ADD BANKRUPTCY TO THE LIST OF VILLAINS BOND HAS THWARTED - Page 2

One's British and has the James Bond theme playing in it. Boom.

If you can't see the differences between the characters of James Bond and Jason Bourne I'm not surprised you need Q, M and the gang to let you know what film you're watching.

The counter argument is at what point does he cease being "James Bond"? Why have the theme music? Why have the 007 status? Etc. It becomes an exercise in reduction.

I'm not making that argument though, I'm comfortable where we are.

Fleming's Bond didn't have gadgets - like, at all - and Moneypenny was a much smaller character. In that regard, I like how Craig's Bond is free of that stuff for the first time since From Russia With Love.

Fleming's Bond would absolutely throw a tantrum about a hotel not being good enough, and is an unrepentant alcoholic. In those respects, QoS rang "true", even if it was a weaker film entry. I'd like this slightly less polished Bond for maybe one more film.

James Bond is James Bond because he's a womanising, arrogant old-Empire prick who is nevertheless excellent at his job and looks great in a suit. He's not James Bond because of the natty theme music or his gunbarrel pose. People mistake these warm and comfortable conventions for substance, when all they are is crutches that the franchise looks likely to fall back on. If Abrams can make STAR TREK II without Khan I don't see why a 21st century Bond needs to waste fifteen to twenty minutes each film saying the same thing to the same characters over and over again.

I think most of the backlash is simply due to QOS but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a bit extreme. There's no need to REINVENT it once again just because of one lackluster entry.

You guys keep bringing up Flemming's Bond, which is frankly irrelevant as far as the public is concerned. No one cares about that guy. That isn't who James Bond is to them. The fact that Craig's Bond is successful has far more to do with the "tyranny of realism" than it does to fealty to the source material. People wanted a realistic, gritty Bond, it just so happens that it is closer to Flemming's version.


Keep in mind, I'm with you guys on this, just playing Devil's Advocate.

Yeah, that's more of a personal perk, but I do think there's something to the fact that Fleming's Bond was pretty goddamn popular, before there were Bond movies. And so many of the movie's famous tropes (one-liners and such) have since been co-opted by Arnold, Bruce Willis, etc., to the point that they really can't go back that way without it feeling cheesy.

I don't think it's "tyranny" to swing to the more realistic, coming as it did just one film after the one with the invisible car and the plastic surgery to de-Asian-ize the villain. The franchise has been doing that back and forth thing for a while.

Enough time should have passed for MI6 to have redesigned their decor at least 5 times. looking forward to seeing what it looks like in the next Craig film.

I don't argue that Bond should be campy or silly again. I like the direction of the current Bond, and the down to earth threats he faces. As I stated when I said I'd support Q coming back.. I want him to come back, as long as he is not offering outlandish gadgets. You can give Bond a realistic gadget, and have it given to him by a guy named Q

Bond's best car of all time, the Aston Martin from GOLDFINGER, had some features that would feel at home in Craig's films: rotating lincense plates, spikes to puncuture tires. Brosnan's TND had a car with bullet proof glass that was used to exciting effect in a chase.

All those things would fit in Craigs Bond without signifigantly altering the tone

And PS: QOS had no Bond music, execpet over the end credits

I'm not asking for the series to revert back to the campy years that relied on gimmicks and conventions, I'm just asking for a lighter entry for Craig. My idea of a lighter entry is something more like the early Connery films when the focus was still on the characters and story yet still knew how to have fun, very much like Fleming's novels. With Bond 23 taking place four years after QOS I like to think that Craig's character has losen up a bit but not too far away from what he established. He's still got his edge but he's far more comfortable than he was in the first two pictures, especially QOS.

When I think about bringing back Q, the character I'm thinking of is the one from Dr. No and From Russia with Love. In those two he's just Major Boothroyd and Q Branch isn't a section devoted to insane gadgets but is a division that equips agents with weapons (this is how he got the PPK) and other suitable items. The closest thing to a gadget is a briefcase with hidden items like knives. Have items that are practicle and realistic (like pen with a homer) that would fit in with Craig's films, not laser beams in watches.

