The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[stockslivevan]

To those here who find this current Bond 'incarnation' the greatest thing Eon could ever have done I have a question: Do you want the 'traditional' Bond elements, such as Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, OTT villains, escapism storylines, a Bond who looks like Bond, etc., ever placed back, OR would this current 'incarnation' go on indefinitely and have you content?

Well BJ, it looks like my ideal Bond films and actors do not fit in perfectly in either of your two questions.

I support it Craig's Bond, but I want it to go somewhere and it looks it from all the interviews. It will be interesting once Craig grows the character as the fully formed Bond everyone recognizes. The end of CR with Bond in a suit delivering "Bond... James Bond" is a preview of things to come: Quantum of Solace. If he keeps doing what he did in the first half CR I will be disappointed that there was no growth. You don't seem to understand that BJ. He's not going to remain exactly the same he was in CR, he's going to evolve.

My ideal Bond actors are these: Sean Connery in his first two films and Timothy Dalton in both his. Those are my Bonds. Convincingly dangerous secret agents with a licence to kill, while also polished as gentleman.

My ideal Bond films are my top five:

1) From Russia with Love
2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3) Dr. No
4) Casino Royale
5) The Living Daylights

As for Q and Moneypenny, drop them for good unless they have a point. I admit that they were amusing in the 60s films. The last good Moneypenny moment was in OHMSS with Bond tossing his fedora to a teary-eyed Moneypenny. It was the last touching moment between them. Since then it has been nothing more than a cliche disguised as "tradition". Same with Q. Once Roger Moore started playing with his toys like a 5 year old brat in somebody else's room, it got tired.

Ask yourself this question. Would there have been a big difference if you took out every Moneypenny and Q scene in the Bond films made from 1971-2002? Would their absences have totally collapsed the films? Was the scenes with Moneypenny simply saying "Hello" to Bond while in Egypt vital? Would the Bond series have been ruined without them?

You don't need Monepenny, Q, gadgets, and OTT to make a good film. You need good storytelling, acting, excitement and most of all an exotic feel. Lots of films besides Casino Royale have already proved it. People go to see Bond films not for hood ornaments like those cliches you mentioned, they're there to see Bond kick ass in exotic locations holding a girl by his side while holding a martini.

If you pressure EON to satisfy you by putting back all those cliches in, they'll just end up making another film trying to recapture elements that have already been done instead of going for something new and keeping the series alive.

[The Sweeney]

To those here who find this current Bond 'incarnation' the greatest thing Eon could ever have done I have a question: Do you want the 'traditional' Bond elements, such as Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, OTT villains, escapism storylines, a Bond who looks like Bond, etc., ever placed back, OR would this current 'incarnation' go on indefinitely and have you content?

Well BJ, it looks like my ideal Bond films and actors do not fit in perfectly in either of your two questions.

I support it Craig's Bond, but I want it to go somewhere and it looks it from all the interviews. It will be interesting once Craig grows the character as the fully formed Bond everyone recognizes. The end of CR with Bond in a suit delivering "Bond... James Bond" is a preview of things to come: Quantum of Solace. If he keeps doing what he did in the first half CR I will be disappointed that there was no growth. You don't seem to understand that BJ. He's not going to remain exactly the same he was in CR, he's going to evolve.

My ideal Bond actors are these: Sean Connery in his first two films and Timothy Dalton in both his. Those are my Bonds. Convincingly dangerous secret agents with a licence to kill, while also polished as gentleman.

My ideal Bond films are my top five:

1) From Russia with Love
2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3) Dr. No
4) Casino Royale
5) The Living Daylights

As for Q and Moneypenny, drop them for good unless they have a point. I admit that they were amusing in the 60s films. The last good Moneypenny moment was in OHMSS with Bond tossing his fedora to a teary-eyed Moneypenny. It was the last touching moment between them. Since then it has been nothing more than a cliche disguised as "tradition". Same with Q. Once Roger Moore started playing with his toys like a 5 year old brat in somebody else's room, it got tired.

Ask yourself this question. Would there have been a big difference if you took out every Moneypenny and Q scene in the Bond films made from 1971-2002? Would their absences have totally collapsed the films? Was the scenes with Moneypenny simply saying "Hello" to Bond while in Egypt vital? Would the Bond series have been ruined without them?

