An Open Letter to the Producers of James Bond
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I'm a bit baffled by this as well.Woodsey said:
One of the things I liked best about Casino Royale is how close they actually got to Bond as he is portrayed in the books. Especially how he almost always gets beaten up to hell and back. He is in excruciating amounts of pain, bleeding like a leaky, rusty pipe and yet always manages to just grit his teeth finnish the mission with an ohmigodthisissoexcilarating bloody vengeance. Thing is, unlike McClane, he is always on the verge of passing out and straight dying on the floor of badguy mansion's while he does it. You can't but keep cheering him on as you read 'come on, man! Don't you freaking die on me! Just a little bit more! Almost there, almost there!'
There was also the bit about him finally finding love in CR (IIRC it was in In His Majesty's Secret Service book, maybe Diamonds are Forever) only to have it all taken away from him, solidyfing him into the hardened, I-can't-care-for-anybody-but-myself he eventually becomes. I believe this was done in one of the Dalton's movies but I haven't seen a lot of Bond films other than the ones with Connery since I don't find any of the other imaginings of Bond appealing at all.
Note: I haven't reread the books in ages so I apologize in advance if I got some of the facts wrong
In "On her majesty's secret service" it was george lazenby playing bond and yes he gets married but has his love taken away from him in the last few minutes of the movie.in a bit of a pickle said:I'm a bit baffled by this as well.Woodsey said:
One of the things I liked best about Casino Royale is how close they actually got to Bond as he is portrayed in the books. Especially how he almost always gets beaten up to hell and back. He is in excruciating amounts of pain, bleeding like a leaky, rusty pipe and yet always manages to just grit his teeth finnish the mission with an ohmigodthisissoexcilarating bloody vengeance. Thing is, unlike McClane, he is always on the verge of passing out and straight dying on the floor of badguy mansion's while he does it. You can't but keep cheering him on as you read 'come on, man! Don't you freaking die on me! Just a little bit more! Almost there, almost there!'
There was also the bit about him finally finding love in CR (IIRC it was in In His Majesty's Secret Service book, maybe Diamonds are Forever) only to have it all taken away from him, solidyfing him into the hardened, I-can't-care-for-anybody-but-myself he eventually becomes. I believe this was done in one of the Dalton's movies but I haven't seen a lot of Bond films other than the ones with Connery since I don't find any of the other imaginings of Bond appealing at all.
Note: I haven't reread the books in ages so I apologize in advance if I got some of the facts wrong
Those are some very keen observations about Quantum of Solace. I could never quite put my finger on why I didn't like it. Casino Royale, on the other hand, is one of my all-time-favorite movies. They should hire the same people who made that movie for any future ones.
To your main point:
I had not yet seen any pictures. Wow! That Russian spy is hot.
The forward of you column was also good.
I had not yet seen any pictures. Wow! That Russian spy is hot.
The forward of you column was also good.
I really enjoyed this article, a lot of the time I don't agree with MovieBob but this article quite eloquently summed up my feelings about the new James Bond movies.
They just feel too formulaic, they didn't really have any unique qualities, they were just another cookie cutter "brooding hero punches people" movie in the vein of the Bourne series.
I think that my favorite Bond movies are definitely the Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan movies, Connery because they were over the top and fun with good jokes, gadgets and everything, and the Brosnan movies for the fact that they were clearly made by people who loved the old movies and weren't ashamed to admit it. That's another thing that I dislike about the new movies, they seem almost ashamed of the movies that came before them, like there was something dreadfully stupid and childish about them that they wanted to abandon. Because of that the new films wound up revamping everything, no gadgets, no silliness, no super villains and the a sociopath of a Bond. Not even a witty or charming sociopath at that, but rather the kind of guy who would probably be in prison if he wasn't working for the government.
I'm willing to look past the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond, as after all he's not terrible and he can bring the fun aspects of the character to the fore everyone once in a while but I still find the the new Bond to be too dark and boring, with none of the spark and charm that the old Bonds had.
Also, am I the only one who thinks that Bond is badly in need of some more memorable enemies? The last good villain was 006 from Golden Eyes, after him we've just gotten a parade of generic generals and terrorists. Not that I don't think that a villain who's there for the sole purpose of giving Bond a target when they let him loose, but the most enjoyable films always had a more memorable enemy, like Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Blofeld, or 006.
Anyway, great article. It's too bad we won't be getting any new Bond movies anytime soon, after all I may not have loved them but they were still Bond.
EDIT: I just realized, everyone talks about the books being much closer to the new movies, but frankly I don't care about that, too me the real Bond is the one from the movies.
They just feel too formulaic, they didn't really have any unique qualities, they were just another cookie cutter "brooding hero punches people" movie in the vein of the Bourne series.
I think that my favorite Bond movies are definitely the Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan movies, Connery because they were over the top and fun with good jokes, gadgets and everything, and the Brosnan movies for the fact that they were clearly made by people who loved the old movies and weren't ashamed to admit it. That's another thing that I dislike about the new movies, they seem almost ashamed of the movies that came before them, like there was something dreadfully stupid and childish about them that they wanted to abandon. Because of that the new films wound up revamping everything, no gadgets, no silliness, no super villains and the a sociopath of a Bond. Not even a witty or charming sociopath at that, but rather the kind of guy who would probably be in prison if he wasn't working for the government.
