With that sort of mindset it means you're damning the producers to never doing anything original ever again because they are somehow slandering the old ones by doing so- it's ridiculous.
And you consider 'retelling' an existing story original? In my opinion, it's a cop out. Anyway, that's not what EON did. I'm simply saying that the 'reboot' concept in CR served no purpose and achieved nothing original in my eyes. The only thing I think it did achieve was make the other films less cohesive. That's not a crime, and it's not the end of the world, but it raises wierd questions. You can't say it won't because this site is already rife with them. Writers don't have to be confined to a timeline, but don't blame the timeline for interfering with their creativity. The fact that they tossed out the timeline and continuity and still acheived a film that was mediocre is just evidence to me that the timeline was not the problem to begin with.
Curious, does the fact that EON made MR, YOLT, DAF, etc. so very different from the novels cheapen the novels for you? Because for me the answer is yes but in reverse: I have a hard time watching those films because EON did what they did to them. I can separate the two and enjoy Bond and Jaws jumping about in space, sure, but it rankles, and depending on the day of the week, harshly.
I get your point, but CR's faithfulness to the source book makes me jump for joy, and the separation from a bunch of rather more non-Fleming Bond films is very much appreciated.
And you consider 'retelling' an existing story original? In my opinion, it's a cop out. Anyway, that's not what EON did. I'm simply saying that the 'reboot' concept in CR served no purpose and achieved nothing original in my eyes. The only thing I think it did achieve was make the other films less cohesive. That's not a crime, and it's not the end of the world, but it raises wierd questions. You can't say it won't because this site is already rife with them. Writers don't have to be confined to a timeline, but don't blame the timeline for interfering with their creativity.
But taking that to logical extremes, consider how most Bond films are watched these days ... not by the fanatics, but by the general populace.
The Bond films are rarely on once a day over three weeks in order. I guess that this Christmas will have a selection of Bond films on the TV, but what are the chances that they will be consecutive. If they aren't will anyone care?
I think this is key to the placement of CR within the series. Sure there are aspects that are at odds with DAD, but will the vast majority of those watching it care?
For most people, won't CR simply become the "one with the game of poker" or "the one in which Bond got his manhood beaten" or the "one where he jumps off a crane"?
A casual cinema goer will take what they want from a film ... it is generally us fanatics who will become more agitated at an inconsistency.
I'm simply saying that the 'reboot' concept in CR served no purpose and achieved nothing original in my eyes.
I see where you're coming from, darenhat, but the more I think about, the more purpose I believe the reboot serves. I think it's possible that CR is, in reality, what DAD was supposed to be--the film that brings Bond squarely into the 21st century. DAD, of course, was advertised as the Bond of the new millenium, but the reasons for calling it so were purely technical and superficial: it would be the first Bond movie to use computer-generated effects and Matrix-style "speed bumps" in the editing; and it would feature a female lead who has as big of a name as--maybe even a bigger name than--the guy playing Bond. But when it comes right down to it, the movie really hearkened back to the traditional--and entirely fantasy-laden--Bond of the 1960s and '70s: despite some sqwuaking from the Koreans, it's really apolitical (Colonel Moon is a renegade who wishes to destroy the west, while his father, General Moon, is a good guy who believes in open dialogue); the villain and his henchman are outsized monsters; and the plot turns on such fantastic devices as a satellite with an intense heat beam and a face-changing machine.
Now, I actually like DAD for what it is, but a question arises from watching it: just how "twenty-first century" is it? Audiences flocked to the movie, so they clearly enjoyed it; but how often would an outsized, escapist extravaganza continue to appeal to modern audiences? I believe that the producers may have looked inside, said to themselves that while DAD may be "21st century" in the technical department, it was too retrospective, too detached from the real world. To connect with today's audiences, the answer, ironically, was to look not to the 1960s, but to the novels of the 1950s.
The '50s, the time in which Bond was born, was a nervous, paranoid, somewhat unstable era. Certainly these qualities mark the post-9/11 world. Look at the news today: a 67-year-old grandmother in Palestine became a suicide bomber, and former KGB agent Alexander Litivenko died in London after being poisoned with "Polonium-210." On his deathbed he blamed Vladimir Putin, who, by the way, has just sold an anti-missile system to Iran. (Um, weren't the Russians supposed to be our friends now?) Everywhere we're paralyzed by a fear of terrorism. Supposedly, America and Britain are fighting to secure democracy, yet in Latin America fascist dictatorships are on the rise, and one of the last Stalinist bastions--North Korea--is attempting to launch a nuclear weapon. As an American I have to shake my head in confusion and shame that so many people in the world think Uncle Sam is far more dangerous than some of the most anti-humanist regimes on the planet. These are weird times, topsy-turvy times, dangerous times. Compared to the reality most people see on the news every day, the average Bondian megalomaniac with an elaborate scheme is, well, quaint.
