Can This be the End of James Bond?

This is probably pure heresey, given this thread, but Bond croaked at least 15 years ago anyway. The original books were entertaining in their day, and had a bit of new edge–polished of course with lots of revisionist Fleming ego.

Connery was…plausible, though much rougher edged than the book model, and it worked to advantage. Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, etc. haven’t the slightest tinge of guised lethality for the role. Lots of gizmos, babes, explosions and fake blood, but not one whit of real menace.

Look, the original character as written was set apart as one licensed to kill. Bond et. al. were barely leashed, on the edge sociopaths who weren’t sure how to stay human–or if they wanted to. They broke all the conventional rules, flippantly and with wit, but the underlying “ride a tiger” tension gave the whole thing a bit of credibility. Or at least interest.

When the whole Bondian genre became a schlocky parade of lubricious babes, wholesale slaughter, quips and special effects…well, it can be fun in a braindead way, but c’mon! It’s eye and brain candy. Brosnan, Zeta-Jones, etc. are gorgeous, but they have the depth of lip gloss.

The closest I can remember in spirit was the original La Femme Nikita.

Poor Bond. He didn’t have a Reichenbach Falls. He croaked in Cap Ferrat of liver-related illness years ago. The movies are just PT Barnum sideshows displaying the embalmed corpse.

Veb

Veb,

I’d have to respectfully disagree with the statement re: Connery’s Bond was rougher edged than the Bond of the books. I recall reading the books in my teens (during the mid-Moore years) and being amazed at just how “rough” Bod was, i. e., he killed (it seemed to me) indiscriminately, smoked more than Rod Serling and Yul Brynner combined, drank something like a gallon of whiskey a day, slept with the bored wives of his friends, etc., etc. Pretty rough guy.

Or maybe I have mis-read your intentions for the word.

Sir

Okay…
How could I possibly put this into words?

Female James Bond = contradiction in terms

I admit that the Bond movies haven’t been all that great for quite a long time, but don’t you still feel that little rush of adrenalline as you sit in front of the screen to see your royal majestie best spy (not that he actually acted as a spy in any of the movies mind you) newest adventure?
James bond was always formula, the problem is that this wonderfully efective formula has been eroded by the years and by the unstopable force of polical correctness.
Think about it. Can you remenber the old James Bond movies, when Bond got into bed with every girl (no two per movie limit, no emotional involvement), drank non-stop and smoked as if he was as impervious to cancer as he was to bullets?
That was what Bond was all about, throw in a plot for world domination some interesting gadgets a lot of sarcasm and you’re done. You can always relay on scriptwriters to keep things as they always were and will always be. There’s alway’s the bad guy’s mean colleague, the point when the bad guy could kill Bond but instead makes a speech first (yes, that began with Bond. And in Goldeneye they mock this tradtion by making Trevelyan say he’ll kill Bond right away,Bond retorts “What, no speeches, no goodbyes?”)
What Bond needs is to have it’s edge brought back. How many of you can consider Pierce Brosnan dangerous? Bond needs to be dangerous, with a wicked smile and an aura of invencibility around him. 007 is not a mere mortal, he’s the man we all would want to be.

Nope. (smiles) I wasn’t very clear.
Maybe my midwestern-US perceptions were–and are–off, but the original Bond seemed cast more somewhere between the classic, treacherous Brit moles and Rat Pack excess. Fleming knew his espionage but put an unlikely high gloss on it. In a lot of ways he did it first and maybe in a sideways fashion, best. By “best” I mean capturing the essential nervelessness, egotism and amorality of the game. Le Carre with better clothes, sex, cars, booze and less thought. Instinct over imagination.

Connery was great–and an inspired filmatic choice–but he was a husky Scots near-brawler. That’s what I meant by “rough”. No way was he the slippery, Etonian Blount-like predator. He gave the role a different, more accessible edge, even if though it wasn’t the one written in the books. But it hasn’t lasted.

My problem w/ most Bond films much past the first few is they have no edge. The book Bond had a certain glistening, hard-living amorality. Connery gave the character a lustier, more palatable verve. Since then…nada. Zilch. Animated GQ ads.

This is horrendous film criticism, I know. Try not to barf in my popcorn.

Veb

Oh, by the way. . . {hijack}

Veb, well put. I sorta thought that was what you may have meant, i. e. Connery’s “rough” physicality. FWIW, Fleming wanted (I think) David Niven, but wound up liking Connery so well (in the two films before his–Fleming’s–death) that he wrote into the last few books that Bond was actually Scottish, his parents having moved to Bitain was Bond was a child, I believe.

