AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Discussion. James Bond Discussion  (Read 1925 times)

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3475
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2018, 08:59:22 AM »

Moore hung on too long.
The last couple of films he needed a lot of persuading to do - he'd publicly expressed that he was too old after For Your Eyes Only, and they tested people, but failed to find someone, hence they badgered Mr Can't-open-his-own-safe-let-alone-crack-one.
Quote
I really do not consider the current movies part of the series.
Absolutely. They aren't Bond films in the way that the others are, but films with someone called Bond who has a passing resemblance due to wise-cracking, womanising (to an extent, though Craig is the only Bond to cross the consent line) and alcoholism, but who actually is more like other JB spies - Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer.

That said, I enjoyed them a lot (except for Spectre, which I couldn't get into, and fell asleep trying to watch). It's a reboot and it's perfectly decent - but there's a disjoint.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8763
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:33 AM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2018, 10:12:42 AM »

Moore hung on too long.
The last couple of films he needed a lot of persuading to do - he'd publicly expressed that he was too old after For Your Eyes Only, and they tested people, but failed to find someone, hence they badgered Mr Can't-open-his-own-safe-let-alone-crack-one.
Quote
I really do not consider the current movies part of the series.
Absolutely. They aren't Bond films in the way that the others are, but films with someone called Bond who has a passing resemblance due to wise-cracking, womanising (to an extent, though Craig is the only Bond to cross the consent line) and alcoholism, but who actually is more like other JB spies - Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer.

That said, I enjoyed them a lot (except for Spectre, which I couldn't get into, and fell asleep trying to watch). It's a reboot and it's perfectly decent - but there's a disjoint.

Spectre completely ruined what was being built up in the previous three movies. Granted Skyfall never hinted at a secret organization from what I recall.  I didn’t care for Quantum of Solace on the first watch but it has grown on me over time.   

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1825
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 08:36:35 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2018, 12:38:19 PM »

The only thing I don’t like about the Daniel Craig films is that Skyfall killed the theory that “James Bond” is a codename, which would have explained why he could’ve been played by multiple actors.


It was a subtle nod, but this was likely killed much earlier. In the first scene of For Your Eyes Only, Roger Moore's Bond visited the grave of Bond's wife killed in the Lazenby film. I think there was also a reference to Bond being "married once" in another film, which Bond grimaces at as an unhappy memory.


Speaking of "For you eyes only", the best part is the car chase when he escape from the bad guys with a Citroen 2CV.

And in the Roger Moore era, I wonder if the character of Sheriff J.W. Pepper might had serve of prototype for Sheriff Bufford T. Justice of "Smokey and the Bandit"?

Logged

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2054
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 07:20:10 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2018, 04:42:44 PM »

Had sheriffs Justice & Pepper ever got together, the Bandit & Snowman would never have made it to Atlanta from Texarkana.  :-D :spin:
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2018, 06:22:47 PM »

The only thing I don’t like about the Daniel Craig films is that Skyfall killed the theory that “James Bond” is a codename, which would have explained why he could’ve been played by multiple actors.

It was a subtle nod, but this was likely killed much earlier. In the first scene of For Your Eyes Only, Roger Moore's Bond visited the grave of Bond's wife killed in the Lazenby film. I think there was also a reference to Bond being "married once" in another film, which Bond grimaces at as an unhappy memory.
Oh yes, you are right. But referring to Skyfall as “the Bond family estate” squashed the hell out of that theory.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:26:16 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2018, 03:23:41 AM »

