has anyone else lost their love of the bond series?

[RedDragon86]

Roger Moore was the most unconvincing agent and he was too old, heck he looked past it when he was doing "The Saint" are we suppose to believe that this guy was trained by the SAS and knows karate? Moore was easily the most inept fighter. Although his films are nowhere near as good as the Connery ones Dalton is my favorite bond.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by RedDragon86

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, Vincent Hanna said:

It would be cool if they did proper adaptations of the books set in the 50s/60s. It'd be kinda like the Agatha christie Poirot mini-series but release them theatrically every 6 months or so.

But if they did then they'd have to give up their billion dollar blockbuster movies for awhile. Star Trek has a similar problem where the studio wants to do big epic blockbusters that appeal to the masses and the fans just want a little TV show about a space ship exploring our galaxy and finding cool stuff.  

Star Trek was also good at inserting solid content in a way that didn't make you feel like someone was beating you over the head with it. The original writers' guidelines are out there in PDF and are well worth the read. Not quite a series bible, but a good look at what the team was looking for.

[timm525]

Short answer, NO!!!

Huge fan.... Watches, clothes, Vodka Martinis, smokin hot women...

[Vincent Hanna]

23 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Star Trek was also good at inserting solid content in a way that didn't make you feel like someone was beating you over the head with it. The original writers' guidelines are out there in PDF and are well worth the read. Not quite a series bible, but a good look at what the team was looking for.

Whoa this amazing, thanks.

I guess the people who worked on Discovery and Picard didn't read this pamphlet.

Q&A - "Are you people on LSD?"
         "We tried, but we couldn't keep it lit."   

Edited June 21, 2020 by Vincent Hanna

[pahonu]

2 hours ago, Vincent Hanna said:

It would be cool if they did proper adaptations of the books set in the 50s/60s. It'd be kinda like the Agatha christie Poirot mini-series but release them theatrically every 6 months or so.

I’ve read all the books and short stories, many before the films were made.  I’ve also read a lot about Ian Fleming’s life and experiences.  I had the same thought over 30 years ago about a series like you describe.  The novels generally don’t have the fantastic stunts and effects that drive up the cost of feature films.  A series like that could definitely be made but I don’t think it would work for two reasons.  

First, it’s not the James Bond that most people would expect, simply because the novels are so different from the films.  The first films were made from the later novels which had grown more fantastical than the early novels.  I honestly think most people would find the early novels a bit slow.  That’s why the film producers made changes to begin with, even in the first few films.  For example, the novel From Russia With Love takes place almost entirely indoors and is quite static.  The producers intentionally added the outdoor chase scene after the train.  Just one of many changes for the masses.  Later films ditched the plot lines completely.  Huge parts of Moonraker take place while dining and playing cards at a private club.  Simply put, the audience for the novel version of Bond is likely quite small.

Second, Ian Fleming was not Agatha Christie.  Put bluntly, Fleming was a self-professed misogynist and a bigot.  He was the product of his time and it clearly shows in his writing.  As much as I love the novels, his racial language would be pretty jarring to modern audiences.  He used the term “Chigroes” to describe one of the minority groups in Jamaica.  His comments of British superiority are clearly reflective of his country’s, once massive though rapidly declining, imperialist power.     The stories very accurately reflect the time and place, and so could the series, it would, however be quite shocking, maybe even uncomfortable, to many viewers.  These  novels weren’t the Agatha Christie mysteries of genteel society in upper-class drawing rooms.  

I’m thinking about the classic SNL skit where Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase insult one another back and forth.  It is clever, insightful, and ultimately funny, but it’s language simply would not be acceptable to make into a skit today.  It was made in a different time.  Making it now is substantially different from watching it now.

[MrsEvanFreed]

Had a discussion recently with friends about who should be

the next Bond?

 

Our List..

Richard Armitage

Luke Evans

Philip Winchester

Aiden Turner

Rupert Penry-Jones

Henry Cavill

James Norton

 

Philip and Aiden are my suggestions

I love Armitage, but he screams Bond Villain to me.

Luke is a great choice, bit being openly gay might hurt his chances.

Don't think they'll  cast another blonde like Rupert.

I know Norton from Grantchester. Heard he was great in McMafia.

Cavill  is too big and bulky for my taste.

 

Any thoughts? 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by MrsEvanFreed

[Marc]

watched No Time to Die this afternoon as it's available for home viewing. 

it's one of the better Daniel Craig films, a lot better than I expected and I was invested in what was happening. The True Detective season one director has crafted a very fine modern Bond movie that I'd recommend. If you've enjoyed Casino Royale and Skyfall you owe it to yourself to see his final outing as 007.

without getting into spoilers it's hard to express how I felt at some of the decisions.

non spoiler negatives they didn't use Rami Malek well enough.

[Jack Gretsky]

Yes, I have.  I'm not even going to bother with No Time to Die.  In truth, "classic" Bond ended in 1989 with Licence to Kill, the last Bond movie done with the long-time crew of Cubby Broccoli, Richard Maibaum, et al - men who had lived through and participated in war and hard times.

Bond returned with the Brosnan series in 1995 for four increasingly less-than-stellar films.  The real comeback was in 2006 with the first and the best of the Craig movies, Casino Royale.  Here was a Bond film that was fresh, new, thrilling, but also felt connected with the Bond ethos and atmosphere.  Unfortunately, the Craig series devolved into soap opera and grave, sensitive little dramas.

When Bond returns to bullet, hot broads, fast pace, cleverness, humor and over the top villains, only then will I return to watching 'em. 

[jpaul1]

the only Bonds i really enjoy is the Moore ones. the Craig ones had everything to be great ones, great characters, great villain (Christoph Waltz is great actor, and sent Blofeld into another dimension), great Bond girls, but the stories are too bad. too sci-fi, too dark, too cold. seems the poor orphan Bond is doomed to suffer, endlessly. this becomes heavy. plus they killed Blofeld, who was a amazing character rendered by C. Waltz. by killing everyone, it's the series they're going to kill in the end

Edited November 11, 2021 by jpaul1

[pahonu]

3 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

the stories are too bad. too sci-fi, too dark, too cold. seems the poor orphan Bond is doomed to suffer, endlessly. this becomes heavy. 

This is actually a very good description of the literary Bond that I described in my post above, minus the sci-fi.  The film characters have been quite different over the years and have shaped what people now expect Bond to be.  Craig’s portrayal is perhaps the closest to the books but it may not be what audiences want.  Dalton’s portrayal did the same in the late 80’s and was not popular.  

[jpaul1]

interesting. just hope the books don't have the smart blood, and bot based virus things. because if so, then it'll be without me. I'm ok from a good refreshing movie from time to time, but i don't hook with these 'try to explain these unexplainable' things

[pahonu]

2 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

interesting. just hope the books don't have the smart blood, and bot based virus things. because if so, then it'll be without me. I'm ok from a good refreshing movie from time to time, but i don't hook with these 'try to explain these unexplainable' things

The books were written in the 50’s and 60’s with the technology of that era, so your safe!

[Augusta]

On 6/21/2020 at 3:02 PM, pahonu said:

I’ve read all the books and short stories, many before the films were made.  I’ve also read a lot about Ian Fleming’s life and experiences.  I had the same thought over 30 years ago about a series like you describe.  The novels generally don’t have the fantastic stunts and effects that drive up the cost of feature films.  A series like that could definitely be made but I don’t think it would work for two reasons.  

First, it’s not the James Bond that most people would expect, simply because the novels are so different from the films.  The first films were made from the later novels which had grown more fantastical than the early novels.  I honestly think most people would find the early novels a bit slow.  That’s why the film producers made changes to begin with, even in the first few films.  For example, the novel From Russia With Love takes place almost entirely indoors and is quite static.  The producers intentionally added the outdoor chase scene after the train.  Just one of many changes for the masses.  Later films ditched the plot lines completely.  Huge parts of Moonraker take place while dining and playing cards at a private club.  Simply put, the audience for the novel version of Bond is likely quite small.