You don't need Monepenny, Q, gadgets, and OTT to make a good film. You need good storytelling, acting, excitement and most of all an exotic feel. Lots of films besides Casino Royale have already proved it. People go to see Bond films not for hood ornaments like those cliches you mentioned, they're there to see Bond kick ass in exotic locations holding a girl by his side while holding a martini.

If you pressure EON to satisfy you by putting back all those cliches in, they'll just end up making another film trying to recapture elements that have already been done instead of going for something new and keeping the series alive.

Well said! Give that man a beer....

[stockslivevan]

Thank you Sweeney.

[Gary Seven]

bjmdds wrote:
To those here who find this current Bond 'incarnation' the greatest thing Eon could ever have done I have a question: Do you want the 'traditional' Bond elements, such as Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, OTT villains, escapism storylines, a Bond who looks like Bond, etc., ever placed back, OR would this current 'incarnation' go on indefinitely and have you content?

Stocksilvian replied:
Well BJ, it looks like my ideal Bond films and actors do not fit in perfectly in either of your two questions.

But, Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton and Geroge Lazenby looked like Bond, "a Bond who looks like Bond". No-one is seriously arguing that Daniel Craig looks like James Bond.

One of Q's finest moments was in a Licence To Kill.

Personally, the Bond cliches are part of the magic of the movie James Bond.

Stocksilvian wrote

You don't need Monepenny, Q, gadgets, and OTT to make a good film. You need good storytelling, acting, excitement and most of all an exotic feel. Lots of films besides Casino Royale have already proved it.

You don't need James Bond or the James Bond music now, if the Box Office returns were anything to go by.

Personally I do not dislike 3/4 of the Bond movies and did not pray for the day they cast a James Bond who doesn't look like James Bond playing a James Bond who isn't James Bond in a James Bond movie which isn't a James Bond movie.

[stockslivevan]

Personally I do not dislike 3/4 of the Bond movies

Neither do I. I only dislike half of the movies, most of them being Moore and Brosnan films.

did not pray for the day they cast a James Bond who doesn't look like James Bond playing a James Bond who isn't James Bond in a James Bond movie which isn't a James Bond movie.

That's too bad, I think Craig fits the bill, despite the blond hair.

[Skywalker]

I support it Craig's Bond, but I want it to go somewhere and it looks it from all the interviews. It will be interesting once Craig grows the character as the fully formed Bond everyone recognizes. The end of CR with Bond in a suit delivering "Bond... James Bond" is a preview of things to come: Quantum of Solace. If he keeps doing what he did in the first half CR I will be disappointed that there was no growth. You don't seem to understand that BJ. He's not going to remain exactly the same he was in CR, he's going to evolve.

This is a major cause of concern for me. With Craig's Bond so charmless, blunt, raw and thug like in CR, I find it hard to believe he will be suddenly the charming articulate, knowledgeable Bond that was evident in the previous Bond movies.

Craig's aged look also works against his rawness in CR.

My ideal Bond actors are these: Sean Connery in his first two films and Timothy Dalton in both his. Those are my Bonds. Convincingly dangerous secret agents with a licence to kill, while also polished as gentleman.

My ideal Bond films are my top five:

1) From Russia with Love
2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3) Dr. No
4) Casino Royale
5) The Living Daylights

4 out of the 5 films are not considered popular by the general public. In the UK the ITV station does not show FRWL and barely shows OHMSS or LTK.

As for Q and Moneypenny, drop them for good unless they have a point. I admit that they were amusing in the 60s films. The last good Moneypenny moment was in OHMSS with Bond tossing his fedora to a teary-eyed Moneypenny. It was the last touching moment between them. Since then it has been nothing more than a cliche disguised as "tradition". Same with Q. Once Roger Moore started playing with his toys like a 5 year old brat in somebody else's room, it got tired.

These elements have always been popular with the general public (even in DAD).

Ask yourself this question. Would there have been a big difference if you took out every Moneypenny and Q scene in the Bond films made from 1971-2002? Would their absences have totally collapsed the films? Was the scenes with Moneypenny simply saying "Hello" to Bond while in Egypt vital? Would the Bond series have been ruined without them?.

Me personally I enjoy the banter between Bond, Q and Moneypenny.

You don't need Monepenny, Q, gadgets, and OTT to make a good film. You need good storytelling, acting, excitement and most of all an exotic feel. Lots of films besides Casino Royale have already proved it. People go to see Bond films not for hood ornaments like those cliches you mentioned, they're there to see Bond kick ass in exotic locations holding a girl by his side while holding a martini.