There's an interesting side note to the mid-80's transition from Moore to Dalton via the Brosnan "mess":  Broccoli & Co. had been trying, without success, to convince John Gardner, the most prolific of the Bond continuation authors (14 novels from 1981-96 plus the "novelization" of License To Kill), to assign them the rights to his novels.  When the Fleming estate hired him to write those novels, he had it written into his contract that no film could me made of any of his works without his express permission; he had had a bad experience with the 1966 film of his novel The Liquidator, which he considered not even close to the source material.  And he absolutely despised the interpretation of Bond in the Moore films, much of which he attributed to Moore himself.   So as long as Roger Moore was the reigning Bond, Gardner wouldn't even consider the production company filming one of his novels.  After Moore stepped down in 1985, Broccoli once again approached Gardner, who had a reputation for being a bit money-hungry (he'd moved to the U.S. by then to avoid UK taxes), to assign the rights to his books.  Gardner expressed interest, but wanted to see how the Bond actor situation progressed.  When Brosnan was "penciled in" as the new Bond in early 1986, Gardner was skeptical because of the actor's youth (32 at the time); but when that casting fell through and Timothy Dalton, some 8 years older, was hired, Gardner's interest in contributing his novels to the series increased significantly -- but he wanted to see how Dalton fared in a stand-alone film, which was The Living Daylights.  He was supplied a copy of that film a month or so prior to its release in mid-'87; and he approved of Dalton's Bond.  So a tentative agreement was made:  Gardner would assign the rights to the first five of his books under a number of conditions:  Dalton or another actor acceptable to Gardner would portray Bond; Gardner would get story credit for these films and have full script approval prior to filming; and the novels would be filmed in the order written.  Plus -- Gardner would receive $2M for each novel against a percentage of the net profits; i.e., a typical movie "back-end" deal.  The first novel in the series was License Renewed, set a few years after the "00" section had been terminated and Bond reassigned to other intelligence and instructor duties -- but which is reactivated as a single-person (Bond) section to track down a terrorist modeled after the infamous "Carlos (the Jackal)".  Gardner and screenwriter Richard Maibaum came up with a concept for a transitional film to be called "License Revoked", where Bond goes "rogue" to avenge a wrong done to his friend Felix Leiter -- to be followed by the film of the book License Renewed, slightly "massaged" to accommodate the previous storyline.  Gardner then wrote a novel of "License Revoked" to serve as both the basic story line and the film's eventual novelization.  But he wanted advance payment of $12 million to cover that novel plus the five to be filmed.  United Artists, by then full partners in Bond film production, balked at this lump-sum simply because they were in precarious financial straits at the time.  Gardner got royally pissed off at this, withdrew his 5-novel offer, but agreed to provide the new novel as the basis for the next Bond film -- providing he was paid $1M for his efforts plus novel royalties, of course -- and the title was changed to omit any reference to his existing novels.  Broccoli agreed, paid him the million, and the film's title was changed to "License To Kill" (and, yes, the novelization follows the script almost exactly!).  Gardner continued to write his Bond novels for another seven years, but absolutely refused to reconsider his decision to not allow his books to be filmed as long as United Artists were involved with the production.  He died in 2007, but apparently there has been no agreement since that time between his estate and the Broccoli organization regarding using his works. 

It would have been interesting to see how his novels would have translated into film, as he attempted to "modernize" the then middle-aged Bond, who -- in the Gardner novels -- grudgingly accepted modernity, computerization, and other aspects of modern life while retaining his sense of propriety.   I had the good fortune to meet John Gardner back in 1989, right after all of the above transpired, at a signing of his Bond book Win, Lose, or Die in suburban Virginia, not far from his Loudon County home.  Being the last person that day to approach him with a book to autograph, we struck up a conversation that extended to a cocktail lounge in Vienna, where the signing was taking place -- and at which I staked him to, IIRC, 3 or 4 bourbon-on-the-rocks while waiting for his driver to pick him up.  I had heard rumors about what had transpired with the film producers, and he was more than willing to fill me in on the details as long as I "kept 'em coming".  A bit arrogant and a little conceited, he definitely considered his novels to be the true continuation of the Bond saga, while the films were simply a "sideshow" to keep the public interested in the character.  A few days earlier he had screened (at home) the film License to Kill; since it was more or less a literal interpretation of his original story, he thought it was one of the few Bond films (at least since the Connery era) that he could recommend wholeheartedly.  After about 45 minutes his driver showed up and he excused himself.  Since my D.C.-area trip was to do research for my then-pending masters' thesis, the Gardner interlude was a welcome break from digging through microfiche (still the archival standard in '89).     
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 03:41:30 PM by sparker »
Logged

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2018, 08:59:40 AM »



Craig. The series is winding down.  Those in charge now do not accept the character as written and have PCed him up.  Wooden actor.  I really do not consider the current movies part of the series.

