Rebooting Bond

eviltimeban

If Daniel Craig does, say, one more Bond movie, it will most likely be a big hit, a la Skyfall. But what then? Where to go from there? I can see him quitting at that point so a new Bond would have to be found.

Not only a new Bond, but a new approach. Today William Boyd has said he would choose Daniel Day-Lewis for the role: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/daniel-daylewis-ideal-bond-says-007-author-29609878.html. He says that "Daniel Day-Lewis actually resembles the Bond that Fleming describes."

That got me to thinking about one option for a reboot - taking Bond back to his roots and setting the movies in the early 60s (the new novel Boyd has written is set in the 60s). So not only would there be a reboot of Bond, it would have the whole period aspect which many find appealing, and we'd see Bond without all the fancy gadgets and more of a classic "spy". Would be interesting to see how they could do that, and of course be careful not to turn it into Austin Powers.

Thoughts?

chucksandstorm

Yeah that would be great. They could get away with cheesy humor and gadgets as well as sexist comments because of the 60's setting.
Period movies are normally very expensive to make so that might put them off.

krudler

I loved Casino Royale, it rebooted the series in a good way, still had plenty of the Bond tropes but not as obvious or nod nod wink wink to the audience, Skyfall had too much of the old stuff in it, just constant playing to the series' past. They need to move away from all that again , it would be cool to go back to a Cold War era Bond though, make it more about the espionage and politics than cliches and fan service.

LuckyLloyd

I think a period piece Bond would be amazing. Would provide a lot of scope and depth. Day Lewis in a Bond film that really digs into politics of the era (internal and external) and focusses on governance and limitations of MI5 would be fascinating. And that's not to say I dislike Craig - Casino Royale was a brilliant film in many respects and he brought an edge to the role in it that had been totally absent in the Brosnan era (the subsequent two are far poorer efforts all round).

But let's face facts here. Bond movies are made to make money, and they are rebooted because they consistently do just that. A 'realistic' Bond movie featuring the original character as written would not be a mega box office hit. Fleming's bond is an unsympathetic character with an elitist view of the world. Cold, ruthless and dreadfully chauvinistic with none of the humour and unshakable morals that the films have always relied upon. And leaving the character himself behind, the context of the era and the type of operations involved are a fairly grim and detailed business far from the 'try to take over the world' villains we are used to.

I'd love to see it, there's great potential in it if it fell into the right hands but I won't be holding my breath. Hoping for a Casino Royal / Goldeneye / Living Daylights style reboot every so often is fine by me.

pixelburp

If I had my way I'd end the franchise, but of course while it makes money the films will continue to be made.

So, that said, the timing is right for a retro Bond reboot; the classical stylings of the 1960s are extremely fashionable at the moment; from fashions, to furniture and of perhaps most significantly in TV with things like Mad Men. The period also brings with it a certain tone that often works very well in cinema. With the right care and attention, I could very easily see a new Bond set during 60s doing very for itself. Whilst it's a different beast entirely, the success of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a good pointer towards how a new/old Bond might look (albeit with more action setpieces of course); part of TTSS's success owed a lot to its heavy retro-stylings and use of the period's darker, more subdued & rustic palette.

It would also make it easier to create a narrative with a broadly believable threat. Let's face it, we do live in a generally peaceful time (yes, I know the Middle East is a mess etc. but I mean in the sense there's no superpowers threatening each other atm) and as much as they may try, evil hackers just don't cut the mustard imho. A 1960s Bond could take advantage of the massive amount of global paranoia, espionage and tangible threat that existed back then.

eviltimeban

Interesting comments, the general feeling seems to be in the positive. Apparently Quentin Tarantino pitched a treatment for a Bond movie, were he to direct it, which would've been set in the 60s.

It would be a bold move, but it might get some people to the cinema who may not have bothered with the newer films. Someone might think "oh that looks interesting". But I agree, it may not / would not get the bums on seats to make another billion. They could however say, "we're making a cool movie here rather than trying to break box office records". It would of course have loads of action, which would please the more general fans.

