Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm sorry, what? Have you actually read, for example Dr. No? Where Bond has a fight with a giant squid, and then escapes from Dr. No's complex using the dragon-disguised swamp buggy? Casino Royale (the novel) is probably the most grounded of Fleming's Bond novels; it is also by far the most boring and there's a reason that the Bond film franchise was launched with the far superior Dr. No (they actually wanted to launch it with Thunderball, which features shark pits etc., but there were writing disputes). Most of the rest of the Fleming bond novels are as outrageous as the films - from the very second Fleming novel, Live and Let Die, we have people being fed to sharks, people smuggling gold dubloons, a villain called Mr. BIG, and an evil villain organization named SMERSH. Hell, let's quote the Times Literary Review opinion of Live and Let Die: ""Mr. Fleming works often on the edge of flippancy, rather in the spirit of a highbrow", right back from its 1954 release. Besides, even if it was the case that novel Bond has a serious tone, which I heavily, heavily dispute, that's certainly not the case of the films, which have never been afraid to deviate from the novels in the first place, and have maintained their own tone.

You remind me of those bizarre people who insist that ASM is better than SM2 because Peter Parker is truer to the comic book version. Nobody gives a shit about the comic book version because ASM was terrible and SM2 wasn't.

SMERSH is a real thing.

And Live and Let Die, despite some flamboyant elements, isn't that ungrounded. I'd say that the first novel to really get to silly levels is Goldfinger and stealing all the gold in Fort Knox Pussy Galore, Jack Strap et al, that's quite a ways in.

You could make a case for Moonraker and the plot to nuke London, but the way it's handled it's that cartoonish.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The era of Airplane, Monty Python and goofy Bond movies which is a mix of Austin Power's over the top insanity and Bond's love of gadgets, is luckily over.

There is no way in the world that a movie like Dr. No would hit with the general audience this day and age.

If you thought Casino Royale was a boring movie you must really dislike a lot of great movies. I am glad you are not in the directing seat of the Bond movies. What a travesty that would have been.

I thought Casino Royale was an entertaining spy film. It's just not what I want from a Bond film in the slightest, and I'd rather they just used a different franchise or some such. Imagine one of your favourite game series that isn't an FPS suddenly being made into an FPS. It might be an absolutely incredible FPS... but that's not really why you were into that particular franchise to begin with, and you'd probably rather they'd just made a new IP.

If you're saying "it's really lucky that we got Casino Royale so we can't get films like Dr. No, Thunderball, and Goldfinger any more" when Dr. No was the first film in the franchise, and really defined what Bond was, and Thunderball and Goldfinger entrenched themselves as classics of the Bond franchise... I question whether you really liked Bond at all, and perhaps maybe you only like it's Jason Bourne phase.

You seem to think it wouldn't be a hit, but Kingsman was a big hit coming out of nowhere with absolutely no brand loyalty. The demand is there, and a well-written Bond film in the line of the classics would do very well, I think.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

SMERSH is a real thing.

That doesn't mean it doesn't sound silly.

 

[Wind's Howling]

I thought Casino Royale was an entertaining spy film. It's just not what I want from a Bond film in the slightest, and I'd rather they just used a different franchise or some such. Imagine one of your favourite game series that isn't an FPS suddenly being made into an FPS. It might be an absolutely incredible FPS... but that's not really why you were into that particular franchise to begin with, and you'd probably rather they'd just made a new IP.

If you're saying "it's really lucky that we got Casino Royale so we can't get films like Dr. No, Thunderball, and Goldfinger any more" when Dr. No was the first film in the franchise, and really defined what Bond was, and Thunderball and Goldfinger entrenched themselves as classics of the Bond franchise... I question whether you really liked Bond at all, and perhaps maybe you only like it's Jason Bourne phase.

I have always been an average James Bond fan. I liked the movies but were never fanatical of them, especially not of the Roger Moore one's whom were so over the top that I never understood the love James Bond ever got.

I think you are lingering on your nostalgic taste of the 70's Bond because releasing those type of movies in this day and age would absolutely destroy the franchise completely.