Just because the Brosnan films handled everything wrong with the old conventions doesn't mean it can't be done properly again. For example one thing they did wrong was the one-liners. They actually had them scripted unlike the early films where Connery and Terence Young actually came up with them on the set and if they worked they'd keep it, if not it was cut (this is how Forster handled the "My name is Bond, James Bond" signature line various scenes and didn't use any of them because they didn't work in the scenes). My favorite is when he's dancing with Volpe in TB, uses her as a human shield to a bullet, then places her corpse near a table full of people "mind if she sits this one out? She's just dead!" That's the kind of dark humor that's been lost since the Connery era. For some reason since then the producers thought it was mere puns that did it for audiences.

Mr. Stockslivevan, I definitely want the cooler gadgets to return. My all time fave Bond Vehicle is his...Lotus Submersible. I want Q to come up with outlandish gadgets. Not invisible cars, but, heavilly armed ones, with missiles, gatling guns etc. If a more realistic Batman can have all his tech, including a BaTmobile, that unleashes a hidden Batbike, than so can Bond.

I'd like the gadgets if they had to be there to be useful, not having the script written around them. I don't want to say "well what were the chances he needed that and that circumstance happened to umm happen"

Like the pen grenade from GoldenEye was multipurpose. Having a rocketpack just outside a balcony in Thunderball, while cool, seemed superfluous.

I mean Connery just needed to place a hair on a door to know if someone adjusted it, not a laser system of sorts.

Craig seems to have everything he needs with him, and even his car, while it doesn't need Batmobile level tech, Casino Royale had it best, where it could conceal a gun and have a first aid kit because those are things he could very possibly use.

Also something maybe I might be blowing out of proportion, were the racing seats in the car. Made me think, did MI6 just confiscate the car and made a few mods to hide a few things?

I'm glad we are going to get another Bond movie with Daniel Craig...I was concerned that he may pull a Timothy Dalton and gives us only two movies as 007.

Another Craig movie would be great. I don't want them to look for another Bond anytime soon. Just don't wear the guy out with back-to-back shoots.

Casino Royale wasn't great because they stripped out Q and Moneypenny and what have you. It was great because they told a smart, character-based story with great action sequences, and didn't go over the top into goofy camp like...most of the James Bond movies since OHMSS. There's nothing inherent to Q et al. that conflicts with that, it's just that those elements were handled pretty terribly during the Brosnan years. But Casino Royale still featured Judy Dench's M, a villain with a comic booky affectation, and so on. It even sort of had gadgets, albeit far more plausible ones, with the medkit in the car.

I don't actually need Q, etc. to be in there, but the thing is, the last two entries have indeed skimmed too close to "generic spy movie", especially the last one. The lack of the distinctive elements of the franchise may indeed have been one of the problems with QoS. Calling them "crutches" is like saying "all you need for a Star Wars movie is Luke Skywalker, right? You don't need Han or Darth Vader, and the movie doesn't have to be set in space." They're part of the franchise, and what makes Bond stand out from various other, far more forgettable action movies. If you can make a good Bond movie without them, cool, but Bond isn't about realism, no matter how plausible it gets. It's about iconography, character, and to a certain extent, wish fulfillment. Scaling back the absurdities was necessary, but it is possible to go too far in that direction. Casino Royale was serious and intense, but it was still fun. QoS wasn't. Bond needs to be fun.

I would like to see Q branch brought back, just for the banter between Bond and Q. I can see David Tennent, Anthony Stewart Head, or keep John Cleese. This way the movie can have some humor without over doing it. I don't hate the gadgets, but I prefer when Bond is in a jam and thinks of a way out of it. FYEO is a good example. When he is climbing up the cliff and being pulled across the coral reef for instance.

But dropping Q and Moneypenny was never done in the name of making the franchise "plausible"; it was a very deliberate set of signifiers designed to let the audience know that the filmmakers weren't going to give you the stale formula again. When and if they come up with a fun way to introduce them, swell. I don't miss them, though.

And QoS didn't work, but cramming the conventions of the franchise in there wasn't going to help in that regard. Sticking the gunbarrel shot at the front of QoS doesn't make QoS a better movie. Although some knucklehead out there with Final Cut no doubt gave it a try.