ENOUGH !

TheRenegade · Post by **TheRenegade** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:32 am

Ok is anybody else out there tired of reading all the movie reviews where they praise the film makers for cutting out trade mark Bond elements??? The Shaken not Stirred Line? Bond James Bond. The Gadgets??? Are you kiddin me? The Gadgets is what Bond has ALWAYS been about. I for one am not pleased that the last two movies virtually did away with the Gadgets. And what about those movie reviews praising the new direction the franchise has taken? The franchise taking on more of a Jason Bourne feel. Well I for one don't like it. I don't feel like I'm watching a Bond movie anymore. If I wanna see a movie that's gonna be like a Jason Bourne movie I'll go watch a Jason Bourne movie. If I wanted to see Jason Bourne I would go see Jason Bourne. Clearly I just paid my money for a ticket because I wanted to see James Bond. Does anybody else share my sentiments???

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:37 am

TheRenegade wrote:Does anybody else share my sentiments???

Pretty much everyone here, I'd say. Welcome to the forum.

TheRenegade · Post by **TheRenegade** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:50 am

It's good to know I'm not the only real true Bond fan that feels that way. And thank you. I'm happy to be here.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:54 am

small voice I don't like the gadgets.They can stay gone, for the most part, for all I care. small voice

This is something that bugs me about Bond fans.There tends to be what I can only call fetishizing of some characters and elements(Moneypenny and Q come right to mind) Or characters having to be played by the same character in *every* film- Tanner in QOS for instance(and complaints about their not bringing minor characters like Villiers,whose part was minor at best in CR) back.

I don't feel like Bond has to do certain things in every film.

TheRenegade · Post by **TheRenegade** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:58 am

I disagree. From the very beginning the Gadgets is what Bond has been all about. I myself use to look forward to each new movie just to see what cool new gadgets he was gonna have. Also the Villians in these last two films were lame. Completely horrible. They don't even come close to some of the more sinister diabolical villains from past movies. Villains like Max Zorin, and Jaws just to name two.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:02 am

I liked Le Chiffre just fine.Greene not so much.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:13 am

As Dorothy Gale said to Toto, "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore". It applies to Eon's new Bond-ish creation.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:16 am

Personal taste..but I just don't get why some fans flip out when certain things are not included in Bond films *shrug*

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:22 am

TheRenegade wrote:From the very beginning the Gadgets is what Bond has been all about.

Yeah I agree, without the gadgets in Dr. No it wouldn't have been any good...

Milton Krest · Post by **Milton Krest** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:37 am

TheRenegade wrote:Ok is anybody else out there tired of reading all the movie reviews where they praise the film makers for cutting out trade mark Bond elements??? The Shaken not Stirred Line? Bond James Bond. The Gadgets??? Are you kiddin me? The Gadgets is what Bond has ALWAYS been about. I for one am not pleased that the last two movies virtually did away with the Gadgets. And what about those movie reviews praising the new direction the franchise has taken? The franchise taking on more of a Jason Bourne feel. Well I for one don't like it. I don't feel like I'm watching a Bond movie anymore. If I wanna see a movie that's gonna be like a Jason Bourne movie I'll go watch a Jason Bourne movie. If I wanted to see Jason Bourne I would go see Jason Bourne. Clearly I just paid my money for a ticket because I wanted to see James Bond. Does anybody else share my sentiments???

I agree! the gadgets as long as they are belivable and practical for Bond! I think in Dr No Bond didnt have any except the Walther he was given by Q branch but the villian had high tech gadgets avalible to him. I think people think Bond should be realistic now, which dumfounds me! Keep the toughness of flemings stories, sure! but flemings books were not the least bit realistic! i agree that the last 2 villians are absolute panty wastes, Lechiffre was the wimpiest villian to grace an action movie ever! and Greene looked like he wondered in from then Harry Potter set!

Post by **carl stromberg** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:29 am

Many reviewers who loved Casino Royale now share your sentiments Renegade!

I wonder if many people thought Casino Royale was a one-off, and Bond would return in Bond 22. Instead Eon noted the success of Casino Royale and thought they could repeat it by going even further away from the traditional Bond!

And I agree with Milton that elements of the Fleming novels were fantastical.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:56 pm

carl stromberg wrote:And I agree with Milton that elements of the Fleming novels were fantastical.