I don't want Bond to be another generic action hero. We've got plenty of those. I want Bond to be the class act he has always been. The guy that stands out from mediocrity. The PTS in CR showed Craig could do it, yet for the rest of the film we got a juvenile Rambo.

I think M says it best in CR when she describes Bond as a blunt instrument. Sad but true.

[stockslivevan]

4 out of the 5 films are not considered popular by the general public. In the UK the ITV station does not show FRWL and barely shows OHMSS or LTK.

So what? I was talking about MY ideal Bond. And LTK is not on my top five, unless you meant TLD.

These elements have always been popular with the general public (even in DAD).

Then why did the general public not cry foul with CR scrapping them? People go for Bond, with or without those two characters. CR proved that.

Me personally I enjoy the banter between Bond, Q and Moneypenny.

So did I, when it was the 60s films (excluding YOLT).

[Kristatos]

To misquote Sir Humphrey Appleby, Q and Moneypenny are like the Church of England - you may not have any real use for them, but it's nice to know they're there.

[bjmdds]

To those here who find this current Bond 'incarnation' the greatest thing Eon could ever have done I have a question: Do you want the 'traditional' Bond elements, such as Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, OTT villains, escapism storylines, a Bond who looks like Bond, etc., ever placed back, OR would this current 'incarnation' go on indefinitely and have you content?

Well BJ, it looks like my ideal Bond films and actors do not fit in perfectly in either of your two questions.

I support it Craig's Bond, but I want it to go somewhere and it looks it from all the interviews. It will be interesting once Craig grows the character as the fully formed Bond everyone recognizes. The end of CR with Bond in a suit delivering "Bond... James Bond" is a preview of things to come: Quantum of Solace. If he keeps doing what he did in the first half CR I will be disappointed that there was no growth. You don't seem to understand that BJ. He's not going to remain exactly the same he was in CR, he's going to evolve.

My ideal Bond actors are these: Sean Connery in his first two films and Timothy Dalton in both his. Those are my Bonds. Convincingly dangerous secret agents with a licence to kill, while also polished as gentleman.

My ideal Bond films are my top five:

1) From Russia with Love
2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3) Dr. No
4) Casino Royale
5) The Living Daylights

As for Q and Moneypenny, drop them for good unless they have a point. I admit that they were amusing in the 60s films. The last good Moneypenny moment was in OHMSS with Bond tossing his fedora to a teary-eyed Moneypenny. It was the last touching moment between them. Since then it has been nothing more than a cliche disguised as "tradition". Same with Q. Once Roger Moore started playing with his toys like a 5 year old brat in somebody else's room, it got tired.

Ask yourself this question. Would there have been a big difference if you took out every Moneypenny and Q scene in the Bond films made from 1971-2002? Would their absences have totally collapsed the films? Was the scenes with Moneypenny simply saying "Hello" to Bond while in Egypt vital? Would the Bond series have been ruined without them?

You don't need Monepenny, Q, gadgets, and OTT to make a good film. You need good storytelling, acting, excitement and most of all an exotic feel. Lots of films besides Casino Royale have already proved it. People go to see Bond films not for hood ornaments like those cliches you mentioned, they're there to see Bond kick ass in exotic locations holding a girl by his side while holding a martini.

If you pressure EON to satisfy you by putting back all those cliches in, they'll just end up making another film trying to recapture elements that have already been done instead of going for something new and keeping the series alive.

After watching this franchise over 40 years I now have to watch Bond evolve? Who has he been since 1962, a stranger? I too enjoy FRWL and Dr. No, so we agree on that. The other films you state are your favorites I do watch,except CR, but not as enthusiastically as the others in the franchise. Does Eon keep the Bond franchise alive by reinventing it's Bond concept? You do not seem offended, nor does Sweeney,with this reboot idea, and what it truly means to the past films:IT RENDERS THEM MEANINGLESS and I resent that. With no explanation, Bond is ATTAINING his 00 status, after 44 years of films, and now, I have to watch him EVOLVE into what he will become in the first 20 films Can you realize how this sounds to those here who enjoyed the ongoing adventures of a distinguised 00 spy named Bond, James Bond?

[bjmdds]

To misquote Sir Humphrey Appleby, Q and Moneypenny are like the Church of England - you may not have any real use for them, but it's nice to know they're there.

AND, they SHOULD be there.