Fine film criticism, but I think Dalton gave it a good shot, and was more than a “GQ” ad. He smoked quite heavily in “Living Daylights,” I recall, and seemed to want to get away from the Roger Moore caricature.
[end of hijack]

To the OP: “Casino Royale” has never been made as a “serious” film (it was spoofed by Sellers, et al., and even filmed as an hour-long TV show in the 50s, with an American Bond). They should buy the rights back, and make it.

Sir

It’s worse than anyone thinks.

Robbie Williams wants to play James Bond.

No, what is worse is that Robbie Williams is going to tour America with the remaining members of Queen.

I think the Cold War ending really has changed the way people see Bond. As has been pointed out, the Soviets were never the bad guys of the movies. But the Cold War provided the backdrop that made Bond relevant. The dramatic potential of West versus East was MUCH higher than the economic struggles that make up most of world politics today. It was a simple conflict people could understand, identify with, and relate to their own existence. Let’s face it: in today’s world, theres not much for a “secret agent” to do that would make a good movie. Things like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the U.S.S.R.'s invasion of Afghanistan focused the world’s attention on Washington, D.C., and Moscow in a major way. But Moscow is now the capital of an all-but-name Third World nation. And D.C.? Well, lets just say that what happens in the corporate boardrooms of New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Atlanta probably affect your average American more. (Or at least, more Americans think they do, which in this particular case amounts to the same thing.

The conflicts exigent on the international scene in this day and age-terrorism, pollution, economic imbalance- are not the kinds of things that can be solved by one man gifted with fancy gadgets and good taste in clothes. And your average movie goer knows this. Bond still has life left, but only the world of the character is changed to more closely reflect a world that the average person can identify with.

The post-WWII, ramping-up of the Cold War, when everyone was afraid. There were Communists in the pantry, nukes in the Carribbean, and a host of other things we were scared of, without even knowing what they were. We needed Mr. Bond to take care of the scary things, so we could go back to our martinis.

Not only that, but he had to do it while asserting the things we held most dear: the superiority of the white male, the super-superiority of the British, and the inferiority of all things foreign. He was a product of his time, and his time is past.

Now we’re still afraid, but we know that our fears will take more to quell than a well-cut suit and a Walther PPK. It will take more than a knowledge of what goes with Duck L’Orange to handle the problems threatening the world today. As such, the savior from Saville Row begins to look a little silly.

But in his own world, he reigns. Of course he drank. Of course he smoked. He knew with near-certainty he would never live long enough for his vices to catch up with him. Why not light up?

Because of his separation from average society, it was easy for Bond to become what few will acknowledge: Bond is something of a sociopath. A functional one, to be sure, but recall that he could do a villain to a gruesome death, and his pulse would never go above 85. He had a steadiness of nerve that borders on insanity.

This reminds me of another thing: the guns. Recall in Dr. No Bond is relieved of his favorite gun - the .25 calibre Beretta - and forced to accept a Walther PPK, which he thinks of as grossly huge (it is all of .38). This is a subtle clue of how scary the man was - he was a professional assassin, and his weapon threw a round a quarter-of-an-inch across! He must have been inhumanly accurate!

My own firearms training featured the repetitive theme: Blow Big Holes in Important Things. For a man to be assured of a kill with a round the size of a pencil eraser, well, he’d be a better shot than I am.

These days, I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen a Desert Eagle (.50 calibre) in films. And here is the essence of what made Bond different - it wasn’t his gear, it was him.

Those of you who have read the books, (the Flemings) will recall that the Double-0 Branch was created as a small group of assassins. Bond was a very skilled member of this branch, but he really only had one other skill - as a hobby, he had made a scientific study of gambling.

But the original Bond was a barely-leashed killer, and his handlers recognized that fact. Sadly, the film producers did not. The original Bond was someone to inspire fear, even in a peaceful setting, and Connery could project this quality. Moore, by contrast, could project that he knew some really good tailors.

Some of the suble menace came back with Dalton, but it would never occur to me to fear Mr. Brosnan. Mr. Brosnan is a fine actor (The Fourth Protocol), but he was never right for the part.

I would like to suggest that if we absolutely must have more Bond films, put him back in his jungle - the world of the fifties and sixties. Period spy films can work (Reilly, Ace of Spies).

And for the new Bond, I would like to suggest Mr. Adrian Paul. He can bring a dry wit to his parts, he looks well in fine clothes, and he can be a scary son-of-a-bitch.