Different generations prefer different movie tastes. These Bond movies need to cater towards the 20-30-40 masses, and a sense of realism is what the average movie goer craves.

But saying that Casino Royale sucks? Come on now. Bond is more than just robot sharks and villians with metallic teeth. Bond has suave, gets all the girls and drives in amazing cars. That has always been present, they just lost the unrealistic stuff.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have always been an average James Bond fan. I liked the movies but were never fanatical of them, especially not of the Roger Moore one's whom were so over the top that I never understood the love James Bond ever got.

I think you are lingering on your nostalgic taste of the 70's Bond because releasing those type of movies in this day and age would absolutely destroy the franchise completely.

Different generations prefer different movie tastes. These Bond movies need to cater towards the 20-30-40 masses, and a sense of realism is what the average movie goer craves.

But saying that Casino Royale sucks? Come on now. Bond is more than just robot sharks and villians with metallic teeth. Bond has suave, gets all the girls and drives in amazing cars. That has always been present, they just lost the unrealistic stuff.

I think there's a fine line to be had between "over-the-top" and "goofy", and it is difficult to describe because it's difficult to do. The Connery Bond films were definitely over-the-top, whereas the Moore Bond films occasionally veered into goofy. I don't think the difference is premised on realism - both the Connery and Moore films were pretty much equally grounded, which is to say, not very - but rather, on the attitude the films have to their over the top parts. Brosnan goes full goofy in his last three films, for obvious reasons, and I sort of appreciate Casino Royale as a backlash to that. The more grounded format did help reduce the perception of goof factor, and it could do that will at least being couched in Bond terms via the Casino Royale novel. I don't see Casino Royale as the natural future of the series, and think that if anything, Skyfall was a valuable step back towards what Bond should be.

Given that Skyfall grossed much higher than Casino Royale, it doesn't seem like audiences disagree.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The Connery Bond films were definitely over-the-top, whereas the Moore Bond films occasionally veered into goofy.

Dr. No & From Russia weren't over the top. Goldfinger, Thunderball & You Only Live Twice were over the top. Diamonds wasn't goofy, it was just dumb and lazy and tired.

Outside of Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, "Goofy" is where Moore lived at all times.

 

[Blader]

I think there's a fine line to be had between "over-the-top" and "goofy", and it is difficult to describe because it's difficult to do. The Connery Bond films were definitely over-the-top, whereas the Moore Bond films occasionally veered into goofy. I don't think the difference is premised on realism - both the Connery and Moore films were pretty much equally grounded, which is to say, not very - but rather, on the attitude the films have to their over the top parts. Brosnan goes full goofy in his last three films, for obvious reasons, and I sort of appreciate Casino Royale as a backlash to that. The more grounded format did help reduce the perception of goof factor, and it could do that will at least being couched in Bond terms via the Casino Royale novel. I don't see Casino Royale as the natural future of the series, and think that if anything, Skyfall was a valuable step back towards what Bond should be.

Given that Skyfall grossed much higher than Casino Royale, it doesn't seem like audiences disagree.

lol, occasionally? Moore's Bond films were perpetually goofy, except maybe For Your Eyes Only, which was still ridiculous anyway.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Dr. No & From Russia weren't over the top. Goldfinger, Thunderball & You Only Live Twice were over the top. Diamonds wasn't goofy, it was just dumb and lazy and tired.

Outside of Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, "Goofy" is where Moore lived at all times.

Dr. No was definitely over the top. I'd agree with you on Diamonds. I wouldn't say Moore was goofy at all times - there are goofy parts in almost every film, but there are also large portions played straight. Quite erratic.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If "goofy" is tone, then most of Moore, sure. Constant quips and quirky characters like Sherriff Pepper.

If it's a reference to how unrealistic, Moore isn't an ungrounded as you might think.

LALD only has a magnetic watch, fairly tame, and a henchman with a prosthetic arm. The plot involves drug smuggling, not exactly unrealistic.

TMWTGG only has the car/plane thing.

FYEO is free from goofiness in tone and is fairly grounded.

TSWLM has the Lotus, otherwise nothing too crazy.