[stockslivevan]

Why does CR make the previous films meaningless? Because it starts its own storyline? I don't remember EON or CR saying "Forget what you know about the previous films because they no longer exist".

I think this is another aspect of your dislike for the reboot idea. You're looking at it the wrong way. You're acting like EON is belittling the previous films in some way, which is not the truth, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten those classics like Dr. No and From Russia with Love on the new DVDs which look brilliantly cleaned up.

In fact, the previous series is mostly episodic that never had to rely on eachother unless dialogue referenced a certain event for eleven seconds (Tracy Bond) which were only trivial and never had an effect on the films. There never was a perfect continuity between the films. And if they made CR in that timeline, they would have had to make certain compromises such as writing off Felix Leiter, try to convince us that Daniel Craig's Bond was a OO-Agent in the Cold War (which would have meant that he was a teenager) and so on. Would it make sense having an actor play a character that shares the same history as his predecessors even though when Bond married in 1969, the actor was only an infant in that year?

No. It wouldn't. So they're starting with a clean slate, while at the same time not forgetting the past by showing several homages that were more appropriate than those attempted on DAD. The Aston Martin, the Goldfinger-like character, "In the old days if an agent embarrassed himself he would have had the good sense to defect. Christ, I miss the cold war", and other Bondian elements.

[The Sweeney]

I am really getting quite bored by the reboot argument these days. It has been kicked around and exhausted to death! My own opinion on it?

Well, one last time - it did not bother me one single bit. I did not get offended by its statement, because I, like Stocks, don't judge the films as continuing episodes. They are all stand-alone, and can be watched without every seeing another Bond film. They don't depend on each other.

For those of you who are offended by it - that's too bad. EON have done it now, and all the crying and ranting in the world won't ever change that now. You can go on and on and on about this until your dying days, but it still won't change what EON did with CR.

So what do the CR haters do now? Continue ranting and hating what EON have done for the next few years? Ignore the new Bond film that is about to be released, and still go on and on and on about reboots? Continue ranting and raving until Craig's tenure as Bond is over? That could be a long wait. And what happens if EON decide they have hit the jackpot now with the CR formula, and this IS the Bond for the noughties? So when Craig finally steps down, we get another actor in the same mould, and in the same style as CR?

Bond evolving? Bond has had to evolve since 1962, otherwise he wouldn't be here now. The Bond of FRWL is very different to the Bond of MR, but this evolving process was ok then? The Bond of MR is very different to the Bond of LTK also. Bond HAS evolved, whether you accept that or not.

And now we have a new Bond for the time we are in now - which appears to be a success. God only knows what the reaction will be here in November if bj's wildest fears are confirmed, and QOS actually does BETTER at the BO than CR (which I believe will happen).

Because then that will end all arguments about Craig's popularity as Bond, once and for all....

[Skywalker]

4 out of the 5 films are not considered popular by the general public. In the UK the ITV station does not show FRWL and barely shows OHMSS or LTK.

So what? I was talking about MY ideal Bond. And LTK is not on my top five, unless you meant TLD.

Either way, same result.

These elements have always been popular with the general public (even in DAD).

Then why did the general public not cry foul with CR scrapping them? People go for Bond, with or without those two characters. CR proved that.

I guess time will tell.

[Kristatos]

For those of you who are offended by it - that's too bad. EON have done it now, and all the crying and ranting in the world won't ever change that now. You can go on and on and on about this until your dying days, but it still won't change what EON did with CR.

No, but getting it off my chest makes me feel better.

So what do the CR haters do now? Continue ranting and hating what EON have done for the next few years?

Providing they don't keep making every film follow on directly from the last one until kingdom come, I'll just retcon the series in my mind so that the events of Doctor No through Die Another Day take place in between QOS and Bond 23, in a parallel timeline. That leaves the problem of Judi Dench's two Ms, but Purvis and Wade have already said that the M of CR was not the M of the Brosnan films, so in my head, the M of CR and QOS is Barbara Mawdesly's identical twin sister, Jenna Mawdesly. She gets replaced by Admiral Sir Miles Messervy offscreen, and he is replaced in turn by Barbara Mawdesly.

Of course, if Martin Campbell directs Bond 23, he'll probably insist on Dame Judi getting a line of dialogue that says "I'm still the same M I was in CR and QOS, so suck on that Mr Traditional-Bond-Fan-Trying-To-Invent-Your-Own-Continuity"!