Maybe Bond *should* be a dick. And DDL could be the actor to get that across, the anti-hero we would be rooting for. All the cliches would be gone. It nearly wouldn't be a Bond movie at all!

The question though, would be where do they go from there. Because any sequel would also have to set in the 60s. And by the third or so the novelty would've worn off.

Mickeroo

Even if Craig leaves after the next one I don't see a need for another reboot. They kept more or les the same formula for the 20 or so films before CR and I think there's plenty they can do with this iteration of bond before they need another new spin. Would be nice if they finish off the whole Quantum thing in the next one though, I kind of feel like CR & QoS were two parts of a trilogy.

FunLover18

I think given the current trends on TV; Mad Men, The Hour, a Bond set in the 60s is definitely an idea that could fly (even Archer has a 60s thing going on. But I doubt the studio would want to reboot so soon after Casino Royale. But I think it would be brilliant. Not sure about DDL though, too old and probably too intense. I know people are probably fed of hearing it but Fassbender would be my choice for the next Bond, if it was set in the 50s/60s I'd be demanding it (have you seen X-Men First Class?)

The end of Craig's tenure is definitely an issue; as with their current "realistic" feel to the films a recast (leading therefore to the suggestion of an ageless/timeless character) is problematic, especially when you consider the PC-for-PC sake demand for a black Bond.

Recently I've been thinking that the series might be better off if they retired James Bond once Craig goes and turn it into the 007 franchise. This would then allow for a black 007, an Asian 007, maybe even a female 007 :eek:.

eviltimeban

FunLover18 wrote: »

Not sure about DDL though, too old and probably too intense. I know people are probably fed of hearing it but Fassbender would be my choice for the next Bond, if it was set in the 50s/60s I'd be demanding it (have you seen X-Men First Class?)

I've never read them, but wasn't Bond older in the books anyway? Wasn't he also a heavy smoker - 70 a day or something? Might be interesting to see how they get that across! Fassbender would be good but as long as he doesn't talk with his Irish accent! His British accent, a la Inglorious Basterds, is excellent.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Recently I've been thinking that the series might be better off if they retired James Bond once Craig goes and turn it into the 007 franchise. This would then allow for a black 007, an Asian 007, maybe even a female 007 :eek:.

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that they have never made a spin off TV series, like "The 00s" or something. About 006s and 008s and so on. Maybe they never did to protect the brand.

FlashD

Craig is signed up for the next two movies which covers the franchise for the next 4-6 years. Rumours are that Mendes is also directing the next two.....happy days!

Although a 60's era Bond is interesting, this is covering old ground, Connery's version was also set in this era, I think the novelty will wear off after one movie. The franchise has always moved with the times keeping things fresh.

Although DDL is a favourite actor, he is too old to play Bond at this stage. He will be 60 by the time Craig finishes up.

ScumLord

I think Bond works better in a 60s setting, modern spies aren't going to be able to be running around European cities in gun fights these days, it would be public knowledge within 10 minutes and not very spy like. It's just a case of pure fantasy these days whereas it was bordering on reality back in the 60s.

chucksandstorm

Bond shouldn't be serious, leave that to the Bourne movies

Skerries

no because after the Bourne films people realised that Bond was getting tired and dated and needed a reboot, if they had gone on down the same road the series would have ended up dying off or at least going very stale.
It was getting ridiculous with invisible cars and paragliding across the sea on the door of a plane :rolleyes:

krudler

ScumLord wrote: »

I think Bond works better in a 60s setting, modern spies aren't going to be able to be running around European cities in gun fights these days, it would be public knowledge within 10 minutes and not very spy like. It's just a case of pure fantasy these days whereas it was bordering on reality back in the 60s.