I'm willing to look past the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond, as after all he's not terrible and he can bring the fun aspects of the character to the fore everyone once in a while but I still find the the new Bond to be too dark and boring, with none of the spark and charm that the old Bonds had.
Also, am I the only one who thinks that Bond is badly in need of some more memorable enemies? The last good villain was 006 from Golden Eyes, after him we've just gotten a parade of generic generals and terrorists. Not that I don't think that a villain who's there for the sole purpose of giving Bond a target when they let him loose, but the most enjoyable films always had a more memorable enemy, like Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Blofeld, or 006.
Anyway, great article. It's too bad we won't be getting any new Bond movies anytime soon, after all I may not have loved them but they were still Bond.
EDIT: I just realized, everyone talks about the books being much closer to the new movies, but frankly I don't care about that, too me the real Bond is the one from the movies.
Bob, you said exactly what I've been thinking.
But to be honest, I like the movie-Bonds more, precisely because they're unreal. They're silly escapist fantasy, with all their faults. And that's what I want out of a Bond movie. The books are indeed a dark, flawed, realistic Bond. I do like that character. But when I want that Bond, I'll read the books. I like being able to see an unrealistic and not-at-all-Fleming James Bond in the movies.
It's only a personal opinion and I don't begrudge or question anyone who likes it better now that the movies are closer to the books. That opinion is just as valid. After all, there are so many Connery and Moore movies I can go back to watch again when I want my escapism quotient. And when I want darkness, I'll curl up with one of Fleming's classics.
I've read some, though only a few. And yes, it is absolutely true that Bond-Craig is closest to Fleming's original vision. It's a good vision, and I enjoyed the books that I've read (ohmilife, Diamonds are Forever is so much better as a book than a movie!)Woodsey said:
But to be honest, I like the movie-Bonds more, precisely because they're unreal. They're silly escapist fantasy, with all their faults. And that's what I want out of a Bond movie. The books are indeed a dark, flawed, realistic Bond. I do like that character. But when I want that Bond, I'll read the books. I like being able to see an unrealistic and not-at-all-Fleming James Bond in the movies.
It's only a personal opinion and I don't begrudge or question anyone who likes it better now that the movies are closer to the books. That opinion is just as valid. After all, there are so many Connery and Moore movies I can go back to watch again when I want my escapism quotient. And when I want darkness, I'll curl up with one of Fleming's classics.
First off, I think its reasonable to say FORGET THE BOOKS... i know its reasonable to think that aspiring to the source material is important, but why? The movies have been around for 30 years, and have been seen by more people than have read the books. They are different mediums and work in different ways. I say the movies should be judged by an individual standard.
That being said, i think the article is quite correct, however, there was one additional point that was not expanded on enough, i think. James Bond was CLASSY! He wasn't a dirty schmuck, he was a high-class, well educated socialite. I think that was a significant part of his character, and is one of the reasons i don't like dalton or Craig, they seem like they could have come from a trailer park
That being said, i think the article is quite correct, however, there was one additional point that was not expanded on enough, i think. James Bond was CLASSY! He wasn't a dirty schmuck, he was a high-class, well educated socialite. I think that was a significant part of his character, and is one of the reasons i don't like dalton or Craig, they seem like they could have come from a trailer park
Good article MB, I agree on all points.
-Well thank god someone in production figured early on that the movies had to be quite different in order to sell.Woodsey said:
Incidentally, which one grossed the most? One of the broodier more realistic ones?Woodsey said:
There something I'd like to add to that list:
Bring back Q and his gadgets!
For me, its just not a James Bond movie without crazy-cool spy gadgets.
Bring back Q and his gadgets!
For me, its just not a James Bond movie without crazy-cool spy gadgets.
Well that's not likely, considering the only 2 that are really like that are Craig's - 3 of the 5 are Connery films (and his weren't the most light-hearted) and one was Roger Moore's.RobfromtheGulag said:
And Moore was a shit Bond, so people were obviously a little bit deluded with that one.
He could still bring back the Joker. He was never killed at the end of The Dark Knight and as evidenced by Maggie Gyllenhal (no idea how to spell that name) taking over for Katie Holmes, Nolan has no problem replacing actors. We might just see another actor playing the Joker. Unless he's said something to the contrary, which he might have, I don't really follow anything on the Batman movies.RTR said:
I know Bob doesn't read this, but I'd like to put it as an open question.
Assuming Craig is too old to take up the role again in the inevitable reboot, who would you like to see as Bond?
Personally, and I know I'll get laughed down, I'd like to see Matt Smith (Eleventh Doctor) given a shot. He's British, he's funny, and I reckon he could adapt easily to the seriousness required for the role as well.
I agree about Harley Quinn though, would have been nice to see his interpretation of her. We'll have to make do with Catwoman.
Assuming Craig is too old to take up the role again in the inevitable reboot, who would you like to see as Bond?
Personally, and I know I'll get laughed down, I'd like to see Matt Smith (Eleventh Doctor) given a shot. He's British, he's funny, and I reckon he could adapt easily to the seriousness required for the role as well.
Nolan's said he would quit the film with a recast Joker. So has Bale.THEMANWHOIS said:
I agree about Harley Quinn though, would have been nice to see his interpretation of her. We'll have to make do with Catwoman.
I would have liked Clive Owen to be Bond. I feel like he could have done a pretty good job.tomtom94 said:
