The future of James Bond

Agreed, although I don't think that SPECTRE and Quantum were the same thing.  SPECTRE was the organization run by the mysterious Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Donald Pleasance's performance as him in You Only Live twice, is, in my opinion, one of the best Bond villains ever). 

Quantum and SPECTRE aren't directly related in terms of being the same thing but the original idea for Quantum of Solace was that SPECTRE would be behind it. I think the introduction of Quantum is an attempt to return to the original Bond villains but to update it and make it relate to modern society. However they went completely over the top with the action.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that major elements have been missing from Casino and Quantum e.g Q and Moneypenny. I would like to see the next movie bring back the elements that made the old ones great and Bond's meaningless yet amusing banter with both Moneypenny and Q are a big part of that.

If the new Bond films are meant to be a reboot, why did they retain Judi Dench as M?

Some maroons need continuity?

Old Bond movies were terrible. Recently I have watched "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" and these movies are absolutely terrible...

It is the same problem with the new star wars episodes...

These movies were great when you were 10... but now you have grown up and the same exact formula now "sucks"

they were intentionally campy. The new ones take themselves too seriously. Bond is cool, he punches people in the face, he isn't born. He doesn't have giant scripted fights.

Goldeneye is brilliant, some dodgy aspects, but mainly good.

Goldeneye is on right now

Goldeneye is on right now

Its not

BTW, has anyone else noticed that major elements have been missing from Casino and Quantum e.g Q and Moneypenny. I would like to see the next movie bring back the elements that made the old ones great and Bond's meaningless yet amusing banter with both Moneypenny and Q are a big part of that.

Moneypenny and Q weren't in the movie Casino Royal because they weren't in the book Casino Royal.

Tom raises a good point. What are they going to do once they're out of Bond books? Or good ones, even? Is Bond just going to be over then?

Also I always liked the idea that "James Bond" is just a code name, and each Bond is actually a different agent taking on the code name as they die off or leave the position.

Bond is cool, he punches people in the face, he isn't born.

This is true, Bond is not born.

Tom raises a good point. What are they going to do once they're out of Bond books? Or good ones, even? Is Bond just going to be over then?

They are already out of Bond books.  There are a few short stories left from the original Ian Flemming material and a number of post-Flemming books.

Also I always liked the idea that "James Bond" is just a code name, and each Bond is actually a different agent taking on the code name as they die off or leave the position.

That was the premise of the 1967 spoof of Casino Royale.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/

Quote from: Supertails on March 02, 2012, 02:21:32 AM

Tom raises a good point. What are they going to do once they're out of Bond books? Or good ones, even? Is Bond just going to be over then?

They are already out of Bond books.  There are a few short stories left from the original Ian Flemming material and a number of post-Flemming books.

Quote from: Supertails on March 02, 2012, 02:21:32 AM

Also I always liked the idea that "James Bond" is just a code name, and each Bond is actually a different agent taking on the code name as they die off or leave the position.

That was the premise of the 1967 spoof of Casino Royale.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/

I saw that movie, it was terrible.

I think Daniel Craig is an awful Bond. He's totally missed the point. Its meant to be camp and fun and a family film for boxing day. He's supposed to have ridiculous gadgets and he's not supposed to advertise BMWs etc at you or prance around in a pair of budgie smugglers. And his name is James Bond. Not James Blonde. Idiots!

What the hell are they doing to it? Testicular torture and Bond beating people to within an inch of their lives?

This is what happens when Americans waltz in with fists full of money and steal yet another great idea from someone else. It turns into the same rubbish format of all other Hollywood films. Why does Bond have to be like the Bourne identity? It was never meant to be like that. Can Americans only handle one type of secret agent persona? Would two distinct personalities in two different movies make an American public confused and angry? Bond is supposed to be a nice guy underneath it all with a sense of humour. I spend the entire movie hoping there is a plot twist where he dies horribly. Brosnan was OK. He seemed to get it. Craig needs to die of steroids in a fire.

I think Daniel Craig is an awful Bond. He's totally missed the point. Its meant to be camp and fun and a family film for boxing day. He's supposed to have ridiculous gadgets and he's not supposed to advertise BMWs etc at you or prance around in a pair of budgie smugglers. And his name is James Bond. Not James Blonde. Idiots!

What the hell are they doing to it? Testicular torture and Bond beating people to within an inch of their lives?

This is what happens when Americans waltz in with fists full of money and steal yet another great idea from someone else. It turns into the same rubbish format of all other Hollywood films. Why does Bond have to be like the Bourne identity? It was never meant to be like that. Can Americans only handle one type of secret agent persona? Would two distinct personalities in two different movies make an American public confused and angry? Bond is supposed to be a nice guy underneath it all with a sense of humour. I spend the entire movie hoping there is a plot twist where he dies horribly. Brosnan was OK. He seemed to get it. Craig needs to die of steroids in a fire.

...what?

First of all, Craig stars in the movies.  He doesn't write or direct them, and doesn't have any official control over their content.  He just plays the lead role.

Second of all, your rant against Americans makes absolutely no sense.  Eon Productions is a British company, and they've made every single Bond movie, including the last two.  At no point did any Americans swoop in to "steal" the franchise.

MGM (who throw all the money around) got involved in 1995. Every Bond since then has been progressively worse. The last good Bond film was A view to a kill in 1985 made at Pinewood Studios in England. It is a film about a British secret agent written by a British author after all.

Getting script writers and producers from the US ... well you see what they have done to it. Its awful. Testicular torture? Is that what you want in films? And they shouldn't have cast Craig. He's wooden and unlikeable.

family film

It's there a bit too much sex for that?

Quote from: Thork on March 06, 2012, 03:03:07 PM

family film

It's there a bit too much sex for that?

Why has he got no clothes on Daddy? Daddy Why?
What's he going to do with that rope daddy? The rope he's holding. What's he going to do with it?
Daddy, why is he doing that to Mr Bond?
Oh God, please daddy, turn it off. Its horrible.

Are you happy America? ARE YOU HAPPY?

MGM (who throw all the money around) got involved in 1995. Every Bond since then has been progressively worse. The last good Bond film was A view to a kill in 1985 made at Pinewood Studios in England. It is a film about a British secret agent written by a British author after all.

MGM (which actually became involved in 1981) is a distributor, and only one of several that Eon has used over the years.  I don't know where you got the idea that they somehow exert financial or artistic control over the series.

And A View to a Kill was the last good one?  Seriously?

A view to a kill was fricking awesome. Christopher Walken as the baddy, grace jones as another baddy, a guy with metal teeth called jaws as a baddy, duran duran doing the theme music, Roger Moore as bond. It was the last really good Bond yeah.

Edit:Oh just remembered it even has Dolph Lundgren making his film debut as a KGB henchman.

A View to a Kill was only seconded by Moonraker.  Bond in space with lasers!  How can you get better than that?!

I was playing a few retro games the other day and I reckon that Everything or Nothing whilst being an awful game, could be a good basis for a Bond film.

I honestly cannot beleive some of you. Moonraker the second best Bond film?

I do like the dea that Bond is just a code name, it would explain a couple of things to do with Casino Royale and Judi Dench

Wasn't the testicular torture bit in Ian Flemming's Casino Royale book?

I reckon Bond needs more voodoo. Live and Let Die was ace.

Yes, Bond is tortured in the book. Thork doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Here's an example of "the nice guy underneath it all":

"This was just what he had been afraid of. These blithering women who thought they could do a man's work. Why the hell couldn't they just stay at home and mind their pots and pans and leave men's work to the men. And now for this to happen to him, just when the job had come off so beautifully. For Vesper to fall for an old trick like that and get herself snatched and probably held to ransom like some bloody heroine in a strip cartoon. The silly bitch." - Casino Royale (novel)

Yes, the books are horribly sexist. BUT HEY, IT'S A GREAT FAMILY FILM!

Yes, Bond is tortured in the book. Thork doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Here's an example of "the nice guy underneath it all":

"This was just what he had been afraid of. These blithering women who thought they could do a man's work. Why the hell couldn't they just stay at home and mind their pots and pans and leave men's work to the men. And now for this to happen to him, just when the job had come off so beautifully. For Vesper to fall for an old trick like that and get herself snatched and probably held to ransom like some bloody heroine in a strip cartoon. The silly bitch." - Casino Royale (novel)

When you're pissed off at women you don't have incredibly sexist internal monologues? I normally do and they're usually littered with the word penguin.

Irrelevant; I was addressing Thork's misrepresentation of Bond.

Quote from: Around And About on March 11, 2012, 10:18:14 AM

Yes, Bond is tortured in the book. Thork doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Here's an example of "the nice guy underneath it all":

"This was just what he had been afraid of. These blithering women who thought they could do a man's work. Why the hell couldn't they just stay at home and mind their pots and pans and leave men's work to the men. And now for this to happen to him, just when the job had come off so beautifully. For Vesper to fall for an old trick like that and get herself snatched and probably held to ransom like some bloody heroine in a strip cartoon. The silly bitch." - Casino Royale (novel)

When you're pissed off at women you don't have incredibly sexist internal monologues? I normally do and they're usually littered with the word penguin.

I learned something today!

The last few James bond films weren't meant to be like the originals.

They've had a rewrite; they're mean't to be more dark and intense and completely different from the original films.

To be honest every time a new guy plays bond the films tend to be different.

And the bond films are sexist but who cares, there comes a point where political correctness goes too far.

They need to make another Bond movie in the same vein as Thunderball or Never Say Never Again. Something completely original.

Best Bond.