[007]

The reboot with a young actor would have ben mildly interesting, if it had been an origin film. But to have a film about a young Bond on his first mission with 54 year old Daniel Craig was just ridiculous. It wasn't even an origin story anyway. All they did was have him shoot some old man in b/w and then he's a rookie 00 running through walls and mumbling pretentious dialogue with a frizzy crewcut. The main purpose was to do some postmodern jokes - none of which were memorable enough to justify scrapping the established Bond for a new series cobbled together from watching the Jason Bourne films. I could have got around the reboot if it was done in a different way with a young actor but a half-arsed reboot and Daniel Craig was just too much too soon for me. I really can't wait for him to move on because they might make a more traditional James Bond film with an actor who looks a bit like James Bnd.

[Kristatos]

But to have a film about a young Bond on his first mission with 54 year old Daniel Craig was just ridiculous.

Correction: Craig was actually 39. He only looked 54.

[Skywalker]

Providing they don't keep making every film follow on directly from the last one until kingdom come, I'll just retcon the series in my mind so that the events of Doctor No through Die Another Day take place in between QOS and Bond 23, in a parallel timeline. That leaves the problem of Judi Dench's two Ms, but Purvis and Wade have already said that the M of CR was not the M of the Brosnan films, so in my head, the M of CR and QOS is Barbara Mawdesly's identical twin sister, Jenna Mawdesly. She gets replaced by Admiral Sir Miles Messervy offscreen, and he is replaced in turn by Barbara Mawdesly.

Of course, if Martin Campbell directs Bond 23, he'll probably insist on Dame Judi getting a line of dialogue that says "I'm still the same M I was in CR and QOS, so suck on that Mr Traditional-Bond-Fan-Trying-To-Invent-Your-Own-Continuity"!

Surely this post deserves a few beers from the Sweeney too.

[The Sweeney]

Providing they don't keep making every film follow on directly from the last one until kingdom come, I'll just retcon the series in my mind so that the events of Doctor No through Die Another Day take place in between QOS and Bond 23, in a parallel timeline. That leaves the problem of Judi Dench's two Ms, but Purvis and Wade have already said that the M of CR was not the M of the Brosnan films, so in my head, the M of CR and QOS is Barbara Mawdesly's identical twin sister, Jenna Mawdesly. She gets replaced by Admiral Sir Miles Messervy offscreen, and he is replaced in turn by Barbara Mawdesly.

Of course, if Martin Campbell directs Bond 23, he'll probably insist on Dame Judi getting a line of dialogue that says "I'm still the same M I was in CR and QOS, so suck on that Mr Traditional-Bond-Fan-Trying-To-Invent-Your-Own-Continuity"!

Surely this post deserves a few beers from the Sweeney too.

Ok Kristatos. I'll buy you a beer for that too....

(I still think you are all crazy for reading waaaay too much into continuation in Bond films though...... )

[Skywalker]

(I still think you are all crazy for reading waaaay too much into continuation in Bond films though...... )

The decision to re-cast the Dame as M, but not the same M when it's the same person playing M was out there with the twighlight zone for me.

Maybe I should let it go and just try and enjoy the film.....




















but I can't.

[bjmdds]

Providing they don't keep making every film follow on directly from the last one until kingdom come, I'll just retcon the series in my mind so that the events of Doctor No through Die Another Day take place in between QOS and Bond 23, in a parallel timeline. That leaves the problem of Judi Dench's two Ms, but Purvis and Wade have already said that the M of CR was not the M of the Brosnan films, so in my head, the M of CR and QOS is Barbara Mawdesly's identical twin sister, Jenna Mawdesly. She gets replaced by Admiral Sir Miles Messervy offscreen, and he is replaced in turn by Barbara Mawdesly.

Of course, if Martin Campbell directs Bond 23, he'll probably insist on Dame Judi getting a line of dialogue that says "I'm still the same M I was in CR and QOS, so suck on that Mr Traditional-Bond-Fan-Trying-To-Invent-Your-Own-Continuity"!

Surely this post deserves a few beers from the Sweeney too.

Ok Kristatos. I'll buy you a beer for that too....

(I still think you are all crazy for reading waaaay too much into continuation in Bond films though...... )

It all goes back to Barbara B's ridiculous quote about what EON did, and got away with unscathed:"Doing book 1 as movie 21 makes no sense, but it is fun". Now QOS will continue the 'fun'. Not to a lot of long time supporters of her franchise. CR threw continuity into a parallel universe, aka, a Bizzaro Superman world.