Second, Ian Fleming was not Agatha Christie.  Put bluntly, Fleming was a self-professed misogynist and a bigot.  He was the product of his time and it clearly shows in his writing.  As much as I love the novels, his racial language would be pretty jarring to modern audiences.  He used the term “Chigroes” to describe one of the minority groups in Jamaica.  His comments of British superiority are clearly reflective of his country’s, once massive though rapidly declining, imperialist power.     The stories very accurately reflect the time and place, and so could the series, it would, however be quite shocking, maybe even uncomfortable, to many viewers.  These  novels weren’t the Agatha Christie mysteries of genteel society in upper-class drawing rooms.  

I’m thinking about the classic SNL skit where Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase insult one another back and forth.  It is clever, insightful, and ultimately funny, but it’s language simply would not be acceptable to make into a skit today.  It was made in a different time.  Making it now is substantially different from watching it now.

Nice written point of view on Fleming.  I'm not sure yet if I agree with all you posted, but I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't right on target.  
I think the most fantastic thing about the James Bond franchise (...Star Wars franchise may become like this too in a few more years), is that because it stretches over a table of vividly changing decades, EACH decade of fan "knows" a reference-Bond they use to compare all 007 movies against, but FEW of us really knows "what Bond is meant to be like".  I learned that Fleming didn't like Connery-Bond (who is MY decade's James Bond and the actor I always grab as my reference point).  Fleming's arguments against Connery made sense:  Bond is meant to be what Fleming was taught an agent has to be--no memorable joking around, no popularity with the ladies, no sexy physical characteristics that will give you away on the job--and for Christ's sake no danged explosions to draw attention to King and Country.

Fleming writes his books that way---dirty little betrayal agreements discussed behind elegant dining cars and wealthy card games,... followed by disturbingly sadistic torture acts carried out with pleasure in dank lonely rooms if you or some innocent who helped you were unlucky enough to get caught.  
I bought a collection of paperbacks of his stories, at a time when the publisher got a cover illustration campaign going that was GLORIOUS in my opinion.  All the covers had scantly clad women looking dangerous, or frightened, with skulls or guns or rockets framed nearby!  (I'd post an image for you, but it would probably be taken down as inappropriately derogatory to women).   They looked like Dashel Hammet or Mickey Spillane detectives-n-dames pulp books, sexist, slanted, "shove the chic out the way and pump three slugs into the crazed murderous flunky" kind of advertising.  AND that advertising was RIGHT for his style of writing!  Fleming's mind did seem to come from that prejudiced, sometimes "English-men's-club with black Jamaican boy fetch me a drink" era, that MUST have been part of the real world that Britain conducted its post WWII military intelligence dealings in.  EXCELLENT writing---don't think I'm condemning Fleming for who he was and what era he lived in!  That was his reality, that was the world we lived in (..or our grandparents lived in, actually).  Especially ole' famous  Britannia! Surprisingly, there's an old tv show called "Danger Man" where Patrick McGoohen plays what is near perfectly Fleming's James Bond.
So these days I just read his books, after so many years of watching Connery and other Bond actors,...and I end up enjoying an imaginary Bond who is halfway between book and movie, and THAT is my "perfect" James Bond.  Connery at the end of Thunderball is still dazzling a babe with his new high-wire extraction gadget.  Bond at the end of Fleming's Thunderball is victorious but whipped-spent-exhausted, panting for air like a well-trained operative who had to use his last drop of god forsaken strength in a fistfight that nearly killed him.

So whatever decade is your "reference Bond guy" favorite, you may be able to find perfection somewhere between that actor and Fleming's "callous, prejudiced Bond" books.  But for me, yes, Bond has gotten boring (and I suspect if Daniel Craig weren't so noble and professional to his art, he'd admit that Bond has lost its intellectual bearings too---it IS time to leave the role).  The Hollywood that now controls Bond, may not have the visions needed to save the franchise AGAIN (Craig being the thing that saved it the previous time).  
These days, I just love to look at my paperback cover collection, and read a few passages to get some Bond---the movies don't attract my attention anymore, because I keep finding myself saying "REE-diculous! that's not the way REAL Bond would do it!"