On the other side:
Moonraker had lasers, Bond in space, and a race of Perfect Beings being bred for space colonization. Now THAT'S goofy.

VTAK is about a plot to flood Silicon Valley to corner the microchip market (what?!). THAT'S goofy. It's also a rehash of Goldfinger, with SV standing in for Fort Knox.

I barely remember Octopussy. Nuclear terror threat to re-start the cold war? Whatever, it had Bond in Clown makeup. Goofy.

 

[inm8num2]

Bond looks like he's getting ready to do Blue Steel in that new poster.

 

[DOWN]

Official teaser poster:

He is looking fresher than the Skyfall early media.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Pretty boring poster. I'm not keen on the 'SPECTRE' font either.

 

[privitsan02]

How do you guys think it'll do at box office? Seeing as Skyfall did a Billion, is it safe to assume 800m +?

 

[rude]

Casino Royale did a remarkable job of repairing the trajectory of Bond into something resembling an actual movie with character and stakes, grounding it for modern sensibilities. Quantum of Solace went too far in that modern grounding direction and turned it into a rather poor imitation of Bourne. Skyfall is The Dark Knight to Casino Royale's Batman Begins, a Half Blood Prince like evolution for the series.

I don't get this comparison whatsoever. Other than that Casino Royale/Batman Begins are better films than Skyfall/The Dark Knight.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Connery films definitely get campy in places.

VTAK is about a plot to flood Silicon Valley to corner the microchip market (what?!). THAT'S goofy. It's also a rehash of Goldfinger, with SV standing in for Fort Knox.

My favorite critique of the villain's plot here comes from Roger Ebert.

And yeah they've rehashed their villain plots several times. The other main one is You Only Live Twice being rehashed in The Spy Who Loved Me (Soviet + Western things get hijacked, plot to provoke war between the superpowers). Then one aspect of the Villain's plan (to rebuild the world after destroying it) is recycled shortly after that with Moonraker. I feel like there are a bunch of "hold the world ransom" plots but I can't actually think of one off the top of my head other than OHMSS. The World is Not Enough features a plot to blow up some oil pipelines to get a near monopoly on stuff, so that's another Goldfinger style plot there too. And TND has going to war to get a monopoly on media coverage on a war for a satellite news network, which is honestly one of the dumbest plots they ever produced.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

How do you guys think it'll do at box office? Seeing as Skyfall did a Billion, is it safe to assume 800m +?

I think so long as the movie is generally well recieved and not considered to be disappointing, another billion is plausible.

Really depends on how they sell it. Skyfall was marketed VERY well.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I think there's a future where Bond goes back to a more comedic and outlandish style, but it would be best done when Craig's films are done. Kingsman showed that there is a way to make that style of spy film work really well, so I'd welcome it, but again, best served for the next reboot.

 

[Jigorath]

I think so long as the movie is generally well recieved and not considered to be disappointing, another billion is plausible.

Really depends on how they sell it. Skyfall was marketed VERY well.

It also had the 50 years of Bond and the Adele song. Might be hard to replicate the same level of hype Skyfall had. I could see it ending up around 900m WW.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

By the by, does anybody think they should start doing the "Bond as title" thing when Craig retires? It would be as good an opportunity as they will ever get to do that.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

By the by, does anybody think they should start doing the "Bond as title" thing when Craig retires? It would be as good an opportunity as they will ever get to do that.

I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm not sure what you mean?

The old fan theory was that James Bond was a title passed from person to person. It doesn't really work with the old movies and Craig in Skyfall gave us evidence that his bond was literally born with that name. However when he finishes his stint as Bond, they do have the possibility of doing the Bond-as-Title thing, with another MI6 agent taking over as "James Bond", canonically.

It's not a major thing, but I was wondering if they might want to try it to avoid creating another weird floating timeline with ageless characters.

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

Official teaser poster:

Is he wearing a hair piece? I feel like his natural hairline hasn't been like this since Casino Royale

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The old fan theory was that James Bond was a title passed from person to person. It doesn't really work with the old movies and Craig in Skyfall gave us evidence that his bond was literally born with that name. However when he finishes his stint as Bond, they do have the possibility of doing the Bond-as-Title thing, with another MI6 agent taking over as "James Bond", canonically.