I've only ever read Moonraker, because I was curious how different from the movie the book was.  It was more grounded in reality, but still had its outlandish moments

As for Craig..  Craig IS bond, but it's a totally different continuity, starting with Casino Royale. With the MIssion:Impossible movies and the Bourne movies coming along, along with the change in international politics, it had to be done.  My only grip is that if Casino Royale was the start of a new continuity (which IIRC, the producers said it was,) then Judi Dench shouldn't have been M.  It should have been Lord Voldemort (Can't think of the actor's name right now.  Damn, I'm getting old.) from the beginning.  I don't find craig wooden at all, and Skyfall, for how "Dark Knight"-ish convoluted the plot was, had some amazing cinematography. The skyscraper assassination sequence was amazingly beautiful.
Ralph Fiennes. Judi Dench was awesome as M.

The only thing I don’t like about the Daniel Craig films is that Skyfall killed the theory that “James Bond” is a codename, which would have explained why he could’ve been played by multiple actors.

That's why I consider Skyfall a different continuity, starting with Casino Royale.  Someone else mentioned Bond being married.  That was in Goldeneye.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2018, 09:01:30 AM »

With Sir Roger Moore I thought that I was watching The Saint rather than a James Bond movie.

Speaking of the Saint.  There was a clip from an episode of the Saint who predicted the future. 

We could also talk of the actors who was considerated for the role of James Bond but was rejected or some actors who declined the offer to perform the role of 007 like Adam West.

More recently, it's been reported that Clint Eastwood had been approached to fill the role.  I don't know if that was true or not, but I still couldn't see it.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2018, 09:02:08 AM »

Inspired by the "Favorite Movie Line" thread, I decided to start a catch-all topic for James Bond movies.

I've tried to rank the films in order of favorites before, but with so many films, its a daunting task.  I'll try again

1-Goldfinger
2- Skyfall
3-For Your Eyes Only
4- Casino Royale (2006)
5- From Russia With Love
6- Goldeneye
7-Dr. No
8- You only Live Twice
9- On Her Majesty's Secret Service
10-Live and Let Die
11 - The Spy Who Loved Me
12- Spectre
13-Living Daylights
14- Thunderball
15- License to Kill
16- Octopussy
17-Diamonds Are Forever
18-The Man With The Golden Gun
19- The World is Not Enough
20-Tomorrow Never Dies
21-Quantum of Solace
22-A View To A Kill
23-Moonraker
24- Never Say Never Again
25- Die Another Day

The only movies in the series I hate and never watch are Die Another Day and Never Say Never Again (even though Never Say Never Again has my most favorite line in the series:

"Mr. Bond! I've gotten you all wet!"
"That's OK, my martini's still dry.")

Thoughts?
You forgot to rank Casino Royale (1967).

I didn't forget that.  I don't consider it a true Bond film.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2018, 09:04:47 AM »

Goldfimger is the last Bomd film with any semblance to the Fleming books.

Even that had to be massaged for the screen, because of the gaping plot hole in the novel, which they so brilliantly fixed in the film.

Going forward, I'd like to see all the Ian Fleming novels refilmed, staying true to the source material, but in a Japanese Anime style cartoon. I think that could work.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6453
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: June 13, 2019, 04:28:10 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2018, 09:17:20 AM »

The only thing I don’t like about the Daniel Craig films is that Skyfall killed the theory that “James Bond” is a codename, which would have explained why he could’ve been played by multiple actors.

It was a subtle nod, but this was likely killed much earlier. In the first scene of For Your Eyes Only, Roger Moore's Bond visited the grave of Bond's wife killed in the Lazenby film. I think there was also a reference to Bond being "married once" in another film, which Bond grimaces at as an unhappy memory.
"The Spy Who Loved Me" contained that line.  The Russian Agent XXX states such when she first meets Bond.

Given that the earlier Bond movies all were based on the Ian Fleming novels; such continuity references are to be expected.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2018, 11:01:45 AM »

There's an interesting side note to the mid-80's transition from Moore to Dalton via the Brosnan "mess":  Broccoli & Co. had been trying, without success, to convince John Gardner, the most prolific of the Bond continuation authors (14 novels from 1981-96 plus the "novelization" of License To Kill), to assign them the rights to his novels.  When the Fleming estate hired him to write those novels, he had it written into his contract that no film could me made of any of his works without his express permission; he had had a bad experience with the 1966 film of his novel The Liquidator, which he considered not even close to the source material.  And he absolutely despised the interpretation of Bond in the Moore films, much of which he attributed to Moore himself.   So as long as Roger Moore was the reigning Bond, Gardner wouldn't even consider the production company filming one of his novels.  After Moore stepped down in 1985, Broccoli once again approached Gardner, who had a reputation for being a bit money-hungry (he'd moved to the U.S. by then to avoid UK taxes), to assign the rights to his books.  Gardner expressed interest, but wanted to see how the Bond actor situation progressed.  When Brosnan was "penciled in" as the new Bond in early 1986, Gardner was skeptical because of the actor's youth (32 at the time); but when that casting fell through and Timothy Dalton, some 8 years older, was hired, Gardner's interest in contributing his novels to the series increased significantly -- but he wanted to see how Dalton fared in a stand-alone film, which was The Living Daylights.  He was supplied a copy of that film a month or so prior to its release in mid-'87; and he approved of Dalton's Bond.  So a tentative agreement was made:  Gardner would assign the rights to the first five of his books under a number of conditions:  Dalton or another actor acceptable to Gardner would portray Bond; Gardner would get story credit for these films and have full script approval prior to filming; and the novels would be filmed in the order written.  Plus -- Gardner would receive $2M for each novel against a percentage of the net profits; i.e., a typical movie "back-end" deal.  The first novel in the series was License Renewed, set a few years after the "00" section had been terminated and Bond reassigned to other intelligence and instructor duties -- but which is reactivated as a single-person (Bond) section to track down a terrorist modeled after the infamous "Carlos (the Jackal)".  Gardner and screenwriter Richard Maibaum came up with a concept for a transitional film to be called "License Revoked", where Bond goes "rogue" to avenge a wrong done to his friend Felix Leiter -- to be followed by the film of the book License Renewed, slightly "massaged" to accommodate the previous storyline.  Gardner then wrote a novel of "License Revoked" to serve as both the basic story line and the film's eventual novelization.  But he wanted advance payment of $12 million to cover that novel plus the five to be filmed.  United Artists, by then full partners in Bond film production, balked at this lump-sum simply because they were in precarious financial straits at the time.  Gardner got royally pissed off at this, withdrew his 5-novel offer, but agreed to provide the new novel as the basis for the next Bond film -- providing he was paid $1M for his efforts plus novel royalties, of course -- and the title was changed to omit any reference to his existing novels.  Broccoli agreed, paid him the million, and the film's title was changed to "License To Kill" (and, yes, the novelization follows the script almost exactly!).  Gardner continued to write his Bond novels for another seven years, but absolutely refused to reconsider his decision to not allow his books to be filmed as long as United Artists were involved with the production.  He died in 2007, but apparently there has been no agreement since that time between his estate and the Broccoli organization regarding using his works. 

It would have been interesting to see how his novels would have translated into film, as he attempted to "modernize" the then middle-aged Bond, who -- in the Gardner novels -- grudgingly accepted modernity, computerization, and other aspects of modern life while retaining his sense of propriety.   I had the good fortune to meet John Gardner back in 1989, right after all of the above transpired, at a signing of his Bond book Win, Lose, or Die in suburban Virginia, not far from his Loudon County home.  Being the last person that day to approach him with a book to autograph, we struck up a conversation that extended to a cocktail lounge in Vienna, where the signing was taking place -- and at which I staked him to, IIRC, 3 or 4 bourbon-on-the-rocks while waiting for his driver to pick him up.  I had heard rumors about what had transpired with the film producers, and he was more than willing to fill me in on the details as long as I "kept 'em coming".  A bit arrogant and a little conceited, he definitely considered his novels to be the true continuation of the Bond saga, while the films were simply a "sideshow" to keep the public interested in the character.  A few days earlier he had screened (at home) the film License to Kill; since it was more or less a literal interpretation of his original story, he thought it was one of the few Bond films (at least since the Connery era) that he could recommend wholeheartedly.  After about 45 minutes his driver showed up an he excused himself.  Since my D.C.-area trip was to do research for my then-pending masters' thesis, the Gardner interlude was a welcome break from digging through microfiche (still the archival standard in '89).   
Great story. Thank you for sharing it.
Logged

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2018, 11:30:53 AM »

There's an interesting side note to the mid-80's transition from Moore to Dalton via the Brosnan "mess":  Broccoli & Co. had been trying, without success, to convince John Gardner, the most prolific of the Bond continuation authors (14 novels from 1981-96 plus the "novelization" of License To Kill), to assign them the rights to his novels.  When the Fleming estate hired him to write those novels, he had it written into his contract that no film could me made of any of his works without his express permission; he had had a bad experience with the 1966 film of his novel The Liquidator, which he considered not even close to the source material.  And he absolutely despised the interpretation of Bond in the Moore films, much of which he attributed to Moore himself.   So as long as Roger Moore was the reigning Bond, Gardner wouldn't even consider the production company filming one of his novels.  After Moore stepped down in 1985, Broccoli once again approached Gardner, who had a reputation for being a bit money-hungry (he'd moved to the U.S. by then to avoid UK taxes), to assign the rights to his books.  Gardner expressed interest, but wanted to see how the Bond actor situation progressed.  When Brosnan was "penciled in" as the new Bond in early 1986, Gardner was skeptical because of the actor's youth (32 at the time); but when that casting fell through and Timothy Dalton, some 8 years older, was hired, Gardner's interest in contributing his novels to the series increased significantly -- but he wanted to see how Dalton fared in a stand-alone film, which was The Living Daylights.  He was supplied a copy of that film a month or so prior to its release in mid-'87; and he approved of Dalton's Bond.  So a tentative agreement was made:  Gardner would assign the rights to the first five of his books under a number of conditions:  Dalton or another actor acceptable to Gardner would portray Bond; Gardner would get story credit for these films and have full script approval prior to filming; and the novels would be filmed in the order written.  Plus -- Gardner would receive $2M for each novel against a percentage of the net profits; i.e., a typical movie "back-end" deal.  The first novel in the series was License Renewed, set a few years after the "00" section had been terminated and Bond reassigned to other intelligence and instructor duties -- but which is reactivated as a single-person (Bond) section to track down a terrorist modeled after the infamous "Carlos (the Jackal)".  Gardner and screenwriter Richard Maibaum came up with a concept for a transitional film to be called "License Revoked", where Bond goes "rogue" to avenge a wrong done to his friend Felix Leiter -- to be followed by the film of the book License Renewed, slightly "massaged" to accommodate the previous storyline.  Gardner then wrote a novel of "License Revoked" to serve as both the basic story line and the film's eventual novelization.  But he wanted advance payment of $12 million to cover that novel plus the five to be filmed.  United Artists, by then full partners in Bond film production, balked at this lump-sum simply because they were in precarious financial straits at the time.  Gardner got royally pissed off at this, withdrew his 5-novel offer, but agreed to provide the new novel as the basis for the next Bond film -- providing he was paid $1M for his efforts plus novel royalties, of course -- and the title was changed to omit any reference to his existing novels.  Broccoli agreed, paid him the million, and the film's title was changed to "License To Kill" (and, yes, the novelization follows the script almost exactly!).  Gardner continued to write his Bond novels for another seven years, but absolutely refused to reconsider his decision to not allow his books to be filmed as long as United Artists were involved with the production.  He died in 2007, but apparently there has been no agreement since that time between his estate and the Broccoli organization regarding using his works. 

It would have been interesting to see how his novels would have translated into film, as he attempted to "modernize" the then middle-aged Bond, who -- in the Gardner novels -- grudgingly accepted modernity, computerization, and other aspects of modern life while retaining his sense of propriety.   I had the good fortune to meet John Gardner back in 1989, right after all of the above transpired, at a signing of his Bond book Win, Lose, or Die in suburban Virginia, not far from his Loudon County home.  Being the last person that day to approach him with a book to autograph, we struck up a conversation that extended to a cocktail lounge in Vienna, where the signing was taking place -- and at which I staked him to, IIRC, 3 or 4 bourbon-on-the-rocks while waiting for his driver to pick him up.  I had heard rumors about what had transpired with the film producers, and he was more than willing to fill me in on the details as long as I "kept 'em coming".  A bit arrogant and a little conceited, he definitely considered his novels to be the true continuation of the Bond saga, while the films were simply a "sideshow" to keep the public interested in the character.  A few days earlier he had screened (at home) the film License to Kill; since it was more or less a literal interpretation of his original story, he thought it was one of the few Bond films (at least since the Connery era) that he could recommend wholeheartedly.  After about 45 minutes his driver showed up an he excused himself.  Since my D.C.-area trip was to do research for my then-pending masters' thesis, the Gardner interlude was a welcome break from digging through microfiche (still the archival standard in '89).   

Damn.  Great story!
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:26:16 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2018, 04:17:15 PM »

^^^^^^^
Fleming's original characterization of Bond, starting in 1953, was a man who was borderline depressive and borderline alcoholic, burdened down with self-doubt and questions about his role as an "officially licensed killer" (likely traits Fleming recognized in himself and channeled into his novels).  But while such might be a proper basis for a modern film's "antihero", it didn't fly in the early '60's when the first films were released; Bond needed to be virtually superhuman and indestructible, with self-confidence on full display.  When Gardner assumed authorship of the novel series in the '80's, he simply "matured" Bond out of his early malaise, replacing the depression and over-imbibing with a calculated cynicism and measured pleasure, plus a sense of purpose in his job (Gardner was an unmitigated Tory!).  Trust was a rare commodity in Gardner's works; one repeated theme in his novels was betrayal by formerly trusted colleagues.  The novels got darker and darker as the series progressed; his last, 1996's Cold Fall (released in Europe as simply COLD) was unmitigatingly brutal, cynical, and ultimately depressing.  It was if Gardner wanted Bond to shed the middle-aged confidence the later author had imbued him with and revert to his former introspective self.  Curiously, once Gardner had completed the novel he pulled up stakes and moved to Switzerland, where he spent the remainder of his years. 

On another note -- I've said a few controversial things on this forum over the time I've been contributing, but I'm about to do something that might eclipse even my grudging acceptance of I-14:  I'm going to rank the 24 "official" Bond films -- also mentioning where I'd place the "unoffical" Never Say Never Again within the canon; all this with a brief synopsis regarding each ranking slot.  Working on it when I have the time; will post it within a week or so.     
Logged

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2018, 04:37:27 PM »

The only thing I don’t like about the Daniel Craig films is that Skyfall killed the theory that “James Bond” is a codename, which would have explained why he could’ve been played by multiple actors.

It was a subtle nod, but this was likely killed much earlier. In the first scene of For Your Eyes Only, Roger Moore's Bond visited the grave of Bond's wife killed in the Lazenby film. I think there was also a reference to Bond being "married once" in another film, which Bond grimaces at as an unhappy memory.
"The Spy Who Loved Me" contained that line.  The Russian Agent XXX states such when she first meets Bond.

Given that the earlier Bond movies all were based on the Ian Fleming novels; such continuity references are to be expected.

As I said a little further up, it was also referenced in Goldeneye
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2018, 10:15:49 PM »

Fleming's original characterization of Bond, starting in 1953, was a man who was borderline depressive and borderline alcoholic, burdened down with self-doubt and questions about his role as an "officially licensed killer" (likely traits Fleming recognized in himself and channeled into his novels).  But while such might be a proper basis for a modern film's "antihero", it didn't fly in the early '60's when the first films were released; Bond needed to be virtually superhuman and indestructible, with self-confidence on full display. 

Not exactly … while he was quite resourceful in winning various battles, they were often closely won things where he didn't seem quite up to the task, such as the fight with Oddjob where it even took a bit of luck for Bond to have the severed electric cable available at the right moment to electrocute Oddjob.  He would seem to be slightly inept or not having enough killer instinct, but somehow found a way to win the battles.

Of course a lot of the battles were a bit fanciful or even indirectly humorous, such as Bond's sport jacket remaining buttoned thruout the battle with Oddjob, and him gaining access to Oddjob's hat which was the first time that Oddjob was actually fearful, and then it looked like there must have been 50,000 volts running thru that cable given the light show that it produced when shorted to the metal bars.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 661
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 07:43:08 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2018, 12:31:38 AM »

I like Timothy Dalton's Bond.  But I think the darkness and violence of his two films (especially License to Kill) were too ahead of their time.

I like Pierce Brosnan's Bond too.  I don't know the story behind his departure, but ISTR he was publicly critical of the franchise's direction after Die Another Day.  Rightfully so, since that was a dreadful movie -- John Cleese was a terrible successor to Desmond Llewelyn's Q, and the invisible car...  well, the less said about that, the better.  But that criticism didn't endear him to the producers.

We're at the point now where Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Mission Impossible have interchangeable scripts.  Chases and explosions!
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:26:16 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2018, 05:04:22 AM »

I like Timothy Dalton's Bond.  But I think the darkness and violence of his two films (especially License to Kill) were too ahead of their time.