That's the thing, everyone has a phone with a camera and an internet connection now, stuff blowing up and being hidden from the public is a thing of a different era, or massive car chases, that'd be all over twitter in an instant if something happened these days. We live in an era where people were tweeting as gun massacre live

ScumLord

krudler wrote: »

That's the thing, everyone has a phone with a camera and an internet connection now, stuff blowing up and being hidden from the public is a thing of a different era, or massive car chases, that'd be all over twitter in an instant if something happened these days. We live in an era where people were tweeting as gun massacre live

Ya, spies are getting caught left right and centre these days. Not so long ago there was a big news story about the umbrella assassin and Russia got caught in the act I think, I think that was even before twitter and just from the ordinary media jumping on it.

Spying is done online these days I'd wager.

FlashD

Skerries wrote: »

It was getting ridiculous with invisible cars and paragliding across the sea on the door of a plane :rolleyes:

I agree, you could hear the groans and feel the rolling eys in the audience. The Moore era was similar.

The franchise has always worked best when it is takes itself seriously but has some fantastical elements which could be believable. The Connery, Dalton & Craig eras have been the best in that regard. If I want realistic, i'll watch a documentary.

ScumLord wrote: »

Spying is done online these days I'd wager.

They should have Bond sit at a computer for 2 hours.

krudler

FlashD wrote: »

I agree, you could hear the groans and feel the rolling eys in the audience. The Moore era was similar.

The franchise has always worked best when it is takes itself seriously but has some fantastical elements which could be believable. The Connery, Dalton & Craig eras have been the best in that regard. If I want realistic, i'll watch a documentary.

Agree, I really wish Dalton had more than 2 movies, he really found his feet in Licence To Kill, which is probably the most underrated Bond of all. Bond has a proper nasty streak in it amongst the odd one liner, even dispatching the villain is done in a completely cold hearted way, no comedy one liner first.

FunLover18

I think the points about modern spying are valid which is why no matter how "realistic" and "grounded" they try to make the Bond franchise it will always be blown out of the water by the fact that he is James Bond, he never uses an alias, makes any effort to alter his appearance and just spouts out his real name wherever he goes. I remember in Skyfall one of the main points they were trying to make was that MI6 needed old-fashioned spies like Bond (despite him only being a newly promoted 00 agent 4 years earlier) who stayed in the shadows and did dirty work.

ScumLord

FlashD wrote: »

I agree, you could hear the groans and feel the rolling eys in the audience. The Moore era was similar.

The Moore era worked for me because I was a child at the time. I still hold a place for those Moore films but I wouldn't accept it today. I thought the Pierce Brosnan ones were just awful.

krudler

ScumLord wrote: »

The Moore era worked for me because I was a child at the time. I still hold a place for those Moore films but I wouldn't accept it today. I thought the Pierce Brosnan ones were just awful.

Goldeneye is fun, Tomorrow Never Dies has a weak villain but good setpieces, meh to the other ones.

eviltimeban

The new "Man from UNCLE" movie is going to be set in the 60s, will be interesting to see how that fares (although nowhere near as big a brand name as Bond!)

Sad Professor

I don’t see the point in rebooting Bond when they never followed through on the last reboot and just went back to the old formula after two films.

To what extent was Casino Royale a proper reboot anyway? Aside from the stuff at the beginning about Bond becoming a double-oh and few lines here or there, the film could have taken place anytime in his career. It’s not an origin story in the way that Batman Begins is. Hell, it was originally written for Brosnan.

FunLover18

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don’t see the point in rebooting Bond when they never followed through on the last reboot and just went back to the old formula after two films.

To what extent was Casino Royale a proper reboot anyway? Aside from the stuff at the beginning about Bond becoming a double-oh and few lines here or there, the film could have taken place anytime in his career. It’s not an origin story in the way that Batman Begins is. Hell, it was originally written for Brosnan.

It's quite clear that CR was a reboot, pretty much everyone involved has admitted as much. Showing Bond becoming a 00 agent is as close to an origin story as one can get with Bond; I doubt anyone wants to see him in MI6 academy for field agents.

I disagree that they could have taken place at any time. Between Dr No and Die Another Day every villian had a ridiculously outlandish plan, in CR Le Chiffre wanted to win a card game and in QoS Bond Green was hoarding Bolivian water and organising coups. I agree that they threw that out the window with Skyfall which was a complete disappointment in my eyes and by far the worst Craig film so far.