It's not a major thing, but I was wondering if they might want to try it to avoid creating another weird floating timeline with ageless characters.

AH! Yeah, I get you now, sorry!

I do think it's back in play. It obviously doesn't fit pre-reboot - all those actors are definitely playing the same character with a shared history. But they specifically allowed for the codename to be a possibility in Skyfall while simultaneously shutting down the possibility this Bond IS a codename. Basically - this James Bond is James Bond, full stop. That's his real name, he's never had another.

BUT:

Silva is not Silva's real name, and he operated as a double-o with that pseudonym the entire time, and even kept it after leaving MI6. So there's now an in-universe example of 00's using codenames throughout their career in-service. It's possible they can now set up the idea that the codename can be passed onto any new 00's who inherit that number.

Whether they want to or not is completely different - but I feel like if they're looking to cast Idris Elba, codename theory is in play. Hell, you could possibly have a torch-passing moment where Elba actually works with Bond before assuming his name at the end of the movie (either via Bond's death or Bond retiring finally)

 

[Gaz_RB]

Poster in Russia

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

AH! Yeah, I get you now, sorry!

I do think it's back in play. It obviously doesn't fit pre-reboot - all those actors are definitely playing the same character with a shared history. But they specifically allowed for the codename to be a possibility in Skyfall while simultaneously shutting down the possibility this Bond IS a codename. Basically - this James Bond is James Bond, full stop. That's his real name, he's never had another.

BUT:

Silva is not Silva's real name, and he operated as a double-o with that pseudonym the entire time, and even kept it after leaving MI6. So there's now an in-universe example of 00's using codenames throughout their career in-service. It's possible they can now set up the idea that the codename can be passed onto any new 00's who inherit that number.

Whether they want to or not is completely different - but I feel like if they're looking to cast Idris Elba, codename theory is in play. Hell, you could possibly have a torch-passing moment where Elba actually works with Bond before assuming his name at the end of the movie (either via Bond's death or Bond retiring finally)

I'm imagining it could go something like this-

Bond does serious damage to spectre/quantum/smersh/whatever organization in Spectre. In the sequel films it's now personal and they are out for his blood (assuming they already aren't, idk). The plot involves MI6 getting another agent to assume his persona and do some prototypical James Bond things to help draw them out of hiding while Craig continues the hunt behind the scenes. Craig and the new agent end up working closely together and get into some crazy action scenes and they build up a mutual respect for one another. At the end of the movie Craig, who is on his 5th outing and is now past his prime, either fakes his death, or actually gets killed, or just straight up retires (doesn't really matter).

 

[Mix Master]

Skyfall >>> CR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (etc, etc) >>>>>>>>> QoS.

#truthfact

Exactly, i dont know why SkyFall get such a bad rap. it seemed like a love song to the Bond franchise, people act like the film slapped their mother around for 2 hours.

 

[AuthenticM]

I'm imagining it could go something like this-

Bond does serious damage to spectre/quantum/smersh/whatever organization in Spectre. In the sequel films it's now personal and they are out for his blood (assuming they already aren't, idk). The plot involves MI6 getting another agent to assume his persona and do some prototypical James Bond things to help draw them out of hiding while Craig continues the hunt behind the scenes. Craig and the new agent end up working closely together and get into some crazy action scenes and they build up a mutual respect for one another. At the end of the movie Craig, who is on his 5th outing and is now past his prime, either fakes his death, or actually gets killed, or just straight up retires (doesn't really matter).

Craig gets killed. Cut to a scene very similar to the epilogue of Casino Royale in tone and style, with the camera panning up to a standing Idris Elba saying "My name is Bond, James Bond."

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Idris is only a couple of years younger than Craig, and will be close to Craig's current age by the time Craig has done his 5th film. He would be almost at Craig's retirement age by the time he got his own first movie. Doesn't seem like a probable choice. They probably want another mid-late 30's actor to replace him.

 

[Metallix87]

The problem with the "James Bond as a code name" concept is that all the villains know the name James Bond. Why give someone a code name that all the baddies know screams "British secret agent"?