I like Pierce Brosnan's Bond too.  I don't know the story behind his departure, but ISTR he was publicly critical of the franchise's direction after Die Another Day.  Rightfully so, since that was a dreadful movie -- John Cleese was a terrible successor to Desmond Llewelyn's Q, and the invisible car...  well, the less said about that, the better.  But that criticism didn't endear him to the producers.

We're at the point now where Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Mission Impossible have interchangeable scripts.  Chases and explosions!


License To Kill, with a John Gardner-devised storyline (albeit uncredited at Gardner's request), was, in a cinematic sense, quite a departure from any Bond adventure previously filmed.  It seemed to be more of a strictly revenge film than the typical Bond fare -- almost to a Lethal Weapon level -- right down to a Michael Kamen score (a last-minute substitution when John Barry fell seriously ill in late 1988). 

Like Dalton before him, Brosnan became increasingly frustrated at the "down time" after the 2002 Die Another Day release, again due to MGM's dire financial straits.  By 2004 his withering criticism of both MGM and Barbara Broccoli's inability to secure the franchise's future had irreparably strained their relationship to the point that neither party wanted to deal with the other -- the parting of the ways was inevitable.  The following year -- right after Broccoli and Co. secured the rights to the first Fleming novel, Casino Royale, the decision was made to completely "reboot" the franchise by making that novel the basis for a Bond "origin" film -- which, of course, would require a new actor.  By the end of that year the casting choice had come down to Clive Owen or Daniel Craig; with the latter getting the final nod because he was 5 years younger and had the greatest chance of extending the franchise, since increased production costs had lengthened the space between film releases.  IMO, the "reboot" idea was the best thing the producers could have done with the franchise being a bit "long in the tooth" at 20 films over 44 years.   
Logged

inkyatari

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1361
  • Widen I-80 through all of Illinois!

  • Age: 50
  • Location: Morris, IL
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
    • Pie Factory Podcast - Classic Arcade gaming talk
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #43 on: October 02, 2018, 08:38:40 AM »

I like Timothy Dalton's Bond.  But I think the darkness and violence of his two films (especially License to Kill) were too ahead of their time.

I like Pierce Brosnan's Bond too.  I don't know the story behind his departure, but ISTR he was publicly critical of the franchise's direction after Die Another Day.  Rightfully so, since that was a dreadful movie -- John Cleese was a terrible successor to Desmond Llewelyn's Q, and the invisible car...  well, the less said about that, the better.  But that criticism didn't endear him to the producers.

We're at the point now where Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Mission Impossible have interchangeable scripts.  Chases and explosions!

The invisible car is actually the single thing I cut Die Another Day some slack on, because around that time I had been reading stories of how the UK government was actually pursuing development of one.   As for John Cleese, I thought, at first, that it was an inspired choice, but then he went all Monty Python on the role, which I should have expected.  I currently think that Ben Wishaw is actually pretty good in the role.
Logged
I'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1667
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 06:20:21 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #44 on: October 02, 2018, 10:15:39 AM »

For a real James Bond, there used to be an used car dealer of that name in Creswell OR back in the 70's and 80's.  His sign was visible on I-5.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2018, 11:28:00 AM »

I like Timothy Dalton's Bond.  But I think the darkness and violence of his two films (especially License to Kill) were too ahead of their time.

I like Pierce Brosnan's Bond too.  I don't know the story behind his departure, but ISTR he was publicly critical of the franchise's direction after Die Another Day.  Rightfully so, since that was a dreadful movie -- John Cleese was a terrible successor to Desmond Llewelyn's Q, and the invisible car...  well, the less said about that, the better.  But that criticism didn't endear him to the producers.

We're at the point now where Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Mission Impossible have interchangeable scripts.  Chases and explosions!

The invisible car is actually the single thing I cut Die Another Day some slack on, because around that time I had been reading stories of how the UK government was actually pursuing development of one.   As for John Cleese, I thought, at first, that it was an inspired choice, but then he went all Monty Python on the role, which I should have expected.  I currently think that Ben Wishaw is actually pretty good in the role.
I don’t know if he had alimony to pay or what, but John Cleese made some absolutely horrendous film choices in the late 1990s and early 2000s, between playing R, appearing in that godawful remake of The Out-Of-Towners, and appearing in one or two Charlie’s Angels films. At least Desmond Llewelyn got a dignified sendoff in The World Is Not Enough.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:26:16 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2018, 03:59:48 PM »

^^^^^^^
I fully expected Cleese to respond ".....I told you once!"* when Bond would ask him a question!  Not the best choice for the "gadgetmaster" role.  Ironically, Desmond Llewelyn died in an automobile accident (at age 85) just before the release of The World Is Not Enough.

