Home › Bond Movies › Skyfall
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
I Think Bond as We Know It is Over
Let me explain. I don't want this to be a negative discussion where everyone complains and argues. What I mean by the title is that I have this feeling the producers/writers/everyone involved with Bond these days has no intention to returning to elements of the franchise that have passed. It was something I think Bardem said in a interview about having read the script and what his potential part might be, something about "they are changing everything" or it's different or something to that effect, the way his villian would work in Bond.
I think Moneypenny is gone. So is Q, so are any gadgets, whatever we think of as being integrel to Bond. It's gone. It won't return. They used it up and dried it out during Brosnan's tenure and that's that. I don't know what it is but I get the feeling this is the future of the franchise and I don't know what it means. I don't know how I feel. Part of me is glad because we needed to purge some of the annoying cliche moments and both CR and QoS were a breath of much needed fresh air.
But how far is too far? How much of the familiar elements can they strip away before Bond ceases to be Bond? Thoughts?
I think Moneypenny is gone. So is Q, so are any gadgets, whatever we think of as being integrel to Bond. It's gone. It won't return. They used it up and dried it out during Brosnan's tenure and that's that. I don't know what it is but I get the feeling this is the future of the franchise and I don't know what it means. I don't know how I feel. Part of me is glad because we needed to purge some of the annoying cliche moments and both CR and QoS were a breath of much needed fresh air.
But how far is too far? How much of the familiar elements can they strip away before Bond ceases to be Bond? Thoughts?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But that Bardem quote is really stating nothing new at this point... it's obvious in both CR and QOS, that the tone of the Bond films have changed - drastically if you look at the recent Brosnan era... I think Bardem is reinforcing the fact that the producers seem to be more inclined to actually write fleshed out people in these films, rather than simple 2 dimensional caricatures... i think it also means that these villains aren't so "black and white" - there are elements to them that make them more human - again, more fleshed out... and also keeping things more grounded into a traditional action thriller type of movie, rather than an overblown CGI action extravaganza..
Michael and Babs have not denied nor confirmed reintroducing Moneypenny and Q... you have to remember, these last 2 films - were more about Bond the person, and exploring his character more than anything else.. now that we got his character pretty much reestablished, i think you'll start to see some more familiar elements creep back in..
As to the topic at hand, what is a traditional Bond film anymore? The Bond series has changed significantly over the years. The Bond films of the 70s bore little resemblance to the Bond films of the early 60s (the difference between FRWL and MR is about as far apart as you can get).
That stuff is over.
I've had enough of Bond begins and revenge.
by Q, getting his mission briefing in M's office, drinking martinis that are
shaken, not stirred, wearing a tux and gambling, etc
You are correct to a point @The_Reaper but we must try to avoid Bond being stuck in cliche land.
For a start Bond din't wear a tux in YOLT, nor did he in LALD. He barely ever gambled in Roger Moore's time (or let's say he did so in about 2 films).
Q wasn't the man we knew until GF and didn't appear at all in LALD.
So from these 'important' elements Daniel Craig has already worn a tux twice in two films, gambled like a good un in CR, and drank martinis like a lush.
I do see your point, but these elements of Bond films became a bit predictable and 'by numbers' in the Brosnan era. Some of them need to be rested, or shook up a little.
Bond will take a step back in the future, and re-live those lovely moments when he flirts with Penny and picks up his jet pack or whatever, but for now it's good to rest them a while. Bond needs to change just a little.
As for the future of the franchise, I do not know if I will want to watch Bond films without the traditions. I may be nostalgic, but what makes me love Bond more than other spy/action films, is precisely these elements. Without them, Bond films will be mundane, ordinary. 'James Bond', for me, is FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, FYEO, OP TLD, LTK. From 1995 onwards, I feel watching a pastiche of Bond (1995-2002), and 'Bond films' by name only (2006-2008).
But yeah, not to sound morbid, but I'm preparing myself to click on the news one day and hearing about the passing of Moore, or Connery.... it's very sad to think about :(
Who knows about Moneypenny and Q. I have said in other threads that I really don't care if we see them or not. MP and Boothroyd were very minor characters in Fleming's books, the reason people love them so much was because of Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn. Neither Bliss, Bond or Cleese were able to bring back that chemistry to those characters. I say let them rest.
The Whole "Traditional 23" means as before the out fitting etc. But there will be Q he won't have cars that turn into submarines with remote controls, We'll get something like the apache case, more down to earth. Why can't there be a money penny flirt? we will but it'll be tailored for Craig. the reason we had the striped down last 2 was because after DAD EON couldn't go down that road any longer it would be back to MR. We will see our favorites again, Hey we might even see blofeld, Just wait just under 247 days to go
it was posted on this website not more than a year ago..
As I said earlier, what is "the traditional Bond"? The Bond film series has gone through many incarnations and changes over the last 50 years. The Bond films of the early 60s and the late 70s could not be more different.
Technically, technically speaking, Bond didn't wear a tux in From Russia With Love, either. Bond's double did. But not Bond.
I believe that everyone has a different opinion as to what makes Bond traditional. I for example, have always thought it was about the man himself and the gun in his hand. The rest is just window dressing.
I think everyone has a different opinion to me so therefore, as long as that is the case, Bond will never be over!
After giving it some thought, what is Traditional Bond? - each actor brings his own portrayal to the character - so none of them are really carbon copies - and with them usually comes a change in style tone...
the change in style is almost a direct reflection on the current state of our world and social environment...
Most of the elements you are mourning the loss of are in actual fact present - Q and MP aside, who are largely creations of the film series rather than Fleming, though I wouldn't bet against their re-appearance in future movies - in the recent movies.
I think what you are really missing is the Moore/Brosnan approach?
Basically Bond is all about where he is at any given moment in time. Bond is always about a smart, knowledgeable, tough British agent who takes on the bad guys, drinks a little, gambles a little and pulls the women with ease. And as @Mr_Sterling so succinctly put it 'the rest is window dressing'
What made QoS a Bond film?
Why?
Well, because the answer is different for each and every one of us. that's the beauty of having a series that is as dynamic such as this. Elements come, go, and return. It all depends on what the mood of the world seems to be.
Something very bold was done for CR and QoS, but it worked out well. We were showed that a good Bond story does not depend on Q, Moneypenny, or "Bond James Bond."
It doesn't mean they won't come back. At least now we know that they don't have to be there every time just for the fun of it. We're going to start appreciating those small little scenes a little more when they appear. They won't feel forced anymore.
It's going to be very refreshing. You took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.
Of course, I'd love to see Q & MP come back, but NOT like they were in the Brosnan-era and NOT just for the sake of pleasing "teh fans".
And think of this:
Compare FRWL with DAF...
Compare DR No with DAD...
Compare CR with YOLT...
;-)