Idris is only a couple of years younger than Craig, and will be close to Craig's current age by the time Craig has done his 5th film. He would be almost at Craig's retirement age by the time he got his own first movie. Doesn't seem like a probable choice. They probably want another mid-late 30's actor to replace him.

Tom Hardy is James Bond?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The problem with the "James Bond as a code name" concept is that all the villains know the name James Bond. Why give someone a code name that all the baddies know screams "British secret agent"?

Bond also uses other code names and pseudonyms in various films. It's certainly stupid when he is portrayed as "the world's most famous secret agent" though.

Tom Hardy is James Bond?

I think it's time Australia had another crack at Bond actually.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Do we really want regeneration scenes in Bond films? The way the transition of the M role was handled in Skyfall was tortuous enough.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If you're asking if we want the James-Bond-as-Timelord theory to be made canonical, the answer is YES

 

[Metallix87]

Bond also uses other code names and pseudonyms in various films. It's certainly stupid when he is portrayed as "the world's most famous secret agent" though.

Indeed. There's just no way to logically make it work. It has to be the same individual. Now, they can reboot again and again, but that's nonsensical. I actually think, for those fans of Idris Elba as Bond, that they should cast him as Felix Leiter, and give him his own spin-off series. Definitely could be another money maker with the proper marketing.

I think it's time Australia had another crack at Bond actually.

Heck yeah, and I think Hardy has a pretty good look for Bond.

 

[kyser73]

I really, really don't like the Moore films. Not because they're goofy and haven't aged well, but because RM just simply isn't dynamic enough to pass for a superspy. Connery, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all have a credible physicality about them that you at least sort of believe they'd be handy in a fight.

Moore though...no. He's great in the casino/yacht type scenes when there isn't much going on, but as soon as the fighting and running start...nah.

I agree with QoS not being all that, but CR and Skyfall are now two of my favourite Bond movies, and I rate Craig up with Connery.

 

[DOWN]

I don't like the Bond as title theory.

I'm happy with its treatment as a mythology universe. Some histories are kept, some are not, the portrayals don't have to be identical, etc.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I have a major soft spot for Dalton, I think he might be my favorite and I'm cut up that he didn't get a third movie.

 

[AuthenticM]

Idris is only a couple of years younger than Craig, and will be close to Craig's current age by the time Craig has done his 5th film. He would be almost at Craig's retirement age by the time he got his own first movie. Doesn't seem like a probable choice. They probably want another mid-late 30's actor to replace him.

True, but he doesn't look that old. And maybe Sony would be interested in doing an older and more grizzled James Bond.

In any case, I would be very pleased to see Elba as Bond. The motherfucker is suave as shit.

 

[DOWN]

True, but he doesn't look that old. And maybe Sony would be interested in doing an older and more grizzled James Bond.

In any case, I would be very pleased to see Elba as Bond. The motherfucker is suave as shit.

Not that they'd go for it, but I'd totally take a standalone entry with him

 

[HuskerDutheDu]

I don't like the Bond as title theory.

I'm happy with its treatment as a mythology universe. Some histories are kept, some are not, the portrayals don't have to be identical, etc.

Me either. Because Bond's murdered wife is references throughout the series, by at least three different Bonds I think (that's assuming the Connery Bond killing "Blofeld" is Tracy related). Did Brosnan Bond ever reference it? I'm trying to remember. If so, that's every Bond having a relationship with Tracy, outside of Craig, which presumably happens before the marriage?

 

[Metallix87]

Me either. Because Bond's murdered wife is references throughout the series, by at least three different Bonds I think (that's assuming the Connery Bond killing "Blofeld" is Tracy related). Did Brosnan Bond ever reference it? I'm trying to remember. If so, that's every Bond having a relationship with Tracy, outside of Craig, which presumably happens before the marriage?

Alluded to in GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough, but never outright referenced.

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

Exactly, i dont know why SkyFall get such a bad rap. it seemed like a love song to the Bond franchise, people act like the film slapped their mother around for 2 hours.