*from the Python "Argument Clinic" sketch, of course! :awesomeface: 
Logged

stormwatch7721

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 147
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Massillon, OH, US
  • Last Login: October 04, 2018, 03:43:41 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2018, 03:28:11 PM »

I liked every Bond movie except Skyfall, which had a horrible plot.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5603
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:26:16 AM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2018, 04:48:17 PM »

I liked every Bond movie except Skyfall, which had a horrible plot.

It had a deceptively simple plot: former MI6 hacker exceeded his brief and was disavowed by M and subsequently tortured by Chinese intelligence -- and now he's out for revenge.  The film was quite different from anything before it -- no real "leading lady" (unless you count Judi Dench's M as occupying that role here), and, like OHMSS and Casino Royale, a less-than-optimal outcome (spoiler: M dies despite all of Bond's efforts to prevent that!).  But the acting performances, overall, were among the best of the series, from Craig himself, Dench as always, and Javier Bardem as the obsessed villain.  Skyfall, and even Spectre afterwards, seemed to be transitional films -- Craig's Bond was established in his first to films (Casino and Quantum); the two latter films were to tie up "loose ends" from not only the first two Craig entries but some nagging carryovers from the pre-reboot series of 20 films.  But Skyfall, at least to me, flowed a little better than Spectre, which seemed to have more forced plot points (including the Oberhauser to Blofeld transformation).  But the one good thing that the two films had in common (probably due to Sam Mendes' direction) was attention to dialogue (the exchange between Bond and the doomed Mr. White in Spectre was unexpectedly poignant and revealing); also exhibited with Silva's (Bardem) monologue in Skyfall as he approaches Bond for the first time in the huge hall.  As a director, Mendes has always put the spotlight on character motivation; something decidedly lacking in the pre-reboot series.  Whether that's jarring to longtime Bond aficionados is moot; that's how Mendes makes films.  Let's see if Cary Fukunaga (the new "Bond 25" director) will continue in that vein or choose another approach.   
Logged

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: Discussion. James Bond Discussion
« Reply #49 on: October 04, 2018, 05:14:42 PM »

I liked every Bond movie except Skyfall, which had a horrible plot.

It had a deceptively simple plot: former MI6 hacker exceeded his brief and was disavowed by M and subsequently tortured by Chinese intelligence -- and now he's out for revenge.  The film was quite different from anything before it -- no real "leading lady" (unless you count Judi Dench's M as occupying that role here), and, like OHMSS and Casino Royale, a less-than-optimal outcome (spoiler: M dies despite all of Bond's efforts to prevent that!).  But the acting performances, overall, were among the best of the series, from Craig himself, Dench as always, and Javier Bardem as the obsessed villain.  Skyfall, and even Spectre afterwards, seemed to be transitional films -- Craig's Bond was established in his first to films (Casino and Quantum); the two latter films were to tie up "loose ends" from not only the first two Craig entries but some nagging carryovers from the pre-reboot series of 20 films.  But Skyfall, at least to me, flowed a little better than Spectre, which seemed to have more forced plot points (including the Oberhauser to Blofeld transformation).  But the one good thing that the two films had in common (probably due to Sam Mendes' direction) was attention to dialogue (the exchange between Bond and the doomed Mr. White in Spectre was unexpectedly poignant and revealing); also exhibited with Silva's (Bardem) monologue in Skyfall as he approaches Bond for the first time in the huge hall.  As a director, Mendes has always put the spotlight on character motivation; something decidedly lacking in the pre-reboot series.  Whether that's jarring to longtime Bond aficionados is moot; that's how Mendes makes films.  Let's see if Cary Fukunaga (the new "Bond 25" director) will continue in that vein or choose another approach.   
I’m surprised the line in Skyfall alluding to Bond possibly being bisexual wasn’t more controversial than it was, but maybe I was looking in the wrong places.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.