LuckyLloyd

Yeah, Skyfall really was dreaful. A point worth repeating many more times.

FlashD

Yeah, 'Skyfall' was one of the best movies of 2012 and is up there with the best of the franchise. A point worth repeating many more times.

FunLover18

FlashD wrote: »

Yeah, 'Skyfall' was one of the best movies of 2012 and is up there with the best of the franchise. A point worth repeating many more times.

It was a real disappointment. The plot (if you could call it that) was extremely thin (how QoS is deemed to have a worse plot is beyond me). I'm not saying it was terrible (nowhere near as bad as the Moore films) but it was not as good as most people seemed to think and I think in years to come people will realise this.

Sad Professor

I re-watched most of the Moore films last year and was surprised by how good they actually are. Especially The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only. A View to a Kill is laughably bad in places but I was still tempted to give it a pass for the soundtrack and the sequence on Golden Gate Bridge at the end. Moore himself is the main problem: too old in the later films and clearly uncomfortable with the violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rpv8bO6erY

FlashD

FunLover18 wrote: »

It was a real disappointment.

Really? What were you expecting? Plot? It's Bond , they nearly all follow a similar plot designed around OTT villians, violent shoot outs, chases, explosions and good looking girls.

I have been watching Bond since growing up as a kid in the 80's, I pretty much know what to expect at this stage and I watch them with those expectations......the franchise is a piece of throwaway entertainment for two hours not some intellectual piece of film making. That's the way it's always going to be and why it is so popular with a mass audience.

FunLover18

FlashD wrote: »

Really? What were you expecting? Plot? It's Bond , they nearly all follow a similar plot designed around OTT villians, violent shoot outs, chases, explosions and good looking girls.

I have been watching Bond since growing up as a kid in the 80's, I pretty much know what to expect at this stage and I watch them with those expectations......the franchise is a piece of throwaway entertainment for two hours not some intellectual piece of film making. That's the way it's always going to be and why it is so popular with a mass audience.

Relative to the hype; I was very disappointed. As a Bond film as you say it has all the right ingredients, however the previous Craig films had strayed from that recipe. Le Chiffre and Green could hardly be described as OTT and their agendas were far more grounded.

I loved that QoS was about establishing Quantum and Bond's revenge than actually about Green. At the end of QoS Bond had gone through an emotional journey and I was ready for a proper Bond film. But Skyfall decided to skip that and go straight to Bond being an emotional wreck again and it was extremely jarring. We've now had 3 films in a row where Bond has some sort of emotional arc to go through; I enjoyed the first two but the third was completely unnecessary.

BuilderPlumber

Sad Professor wrote: »

I re-watched most of the Moore films last year and was surprised by how good they actually are. Especially The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only. A View to a Kill is laughably bad in places but I was still tempted to give it a pass for the soundtrack and the sequence on Golden Gate Bridge at the end. Moore himself is the main problem: too old in the later films and clearly uncomfortable with the violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rpv8bO6erY

Moore's Bond films are by and large good. I hate The Man With The Golden Gun as it overall has a weak plot, a wasted Christopher Lee (playing a villain who is just a common hitman and not a world domination guy wanting to extort money, corner a drugs market, start a war, etc. like all the other villains) and low levels of action.

Live And Let Die was a very good debut film for Moore and was a way ahead of Connery's last film, Diamonds Are Forever actually. The voodoo and music in it enhances a good steady plot and there is a lot of good action. The Spy Who Loved Me was where Moore came into his own and has a good Blofeld-like enemy and plot with plenty of action. Moonraker is often slated but again I found it to be entertaining: perhaps its biggest fault is it is rather too like The Spy Who Loved Me in many ways and obviously tries to emulate this. For Your Eyes Only has the feel of From Russia With Love in many ways and is a good, serious straight ahead action suspense film. Octopussy was excellent and my favourite of Moore's films. Loads of action, a good plot and I loved the Indian setting.