By the way, there was one Soviet bad guy. A rogue Soviet to be sure, hidden in a convoluted plot, but Soviet.

Several of you have mentioned what you thought to be the worst Bond flick, and I’m wondering…

Am I the ONLY one who saw Octopussy? Was it just a bad dream I had?

Bleah…all are bad but nothing to the ear splitting of Never Say Never Again. They coughed up beaucoup bucks to get Connery back. What do we get? A old 007, a goofy Kim Basinger, and Rowan Atkinson. He should have quit.

Damn if was not the epitome of cool in his day though. So damn convincing, looked great in a tux, and loved to karate chop. Roger Moore always came off as potentially about to say “ha ha I am a actor” and almost was snide in his delivery.

But damn Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger…Connery must had chicks by the truckloads simply by the looks he could give them.

And I for one like Robbie. Pierce is great and all but he should have done it back in 80 when he was on Remington Steele. Williams is a absolute fan of all things Bond and does look like a young Connery.

Acting though? We will have to see

Some people made a research a few years ago and they came to the conclusion that if Bond actually existed he would last about 2 years before dying from sexual smoke or drink related diseases.

You know, they already did a porno version of a female james bond (surprise, suprise!)

They SHOULD have just waited for Pierce Brosnan’s contract for Steele to be up (it was a year or two wait, I think), then they could have done without the waste of film Dalton.

quote:

Originally posted by lucie
(is there anyone, male or female, who didn’t long to see Michelle Yeoh back, especially after being subjected to Denise Richards?)

What, you didn’t think a 23 year old blonde babe could be a world renowned and respected nuclear physicist?


She’s actually 30, but really doesn’t look it at all, does she?

They were planning to terminate Brosnan’s contract anyway, because the ratings for Remington Steele were in the toilet. But, when word got out that Brosnan was going to be the next James Bond, people got interested in him and started to watch Steele; the ratings picked up, and the network (NBC, I think) decided to make Brosnan perform out the rest of his contract. So, Broccoli and company had to go with Dalton. The public didn’t care much for Dalton (whether this was because they expected Brosnan to be the next Bond or some other reason isn’t real clear), so the studio grabbed Brosnan with all due speed after License To Kill became, I believe, the, er, least successful Bond film to date.

Female James Bond? Naaah… Although I could go for a different female action spy flick if the plot was reasonably interesting and didn’t rely entirely on nudity to sell the film. OTOH, V.I. Warshawski tanked, so maybe the filmgoing public isn’t interested in that sort of thing.

Bond trivia: Apart from this 1954 TV movie, the films were also preceded by a BBC radio version of “Moonraker” (1956) starring Bob Holness (yes, that Bob Holness, UK fans) as 007.

Best Bond: George Lazenby…“Shurely shome mishtake?”…oh, all right – Sean Connery. I thought Timothy Dalton was a good choice but ran up against some awful scripts.

Best “Bond girl”: Michelle Yeoh, dammit. At last, a woman who can keep up with Bond on his own terms. That scene where he’s being chased by armed goons as she blithely rappels past and he gives her a look of consternation always makes me laugh. Okay, so he still had to rescue her in the end, but after all, it was his film.

Worst “Bond Girl”: Two words – “NOO-kyu-ler FIZZ-isist”

Best theme song: Tomorrow Never Dies. It blends so well with the Bond theme, and I jes’ love Sheryl Crow’s voice.

Worst Bond film: A View To a Kill. Roger Moore was looking really saggy by that point, the theme song was stupid, the plot bizarre, Grace Jones didn’t get to do anything all that interesting (although whether this was a script fault or just that she couldn’t act, I’m not sure), and there were all these unfunny bits like “Bond whaps his crotch into an antenna while hanging from a balloon”. At least Moonraker had Jaws in it.

All IMHO, of course.

Okay, I’m not going to join the debate about the relative merits of Bond the character, or of the actors who have played him thus far. An unwinnable argument, IMHO.

No, I’m here to fight ignorance. <heroically sweep cape, play fanfare>

Catherine Zeta-Jones: tabloid rumor, false.

Robbie Williams: tabloid rumor, false.

There’s another rumor that says Kevin Spacey will play the bad guy in the next one. Tabloid rumor, false.

For the best source of confirmed, solid information on the franchise, go here:

http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/jb20.html

Hell, any time you hear any sort of movie-related rumor, go to Corona first. They’ve got the straight dope on all things filmic.

Max Torque,

I have heard that the studio actually offered “Goldeneye” to Dalton, but he turned it down. Am I mistaken? I probaby heard this from an unreliable source–can’t remember.

Sir