Star Wars is going to become like this.  Already I feel married to the Mark Hamill and Ray Park attitudes of that galaxy---I can't even tolerate the way they swing their lightsabers in these Disney franchise pictures, much less tell the story.  Complete lack of knowledge of how REAL lightsabering is done. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Augusta

[Kladdagh]

I coudn't say I lost my love for James Bond but, since the Graig arc, it's been different.

I mean, it is clearly linked to 9/11 2001. They change the direction of the movies who was supposed to be action fantasy (at my opinion). The Craig era was more believable in our time and was more rude. That is not a problem at all, they are good movies but the Fleming's spirit, it was doesn't match. 

[jpaul1]

books and movies are often different, not to say much different. this is the case with quest for fire, blow, or even rambo. the rambo of the book is much different than the movie one. much darker, but also much more human, as a soldier broken by the war

regarding Fleming, i didn't interest to the books yet. but it may come someday.

personnally i don't think the saga is dead. but if they want to put it back on tracks, they have to make a Bond we can identify to. a more human, and thus realistic character. not an x-file episode. i think creativity is endless. you just need to find the right end

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by jpaul1

[pahonu]

1 hour ago, Augusta said:

Nice written point of view on Fleming.  I'm not sure yet if I agree with all you posted, but I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't right on target.  
I think the most fantastic thing about the James Bond franchise (...Star Wars franchise may become like this too in a few more years), is that because it stretches over a table of vividly changing decades, EACH decade of fan "knows" a reference-Bond they use to compare all 007 movies against, but FEW of us really knows "what Bond is meant to be like".  I learned that Fleming didn't like Connery-Bond (who is MY decade's James Bond and the actor I always grab as my reference point).  Fleming's arguments against Connery made sense:  Bond is meant to be what Fleming was taught an agent has to be--no memorable joking around, no popularity with the ladies, no sexy physical characteristics that will give you away on the job--and for Christ's sake no danged explosions to draw attention to King and Country.

Fleming writes his books that way---dirty little betrayal agreements discussed behind elegant dining cars and wealthy card games,... followed by disturbingly sadistic torture acts carried out with pleasure in dank lonely rooms if you or some innocent who helped you were unlucky enough to get caught.  
I bought a collection of paperbacks of his stories, at a time when the publisher got a cover illustration campaign going that was GLORIOUS in my opinion.  All the covers had scantly clad women looking dangerous, or frightened, with skulls or guns or rockets framed nearby!  (I'd post an image for you, but it would probably be taken down as inappropriately derogatory to women).   They looked like Dashel Hammet or Mickey Spillane detectives-n-dames pulp books, sexist, slanted, "shove the chic out the way and pump three slugs into the crazed murderous flunky" kind of advertising.  AND that advertising was RIGHT for his style of writing!  Fleming's mind did seem to come from that prejudiced, sometimes "English-men's-club with black Jamaican boy fetch me a drink" era, that MUST have been part of the real world that Britain conducted its post WWII military intelligence dealings in.  EXCELLENT writing---don't think I'm condemning Fleming for who he was and what era he lived in!  That was his reality, that was the world we lived in (..or our grandparents lived in, actually).  Especially ole' famous  Britannia! Surprisingly, there's an old tv show called "Danger Man" where Patrick McGoohen plays what is near perfectly Fleming's James Bond.
So these days I just read his books, after so many years of watching Connery and other Bond actors,...and I end up enjoying an imaginary Bond who is halfway between book and movie, and THAT is my "perfect" James Bond.  Connery at the end of Thunderball is still dazzling a babe with his new high-wire extraction gadget.  Bond at the end of Fleming's Thunderball is victorious but whipped-spent-exhausted, panting for air like a well-trained operative who had to use his last drop of god forsaken strength in a fistfight that nearly killed him.

