOND 26. And if not I may have to close the book on my relationship with the series, which is not done likely, and would be very sad. But no matter what, I will always hold 1962 - 2002 very close to my heart.

I have to say I quite agree with what you said here @Mendes4Lyfe. Can't, for the life of me, understand your username, though. And your avatar, for that matter. Would've thought you would choose something more classically bondian. Very good post, @Mendes4Lyfe. Very well put.

Like a lot of times, I agree with @Mendes4Lyfe and @Univex. Very well put.

Thrasos

So many great points. No, I don't think 007 will ever disappear, as long as the producers hold steady and yet adapt. I've enjoyed Craig's raw physicality and directness, and as someone said, the current Bond, scriptwriters, and perhaps producers, most likely play to that actor's strengths. In the next Bond actor I'd like to see more of what I think Roger Moore brought, the gentleman spy quality, suave with a bit of a wink (but also able to kick ass and beat the villain). I think we'll always need that bit of refinement, partly because I think there's some of that in probably every man to identify with, and partly because it's good entertainment, good counterbalance to all that's vulgar and ugly in the world. I guess that takes an actor with range--perhaps more range or natural ability than Craig has--to oscillate between these differing qualities.

Regardless of how the world may change and how Bond scripts may reflect the world's dangers and threats, I think there will always be a place in it for Bond and for the gentleman spy who's also physical and can kill. I just hope the scripts will be good enough--and daring enough, not too PC.

Much as I've enjoyed Craig, lately I've started to think that it is time for a new Bond actor, having reflected on how previous Bonds like Moore and Connery (and now Craig) had aged by their later Bond films; I've read that Fleming had Bond aged in his 30s and 40s, and I think that's ideal. I don't know yet who would make a good replacement but I'm sure he's out there, and that there'll be scripts to accentuate his abilities. So I definitely see Bond as always set apart from Bourne and MI--and see Bond as firmly British.

Oh--also, Bond's lack of respect for M in SP did not concern me, since he knew he had to keep Mexico City and Sciarra secret to get to the funeral; I thought he handled the scene with M adroitly; and later in the safe house calls him "Sir".

GoldenGun

I find myself in agreement with @Mendes4Lyfe, @Torgeirtrap, @BMW_with_missiles, @Univex and @JeremyBondon a lot these past few days.

Is it because of the MTV generation that one has to act tough and unrefined before they can be a force to be reckoned with? I like my heroes to be elegant and well-mannered. Thank you very much.

Thrasos

GoldenGun, you mention acting tough and unrefined. There was that well before the MTV generation, of course...John Wayne...even going back to Beowulf! I agree with you about the element of elegance and manners, which I see as one part of Bond, though I assume those qualities are present but not too prominent with Ian Fleming's literary character. Bond can be a killing machine, but I think I read that he also "takes pleasure where he can", which we see him do, and most of us I think can identify with doing that. I was thinking of how it would be out of place to hear Craig Bond say, as Moore Bond did in FYEO during the dinner and wine selection with Kristatos, "If you'll forgive me, that's a little too scented for my palate. I prefer the Theotaki Aspro". Maybe that's an extreme example, but it shows discernment. Connery showed that in various scenes, and so did other Bonds...maybe Craig did too sometimes though those instances don't come to mind right now, just that in SP he knows he refuses the prolytic digestive enzyme shake. I guess it's all about the balance.

w2bond

Does the Vesper martini count?