Aren't all Bond films including Craig's? The films have taken a grittier direction but they are no way "realistic" which seems to be a misused term for not just Bond but many other films these days such as the new Batman films (really, as grittier it gets, it's still a guy running around in a batsuit). CR and QOS are more gritty fantasy than gritty realism. Bond still lives the high life with fast cars, high class hotels, sharp suits and gorgeous women. The fantastical elements are still there, it's just been shaken up to a grittier fashion which IMO resembles the novels in a manner for example Bond being bloodied up, which only happened occasionally in the films pre-CR.

And frankly, TheRenegade's complaints are silly. Is From Russia With Love not at true Bond film because Bond never says the lines "Bond James Bond", "shaken not stirred" or have fantastical gadgets? Frankly if Bond was truly "always about the gadgets", meaning being reduced to a mere bloke who can easily handle the situation with the press of a button instead using of his own wits therefore meaning that any dumb bloke could easily be just like James Bond simply by pressing a button, then I probably wouldn't be a Bond fan. Luckily, only less than half of the films go that low. Heck, even Moore's films dropped them by the 80s. I'm a fan of Bond because of the character, not because of a magic button. If TheRenegade feels the opposite, all the power to him.

Felix Leiter · Post by **Felix Leiter** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:54 pm

The Craig films aren't realistic but the problem is that they are dour, generic and not much fun. If you take the fun and panache out of James Bond it becomes completely pointless. I won't be there for Bond 23. I'll wait for a change.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:18 pm

And frankly, TheRenegade's complaints are silly. Is From Russia With Love not at true Bond film because Bond never says
the lines "Bond James Bond", "shaken not stirred" or have fantastical gadgets? Frankly if Bond was truly "always about the gadgets", meaning being reduced to a mere bloke who can easily handle the situation with the press of a button instead using of his own wits therefore meaning that any dumb bloke could easily be just like James Bond simply by pressing a button, then I probably wouldn't be a Bond fan. Luckily, only less than half of the films go that low. Heck, even Moore's films dropped them by the 80s. I'm a fan of Bond because of the character, not because of a magic button. If TheRenegade feels the opposite, all the power to him.

^That is the truest thing that has ever been posted here.

I don't think that Renegade's opinion is representative of *all* many Bond fans,but it's certainly common.

Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:16 pm

Bond's toys are a fun and famous part of the movie series. Most are vaguely realistic. Craig's Bond does have a few gadgets. The mini hospital hidden in his car in Casino Royale is rather silly, as is M's space age computer screens in Quantum of Solace. The realistic Dalton era includes a car with laser beams and explosive toothpaste.

The "let's have no gadgets" fraternity are just trying to pretend they are intellectuals.

Post by **007** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:19 pm

Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:The "let's have no gadgets" fraternity are just trying to pretend they are intellectuals.

If that's the case they aren't doing a very good job.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:19 pm

I never said I was an intellectual..I'm not stupid though

like I said before,the need to have every aspect from the old films(gadgets, Q,Moneypenny) borders on being fetishistic with some fans,but it sure as hell isn't an across the board thing.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:02 pm

I'm not claiming to be an uber intellectual by saying the gadgets don't make Bond.

As for M's "space age computer screens", it's realistic. Afterall, where do you think the iPhone came from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP5y7yp06n0

Post by **carl stromberg** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:54 am

stockslivevan wrote:I'm not claiming to be an uber intellectual by saying the gadgets don't make Bond. As for M's "space age computer screens", it's realistic. Afterall, where do you think the iPhone came from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP5y7yp06n0

Most of them are feasible - apart from Roger's space shuttle equiped with lasers: in 1978!!!

wrenchhands · Post by **wrenchhands** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:02 pm

Meh, it's not just the feasibility aspect, it's also the *deux ex machina* aspect.

How is Bond gonna get out of this one.... oh wait, he's got the perfect gadget Q gave him! How fortunate!

Actually, I think that's what you guys are missing. The comfort of the familiar in Q branch presenting Bond his gadgets in a silly scene where Bond is chastised and surprised by things not appearing to be what they are. If you pay attention, you'll see there are gadgets. Bond's anti-poison kit in his car, his phone that traces a person who calls it, the phone takes hi-res pictures from afar.

I'm glad the film makers left that corny convention behind. Formulaic sucks.

Classic Bond Forum

ENOUGH !

ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !

Re: ENOUGH !