So whatever decade is your "reference Bond guy" favorite, you may be able to find perfection somewhere between that actor and Fleming's "callous, prejudiced Bond" books.  But for me, yes, Bond has gotten boring (and I suspect if Daniel Craig weren't so noble and professional to his art, he'd admit that Bond has lost its intellectual bearings too---it IS time to leave the role).  The Hollywood that now controls Bond, may not have the visions needed to save the franchise AGAIN (Craig being the thing that saved it the previous time).  
These days, I just love to look at my paperback cover collection, and read a few passages to get some Bond---the movies don't attract my attention anymore, because I keep finding myself saying "REE-diculous! that's not the way REAL Bond would do it!"

Star Wars is going to become like this.  Already I feel married to the Mark Hamill and Ray Park attitudes of that galaxy---I can't even tolerate the way they swing their lightsabers in these Disney franchise pictures, much less tell the story.  Complete lack of knowledge of how REAL lightsabering is done. 

Have you ever seen the British miniseries Fleming: The Man Who Would be Bond?  It’s quite well done and just four episodes.  I watched it when it first aired and thought it was in some ways more like the Bond books than any of the movies.  It’s set from the eve of WWII until he he started writing Casino Royale in 1952. I think you might enjoy it.

[Augusta]

29 minutes ago, Kladdagh said:

The Craig era was more believable in our time and was more rude. That is not a problem at all, they are good movies but the Fleming's spirit, it was doesn't match. 

I agree with you, too.  Craig-Bond brought some rudeness to the character,... and I THINK that's the way Bond started in Fleming's Casino Royale!  New to the job, not yet appreciating the effectiveness of elegant-dressing, of refined restraint, or NOT jumping in your enemy's face with anger, and (in the film anyway) relying on his female assistant to teach him to appreciate those techniques.  In Casino Royale I thought Craig was the best danged rendition of Bond you could ever present for the 2000 decade--AND be an excellent introduction back into Connery's style of Bond.  (Craig's learning phase almost explains why Connery chooses to be SO refined, and SO smooth and SO slightly impudent to his profession).  
But after Quantum of Solace I figured, "he's vindicated the woman who he lost in Casino Royale, he's gotten the bitterness out of his system---time to take the good values you've learned, and stop bucking the system and being badass disobedient now."  
But they just kept Craig-Bond disgruntled, moody, 'can't work with this dude, so kill me with your motorcycle too'.  
You're right, it's very "today" for him to be so rude in his job.  But it's also very tiresome for many of his audience.  

[Augusta]

Just now, pahonu said:

Have you ever seen the British miniseries Fleming: The Man Who Would be Bond?  It’s quite well done and just four episodes.  I watched it when it first aired and thought it was in some ways more like the Bond books than any of the movies.  It’s set from the eve of WWII until he he started writing Casino Royale in 1952. I think you might enjoy it.

Yep, I know about that little miniseries.  I didn't watch it, only because I was too busy with a whole lot of other stuff in life at the time.  But I did hear others say also that it was very good and worth watching.

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

I have at times (I was introduced to Bond through "A View to a Kill", then the two Timothy Dalton installments, so I'm actually a big fan of Dalton's Bond), but it's been reinvigorated by the blog I've been on for 9 years (Lebeau's Leblog, he he) currently having a Bond Girl poll (I've always favored Holly Goodhead, since I like those all business and no-nonsense type of women, plus Lois Chiles played Mrs. Lansing in that "Creepshow 2" segment, 'The Hitchhiker', and I think she's a riot there, along with essentially carrying the entire segment by herself).

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

On 6/21/2020 at 1:35 PM, RedDragon86 said:

Roger Moore was the most unconvincing agent and he was too old, heck he looked past it when he was doing "The Saint" are we suppose to believe that this guy was trained by the SAS and knows karate? Moore was easily the most inept fighter. Although his films are nowhere near as good as the Connery ones Dalton is my favorite bond.

 

I agree with you, Dalton is also my favorite Bond.