A View To a Kill was Moore's last Bond film and is good if a little weird. The start showed a lot of intense action akin to what we saw in Octopussy but after that, Moore is often far from the action. However, Zorin is a great villain and I agree the Golden Gate part was excellent. However, it was a disappointment for anyone expecting action like that in Octopussy or its immediate predecessors. By 1985, it was obvious Moore was too old for the role: the fights in AVTAK were often too short and unconvincing as were the chases. More evidence to this was that a good deal of the action in the film's climax involved Zorin machine-gunning down all his workers (unlike in previous films, where Bond was engaged in shootouts with the baddies). The fact that Moore himself was too old for the action meant that The Living Daylights with Dalton was a return to Bond being in the thick of the action again.

BuilderPlumber

ScumLord wrote: »

The Moore era worked for me because I was a child at the time. I still hold a place for those Moore films but I wouldn't accept it today. I thought the Pierce Brosnan ones were just awful.

Brosnan's last two films were the two worst entries in the series I think. His first two were among the better Bonds. Here are the films I consider to be poor:

1. Die Another Day: when this came out in 2002, I said this could well mean the end of the Bond franchise. What with a North Korean changing into an Englishman and an invisible car!! This is where Bond got way too far fetched.
2. The World Is Not Enough: Slightly better than Die Another Day, it still was contrived muck with its bullet lodged in the head Yugoslavian gangster besotted with this beautiful woman who ends up as the main baddie. Plus, there is non-necessary anti-Iran and anti-Iraq propaganda thrown in. George W Bush would have been proud!
3. The Man With The Golden Gun: compared with the two above, Moore's weakest film is a masterpiece. But still it is poor as it lacks any convincing plot (what is it Scaramanga has actually done?) and the action content is low (the most boring car chase ever in a Bond film is meant to be the highlight).

All the rest of the Bonds are fine by me with of course some better than others. I have yet to see Skyfall and will get it at Christmas. I loved Craigs other two entries.

LuckyLloyd

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Moore's Bond films are by and large good. I hate The Man With The Golden Gun as it overall has a weak plot, a wasted Christopher Lee (playing a villain who is just a common hitman and not a world domination guy wanting to extort money, corner a drugs market, start a war, etc. like all the other villains) and low levels of action.

Live And Let Die was a very good debut film for Moore and was a way ahead of Connery's last film, Diamonds Are Forever actually. The voodoo and music in it enhances a good steady plot and there is a lot of good action. The Spy Who Loved Me was where Moore came into his own and has a good Blofeld-like enemy and plot with plenty of action. Moonraker is often slated but again I found it to be entertaining: perhaps its biggest fault is it is rather too like The Spy Who Loved Me in many ways and obviously tries to emulate this. For Your Eyes Only has the feel of From Russia With Love in many ways and is a good, serious straight ahead action suspense film. Octopussy was excellent and my favourite of Moore's films. Loads of action, a good plot and I loved the Indian setting.

A View To a Kill was Moore's last Bond film and is good if a little weird. The start showed a lot of intense action akin to what we saw in Octopussy but after that, Moore is often far from the action. However, Zorin is a great villain and I agree the Golden Gate part was excellent. However, it was a disappointment for anyone expecting action like that in Octopussy or its immediate predecessors. By 1985, it was obvious Moore was too old for the role: the fights in AVTAK were often too short and unconvincing as were the chases. More evidence to this was that a good deal of the action in the film's climax involved Zorin machine-gunning down all his workers (unlike in previous films, where Bond was engaged in shootouts with the baddies). The fact that Moore himself was too old for the action meant that The Living Daylights with Dalton was a return to Bond being in the thick of the action again.

Yeah tbh, the Moore era gets unfairly panned a lot of the time. Live and Let Die and Octopussy are great Bond movies. Christopher Walken elevates A View to a Kill too - he's up there as one of the most threatening and dangerous villains.

eviltimeban

It seems there are two kinds of Bond fans out there - the ones who enjoy the slight silliness of some of the Bond movies, or at least recognise that OTT action is part and parcel of what makes up Bond, with the one liners and gadgets etc.