Only GAF hates Skyfall.

 

[Blader]

I really, really don't like the Moore films. Not because they're goofy and haven't aged well, but because RM just simply isn't dynamic enough to pass for a superspy. Connery, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all have a credible physicality about them that you at least sort of believe they'd be handy in a fight.

Moore though...no. He's great in the casino/yacht type scenes when there isn't much going on, but as soon as the fighting and running start...nah.

I agree with QoS not being all that, but CR and Skyfall are now two of my favourite Bond movies, and I rate Craig up with Connery.

This is also my biggest problem with Moore's run. As bad as the movies themselves are, Moore himself is the worst thing about them. He's just extremely miscast for the role.

Me either. Because Bond's murdered wife is references throughout the series, by at least three different Bonds I think (that's assuming the Connery Bond killing "Blofeld" is Tracy related). Did Brosnan Bond ever reference it? I'm trying to remember. If so, that's every Bond having a relationship with Tracy, outside of Craig, which presumably happens before the marriage?

Craig's Bond is a reboot, it's a completely separate continuity.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Idris is only a couple of years younger than Craig, and will be close to Craig's current age by the time Craig has done his 5th film. He would be almost at Craig's retirement age by the time he got his own first movie. Doesn't seem like a probable choice. They probably want another mid-late 30's actor to replace him.

I agree - although there's precedent: Moore was actually OLDER than Connery when he took over.

But you're right in that Elba's probably not the dude. But the fact they were considering him, and the fact this is absolutely a reboot of the character, a reboot that's put a much higher priority on inter-film continuity than the series ever really has, tells me they were at least considering, at some point, the possibility of making "James Bond" a legacy character, for lack of a better term.

 

[trinest]

Multi bond can still work.

Introduce a conspiracy that all Bonds basically where taken away from their parents and grew up in the country house by old bud. Basically the alias started from birth.

Bring in a new younger hipper bond which would of left before skyfall and introduce him then at the end have M approve a new Bond program and have them steal a baby and give it to another old dude to look after.

 

[Metallix87]

Multi bond can still work.

Introduce a conspiracy that all Bonds basically where taken away from their parents and grew up in the country house by old bud. Basically the alias started from birth.

Bring in a new younger hipper bond which would of left before skyfall and introduce him then at the end have M approve a new Bond program and have them steal a baby and give it to another old dude to look after.

Dear God, this sounds awful.

 

[trinest]

Dear God, this sounds awful.

When I say that I mean someone much younger and more green.

 

[Metallix87]

When I say that I mean someone much younger and more green.

The whole thing sounds awful, that was just the worst part.

The formula works fine as it is.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Dear God, this sounds awful.

Yeah, and then Casino Royale happened.

The formula works fine as it is.

It apparently doesn't, hence EON rebooting it.

Codename Theory isn't impossible. It's not even particularly hard to implement. Especially now that we've got a new Bond with none of the ties to previous stories. He's got his own origin, his own continuity - you can insert it in relatively easy right now.

If they don't do it in the transition from Craig to whoever's next, then it likely won't happen at all.

 

[Metallix87]

Yeah, and then Casino Royale happened.

"Casino Royale" was not a younger, hipper Bond. If anything, it was drawing away from the elements brought to the character by Moore and Brosnan, and aiming to be more like Dalton's Bond and, to a lesser extent, Connery's Bond.

It apparently doesn't, hence EON rebooting it.

And yet the EON reboot has been about modernization of the formula, not abandoning it.

Codename Theory isn't impossible. It's not even particularly hard to implement. Especially now that we've got a new Bond with none of the ties to previous stories. He's got his own origin, his own continuity - you can insert it in relatively easy right now.

If they don't do it in the transition from Craig to whoever's next, then it likely won't happen at all.

Again, why give him a codename that all the villains know? This reboot series has been about pushing realism to some degree into the established formula. Making a known spy name into a code name would be illogical. There is only one James Bond, barring another reboot.

 

[HuskerDutheDu]

Craig's Bond is a reboot, it's a completely separate continuity.

Has EON said throw out everything non-Craig? Because every new bond is kind of a reboot.