James Bond's Pistol

[darthzew]

This is kind of a weird topic, but I'm genuinely looking for someone to talk about it with.

Anyway, James Bond had a Walther PPK for a good majority of the Bond movies and then in Tomorrow Never Dies he makes the switch to a Walther P99. I support this decision by the filmmakers because using the PPK makes no sense in this day and age. When Casino Royale came about, it would made a slight bit of sense to go back to the PPK, but they didn't because James Bond fits the era he's in.

But then came Quantum of Solace and suddenly he's using a PPK again.

My point: I believe that James Bond is made to fit his era, meaning that if they were to do a remake of Dr. No , they should do it with modern technology. That's just the way James Bond is.

So, why are they playing with Bond motifs like this? It's like they add one but subtract the other. The PPK's back, but there's no "Bond, James Bond" or gun barrel sequence? I'm seriously struggling to understand.

Someone help me with this. My question here is why the gun change? Also, what do you see in the Bond franchise's future?

 

[BonsaiK]

Maybe Bond isn't that fussy and the PPK was on special at Gun-Mart or something. I don't see it as a big deal.

 

[darthzew]

They did do the gun barrel sequence at the end of Quantum. Honestly with this new bond the gun really doesnt matter. I quite like the way the franchise is going, Craig didnt convince me at first but now hes completely won me over.

Really? He had me convinced in Casino Royale, but Quantum kind of drew that back...

 

[darthzew]

Maybe Bond isn't that fussy and the PPK was on special at Gun-Mart or something. I don't see it as a big deal.

It isn't a big deal, I'm kind of using to make a bigger point about where the franchise is going.

 

[Xanadeas]

I don't really know what to think of it... But personally I've considered the franchise dead as of Goldeneye. The last good Bond movie/game.

 

[BonsaiK]

Maybe Bond isn't that fussy and the PPK was on special at Gun-Mart or something. I don't see it as a big deal.

It isn't a big deal, I'm kind of using to make a bigger point about where the franchise is going.

My Dad was heavily into Bond movies but I stopped watching them around 1990 so I can't really talk about where the franchise is going. From what people have told me the new ones are a bit grittier and I guess that is a symptom of changing approaches to action cinema across the board. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. Perhaps the reintroduction of the old gun is to keep some kind or "retro" flavour for the old fans and trainspotters given that most everything else about the Bond movies has changed drastically. It's a way of giving a knowing nod to the people who started watching the series with Dr. No and saying "no, we haven't forgotten about you". Perhaps.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I know why you're worried, but personally, I think it's a good thing the movies are moving away from the Bond movie traditions (gun barrel sequence, etc.) and moving a bit closer to the original books. It's different from the others, but quite frankly, the formula was starting to get a bit stale.

 

[Souplex]

I think I am the only person alive who has never seen a James Bond movie.
Everyone knows the original books are based on my life anyways.

 

[darthzew]

I know why you're worried, but personally, I think it's a good thing the movies are moving away from the Bond movie traditions (gun barrel sequence, etc.) and moving a bit closer to the original books. It's different from the others, but quite frankly, the formula was starting to get a bit stale.

I like changing up the formula, that's great. But what I'm afraid of is that they'll shift it to the point that it just isn't Bond anymore. I kind of felt that in Quantum of Solace.

I'll just blame this on Marc Forster, one of my least favorite directors.

 

[Therumancer]

I have mixed opinions on the subject. I think the current guy is a decent action hero but doesn't make a very good James Bond. A lot of people are going to look at it and go "well they are pretty good movies, he fits the plotline" but James Bond is a specific character and there is a certain style to the whole thing.

You can't really do the books real justice without basically setting the movies back in the same time period as the books, and honestly that would be a political nightmare as they dealt with some real issues. We had the Russians freaking out over being the bad guys in the last Indiana Jones movie, if that bugged them, what are other RL groups going to say about some of the things in those books? I for one wouldn't care, but America as a whole is stupid and such whining from the global community would be given enough attention to be annoying to say the least.

As odd as it sounds, I think they actually took a step backwards from Pierce Brosnan (who would hardly have been my first choice anyway) as far as the character goes.

Opinions are always going to vary on things like this. I grew up with Roger Moore, and my father maintains that the real James Bond was, and always shall be Sean Connery.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I'm pretty sure Bond made the switch from the Walther PPK to the Walther P99.

Same manufacturer, same sexy appeal. Speaking as a gun nut, the P99 is a far superior pistol, as even the measly 9mm Parabellum cartridge overpowers the .380 ACP the PPK is chambered for. The design is also more ergonomic, and has many necessary features that the PPK could only dream of having.

The tradeoff, however, is that the P99 is a larger pistol, so it's not as concealable. Kinda messes with the whole "sleek, undetectable spy arsenal" motif.

Spoiler: Tiny gun.

"How am I going to stop some big mean mother hubbard from tearing me a structurally superfluous new behind? Answer: use a gun."

Spoiler: Bigger gun.

"...and if that don't work? Use more gun."