The other kind want a more "real" Bond, dare I say it, a James Bournd. :-) Something to reflect today's times, more visceral, which the first Craig movies delivered.

I feel Skyfall was a good mix of the two - we had the exotic locations, crazed villain, and the beautiful women, but that was balanced with the London-based sequences (which made it a little more modern in feel).

However, to go from here they will have to go in one of two directions - either more action packed, or more gritty and real. I doubt Craig is going to be skiiing off a mountain with a Union flag parachute anytime soon, but can they go back to the CR style?

What they could do, which hasn't exactly been done before, is do a "pt1" and "pt2" movie, so you have a "finale" split over two films. They could make something that has an epic feel, but the two parts would allow them the time to bring in other elements to balance that out.

The Craig can retire and we'll get a "Bond in the 60s" movie in about ten years! ;-)

BuilderPlumber

eviltimeban wrote: »

It seems there are two kinds of Bond fans out there - the ones who enjoy the slight silliness of some of the Bond movies, or at least recognise that OTT action is part and parcel of what makes up Bond, with the one liners and gadgets etc.

The other kind want a more "real" Bond, dare I say it, a James Bournd. :-) Something to reflect today's times, more visceral, which the first Craig movies delivered.

I feel Skyfall was a good mix of the two - we had the exotic locations, crazed villain, and the beautiful women, but that was balanced with the London-based sequences (which made it a little more modern in feel).

However, to go from here they will have to go in one of two directions - either more action packed, or more gritty and real. I doubt Craig is going to be skiiing off a mountain with a Union flag parachute anytime soon, but can they go back to the CR style?

What they could do, which hasn't exactly been done before, is do a "pt1" and "pt2" movie, so you have a "finale" split over two films. They could make something that has an epic feel, but the two parts would allow them the time to bring in other elements to balance that out.

The Craig can retire and we'll get a "Bond in the 60s" movie in about ten years! ;-)

That is very true. I think that each actor who played Bond was able for the most part to represent what was required of the era. And the fact that the franchise has lasted means that the majority of the films are good with a sizeable portion that are classics. Whether your classic all time Bond is Goldfinger or Casino Royale (or something else), there is a film for everyone there.

I think that films like Dr No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and probably Skyfall (have yet to see) all speak to that gritty or realistic (depending on the actor) Bond and each of these combined great action with believable stories.

On the other hand, Goldfinger kickstarted the big budget, gadget packed, confident style of Bond film and it was the film that was followed up by other notable entries in the series like You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. The emphasis was on action, some comedy, stunts. Some Bond films, like Moonraker (basically The Spy Who Loved Me with a space theme) and Never Say Never Again (a remake of Thunderball more or less) are panned for being unoriginal but they too have value imo. A View To A Kill is also very good imo but the star here was Christopher Walken's villain Max Zorin. Diamonds Are Forever was overall good but was not appropriate for where it was at in the series. See later.

There are 3 films I left out of the lists above here. They are not worthy and are poor efforts. The Man With The Golden Gun has Bond track down a hitman who sends him a golden bullet and who wants to create energy from the sun. Hardly a plot for a 00 agent, more like a job for a rival CEO hiring a private eye to get the blueprint for the energy creation and how it works. Brosnan's two last efforts are very poor with Die Another Day being the worst Bond ever and that ever will be I'd say.

As regards a two part film, I guess Casino Royale and QOS were kind of that in some way. But, what is strikingly absent is the sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. As said, Diamonds are Forever is good but five minutes at the start where Bond is running all over the world to locate Blofeld to seek revenge and then the rest of the film sees Bond act as if the events of OHMSS never happened is not what was needed. Fleming's original You Only Live Twice book of course was the revenge on Blofeld sequel.

Craig could perhaps remake both OHMSS and do the Fleming-style You Only Live Twice as the sequel. Or alternatively, come up with an original followup with similar values.

BuilderPlumber

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yeah tbh, the Moore era gets unfairly panned a lot of the time. Live and Let Die and Octopussy are great Bond movies. Christopher Walken elevates A View to a Kill too - he's up there as one of the most threatening and dangerous villains.

This is very true. Another issue many have with this era too is that the films went away from the Fleming books many a time. Clearly, there were reasons for this: firstly, times had changed. For example, the book Moonraker was set before manned spacecraft and a direct copy of the book would not have sold well in 1979. Fleming himself hated his own book The Spy Who Loved Me and directed to the film makers they can use the title and come up with their own original story for it and that's what happened: personally, Fleming's original book is good (but very different to the typical Bond) as is the film. Others such as The Property of a Lady, about an auction in Sotheby's, would not have worked as films so were better incorporated as part of a story of a film (hence, it is included as part of Octopussy). Fleming's short story Quantum of Solace would also not have made a good film and this the film version is totally different. Many of Fleming's short stories like For Your Eyes Only and Risico have been faithfully included in the film For Your Eyes Only. Likewise, the part near the start of The Living Daylights where Bond has to shoot a sniper and misses deliberately is the Fleming short story of the same name. License to Kill includes elements of other Fleming short stories. Fleming's original book Live and Let Die was very controversial and perhaps too violent. The film version was more entertaining and more suited to a broader audience (some of the more violent parts of the book though are replicated in 1989's Licence to Kill).

Also, relations between the West and Russia were improving slowly by the 1960s. Fleming was writing in the Stalin era and the immediate period after this hence SMERSH becoming the main villains. However, later Fleming books (to reflect the moderation in the real political climate) introduced the non country specific SPECTRE and the films followed suit. Hence, SPECTRE replace SMERSH in From Russia With Love and SMERSH are nowhere to be seen in the film versions of Live and Let Die or Casino Royale. However, Smiert Spionam (the full name of SMERSH) are in The Living Daylights but as a dissident element against the by then moderate USSR leadership and a common enemy to both the UK and USSR. The film and book versions of You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever are very different in some ways, and similar in other ways. This was partly due to their relative positions in the series. I don't think the Fleming short story From A View To a Kill was ever used in any film to date? Though it is very similar in title to the film A View To a Kill, apart from both being set in France, there is no similarity.

senordingdong

krudler wrote: »

I loved Casino Royale, it rebooted the series in a good way, still had plenty of the Bond tropes but not as obvious or nod nod wink wink to the audience, Skyfall had too much of the old stuff in it, just constant playing to the series' past. They need to move away from all that again , it would be cool to go back to a Cold War era Bond though, make it more about the espionage and politics than cliches and fan service.

My thoughts exactly.

Casino Royale was bang on the money, QOS fell flat on it's face but atleast it was trying something new.
Skyfall played it abit too safe by returning to the old tropes and was actually a step backwards.

I think the next 'groundbreaking' innovation will be something alot more superficial, like casting a black actor.

Burgo

senordingdong wrote: »

My thoughts exactly.

Casino Royale was bang on the money, QOS fell flat on it's face but atleast it was trying something new.
Skyfall played it abit too safe by returning to the old tropes and was actually a step backwards.

Yeah it was just a really weak film.

I think the next 'groundbreaking' innovation will be something alot more superficial, like casting a black actor.

Idris Elba calling it now :pac:

Adamantium

Casino Royale isn't just a great Bond movie, its one of my favourite movies of the last 10 years.

One of the greatest and enjoyable cinema experiences I've ever had. Its just got dang perfect/timeless quality like it was made because it wanted to be made by a bunch of people who truly cared rather than as part of a long running series for profit and spreadsheets. It feels out of place in the best possible way and I love it for that.

I didn't even know I could give a damn investment about the characters or plot of a bond movie, of all things. It was the movie I needed but didn't even know I wanted. Ironically since I was so let by QOS and more recently SKYFALL was because they felt too bond like as if they were eating their own fan service,when CR blew my mind with the possibilities of where they would go next with it!! It felt like the series had finally become not about tropes for the sake of pop culture, but wanted to tell a good story.

CR made it all little less iconic, but served the characters better, it felt like it had been given actual weight. No charactiures. Right actors and script, right time. Eva Green (sort of easy to see how bond fell for her) and Craig was one of the most heart breaking romances I've ever seen on screen and it was a bond movie. It was a great story with a guy who just happened to be called James Bond. It didn't feel franchised, a real charismatic rarity. As a guy, its my favourite action movie that turns out be romantic and full of heart, sad all at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtWiTpZL8FE

The demise of le chiffe early in the film and that dark (although I was laughing too) torture scene followed by an amazing leisurely,relaxed 4th act with green and craig in Venice. It wasn't anything like I had expected going in. It was ballsy (pun intended)

Then they got scared for the next two, making me wonder did they really know what they were doing at all.

Reminds of end of Star Trek 2009, we'll explore new frontiers for these characters that we've being reintroduced to, NO lets eat our tails for the sequel

You want to care for Kirk and Spock because of their potential to be interesting, good characters, not because they're ghosts of character's done better 40 years go

Wait.....

I just a got a perfect mental picture
60's bond Michael Fassbender/Clive Owen in Prague speaking German doing actual spying in a time with a sepia mad men aesthetic would blow my mind. Much of CR and the poker tournament in a particular felt like timeless, like you could be told it was set in the 60's and you'd believe it.

BuilderPlumber

Adamantium wrote: »

Casino Royale isn't just a great Bond movie, its one of my favourite movies of the last 10 years.

One of the greatest and enjoyable cinema experiences I've ever had. Its just got dang perfect/timeless quality like it was made because it wanted to be made by a bunch of people who truly cared rather than as part of a long running series for profit and spreadsheets. It feels out of place in the best possible way and I love it for that.

I didn't even know I could give a damn investment about the characters or plot of a bond movie, of all things. It was the movie I needed but didn't even know I wanted. Ironically since I was so let by QOS and more recently SKYFALL was because they felt too bond like as if they were eating their own fan service,when CR blew my mind with the possibilities of where they would go next with it!! It felt like the series had finally become not about tropes for the sake of pop culture, but wanted to tell a good story.

CR made it all little less iconic, but served the characters better, it felt like it had been given actual weight. No charactiures. Right actors and script, right time. Eva Green (sort of easy to see how bond fell for her) and Craig was one of the most heart breaking romances I've ever seen on screen and it was a bond movie. It was a great story with a guy who just happened to be called James Bond. It didn't feel franchised, a real charismatic rarity. As a guy, its my favourite action movie that turns out be romantic and full of heart, sad all at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtWiTpZL8FE

The demise of le chiffe early in the film and that dark (although I was laughing too) torture scene followed by an amazing leisurely,relaxed 4th act with green and craig in Venice. It wasn't anything like I had expected going in. It was ballsy (pun intended)

Then they got scared for the next two, making me wonder did they really know what they were doing at all.

Reminds of end of Star Trek 2009, we'll explore new frontiers for these characters that we've being reintroduced to, NO lets eat our tails for the sequel

You want to care for Kirk and Spock because of their potential to be interesting, good characters, not because they're ghosts of character's done better 40 years go

Wait.....

I just a got a perfect mental picture
60's bond Michael Fassbender/Clive Owen in Prague speaking German doing actual spying in a time with a sepia mad men aesthetic would blow my mind. Much of CR and the poker tournament in a particular felt like timeless, like you could be told it was set in the 60's and you'd believe it.

I think Casino Royale combined the best of the original novel by Fleming and updated it for our times. It is a good balance and such an achievement.

Casino Royale was one of the best if not the best Bond films ever. The fact that it was preceded by what is definitely the worst Bond film ever (Die Another Day) makes the fete even more amazing. I guess that you do need a really bad one to precede a really good one to wake up the producers. CR redefined Bond and kept the franchise relevant, popular and innovative. Craig is the modern equivalent of Connery and I hope he does plenty more films. As said many times, I'd love to see Craig in a revenge on Blofeld film.

FunLover18

We got Craig's revenge arc in QoS though. Like it or not (I think it's hugely overrated and actually better than CR) I don't see the need to do it again.