[jpaul1]

6 minutes ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

I have at times (I was introduced to Bond through "A View to a Kill", then the two Timothy Dalton installments, so I'm actually a big fan of Dalton's Bond), but it's been reinvigorated by the blog I've been on for 9 years (Lebeau's Leblog, he he) currently having a Bond Girl poll (I've always favored Holly Goodhead, since I like those all business and no-nonsense type of women, plus Lois Chiles played Mrs. Lansing in that "Creepshow 2" segment, 'The Hitchhiker', and I think she's a riot there, along with essentially carrying the entire segment by herself).

Lois Chiles was a great Bond girl

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

5 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

Lois Chiles was a great Bond girl

Yeah, I know "Moonraker" isn't everyone's series fav and is pretty out there (it is in outer space, after all), but I find it's silliness enjoyable, and Goodhead lends an air of seriousness to the proceedings. Plus, Jaws is in it, and I feel that he's a lovable good guy in this spot, so I also dig that!

[Augusta]

LOL, it's like I said.  

Each of you posting feels you were introduced to Bond through "actor-X", and you "bond" to the attitude of that batch of films that included him. (Actually, since each of us watched a particular decade of Bond films, and the franchise seemed to hold onto an actor no longer than roughly five years at a time, you've each been familiarized with TWO Bond actors depending on our decade).  You each come away accepting the WAY in which Hollywood chose to align the movie with the current culture.   (for example the Hip humorous 70's with Moore, the vengeful stealth relentlessness of the 80's with Dalton), so the other Bond actors will never please you like those you were introduced to first.  Part of you will always be saying "That's not how Bond is supposed to do it--this movie needs more "blank" in it, like my Bond in film no 14."  (Mine's Connery and Lazenby, and right down to the ladies in their movies THEIR attitudes toward the storyline appear perfect to me---Live and Let Die was the only amount of Moore I could accept before I started criticizing every next Bond picture he did).

That's one weird magically fun anomaly that we have to give the Bond franchise kudos for creating, that I don't think other franchises could ever create. 

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

57 minutes ago, Augusta said:

LOL, it's like I said.  

Each of you posting feels you were introduced to Bond through "actor-X", and you "bond" to the attitude of that batch of films that included him. (Actually, since each of us watched a particular decade of Bond films, and the franchise seemed to hold onto an actor no longer than roughly five years at a time, you've each been familiarized with TWO Bond actors depending on our decade).  You each come away accepting the WAY in which Hollywood chose to align the movie with the current culture.   (for example the Hip humorous 70's with Moore, the vengeful stealth relentlessness of the 80's with Dalton), so the other Bond actors will never please you like those you were introduced to first.  Part of you will always be saying "That's not how Bond is supposed to do it--this movie needs more "blank" in it, like my Bond in film no 14."  (Mine's Connery and Lazenby, and right down to the ladies in their movies THEIR attitudes toward the storyline appear perfect to me---Live and Let Die was the only amount of Moore I could accept before I started criticizing every next Bond picture he did).

That's one weird magically fun anomaly that we have to give the Bond franchise kudos for creating, that I don't think other franchises could ever create. 

I think you make a REALLY great point; I like all the Bond interpretations in general, and I'm also glad there's so much diversity on display in terms of the different Bonds in the franchise (it's mostly some of the films themselves I become shaky on at times). You "Bond": yeah, I definitely love that thought as well!

[Augusta]

1 hour ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

I think you make a REALLY great point; I like all the Bond interpretations in general, and I'm also glad there's so much diversity on display in terms of the different Bonds in the franchise (it's mostly some of the films themselves I become shaky on at times). You "Bond": yeah, I definitely love that thought as well!

Speaking of Moonraker...

Eillio, have you ever listened to one of those 70's interviews of Jaws actor Richard Kiel just being himself?  
BLEW ME AWAY!!  No way that's the real guy!  

Reads great literature, so down to earth in the interviews, the kind of person poets and artist would want to invite to their high-art parties.  Had a rich voice that makes women turn all gooey inside---I stopped going to the theaters with my girlfriend when Roger Moore's Bond movie was around, cuz I knew she was smokin for Jaws to say something in the movie with that voice of his.  
Crush on Roger Moore I'm okay with--cuz he's nearly an old man.  But crush on Richard Kiel--nope, we're leaving the theater now.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Augusta
spelling error