But terrorism is very relevant and very terrifying. By making Le Chiffre the moneyminder for people who will kill on a massive scale just to make a political point, EON clearly situated the character in our world. I would also suggest that by going back to the basics with Bond--making him rawer, more brutal, much more of a killing machine--EON is announcing that the gentlemanly Bond of the past (even Connery and Dalton at their meanest are cupcakes compared to the determination of Craig) is not capable of handling the terrors of today. Bond had to be reborn--fundamentally as the same man, but a man more ready to operate outside the system and to act with savagery when required.
And, for what it's worth, I stopped caring about continuity when Dalton became Bond. You could plausibly argue that the first fourteen Bond films operated on the same timeline--the actors were all around the same age and the supporting cast remained largely unchanged. But once Dalton came aboard and it became clear that this guy was far too young to have battled Dr. No and Goldfinger, I started to view each new 007 as existing within his own continuity.
Ok guys, no doubt this is the first part of the story in the life of James Bond. I don't recall the film, but there is a minor scene played by Roger Moore where he visits a graveyard of what appears to be his wife. This no doubt is related to Vesper as the new bond was all mushy and heartfelt with her. After her death he appears to become the cold hearted killer we all love. Also, he just became a 00 in this film. There can be no argument that this is the opening. Where we go from here is a mystery?
The grave is that of Bond's late wife, Teresa di Vicenzo (nee Draco).
The scene is at the very opening of For Your Eyes Only.
Bond married Teresa (Tracy) at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, only for her to be shot dead on their way from the wedding by Irma Blunt, Blofeld's hench-woman.
The grave-side scene in FYEO merely served as a back-reference to Bond's past adding a little depth to his character, after a decade of movies which offered little or no insight in that direction at all.
I'm simply saying that the 'reboot' concept in CR served no purpose and achieved nothing original in my eyes.
I see where you're coming from, darenhat, but the more I think about, the more purpose I believe the reboot serves. I think it's possible that CR is, in reality, what DAD was supposed to be--the film that brings Bond squarely into the 21st century. DAD, of course, was advertised as the Bond of the new millenium, but the reasons for calling it so were purely technical and superficial: it would be the first Bond movie to use computer-generated effects and Matrix-style "speed bumps" in the editing; and it would feature a female lead who has as big of a name as--maybe even a bigger name than--the guy playing Bond. But when it comes right down to it, the movie really hearkened back to the traditional--and entirely fantasy-laden--Bond of the 1960s and '70s: despite some sqwuaking from the Koreans, it's really apolitical (Colonel Moon is a renegade who wishes to destroy the west, while his father, General Moon, is a good guy who believes in open dialogue); the villain and his henchman are outsized monsters; and the plot turns on such fantastic devices as a satellite with an intense heat beam and a face-changing machine.
Now, I actually like DAD for what it is, but a question arises from watching it: just how "twenty-first century" is it? Audiences flocked to the movie, so they clearly enjoyed it; but how often would an outsized, escapist extravaganza continue to appeal to modern audiences? I believe that the producers may have looked inside, said to themselves that while DAD may be "21st century" in the technical department, it was too retrospective, too detached from the real world. To connect with today's audiences, the answer, ironically, was to look not to the 1960s, but to the novels of the 1950s.
The '50s, the time in which Bond was born, was a nervous, paranoid, somewhat unstable era. Certainly these qualities mark the post-9/11 world. Look at the news today: a 67-year-old grandmother in Palestine became a suicide bomber, and former KGB agent Alexander Litivenko died in London after being poisoned with "Polonium-210." On his deathbed he blamed Vladimir Putin, who, by the way, has just sold an anti-missile system to Iran. (Um, weren't the Russians supposed to be our friends now?) Everywhere we're paralyzed by a fear of terrorism. Supposedly, America and Britain are fighting to secure democracy, yet in Latin America fascist dictatorships are on the rise, and one of the last Stalinist bastions--North Korea--is attempting to launch a nuclear weapon. As an American I have to shake my head in confusion and shame that so many people in the world think Uncle Sam is far more dangerous than some of the most anti-humanist regimes on the planet. These are weird times, topsy-turvy times, dangerous times. Compared to the reality most people see on the news every day, the average Bondian megalomaniac with an elaborate scheme is, well, quaint.
But terrorism is very relevant and very terrifying. By making Le Chiffre the moneyminder for people who will kill on a massive scale just to make a political point, EON clearly situated the character in our world. I would also suggest that by going back to the basics with Bond--making him rawer, more brutal, much more of a killing machine--EON is announcing that the gentlemanly Bond of the past (even Connery and Dalton at their meanest are cupcakes compared to the determination of Craig) is not capable of handling the terrors of today. Bond had to be reborn--fundamentally as the same man, but a man more ready to operate outside the system and to act with savagery when required.
And, for what it's worth, I stopped caring about continuity when Dalton became Bond. You could plausibly argue that the first fourteen Bond films operated on the same timeline--the actors were all around the same age and the supporting cast remained largely unchanged. But once Dalton came aboard and it became clear that this guy was far too young to have battled Dr. No and Goldfinger, I started to view each new 007 as existing within his own continuity.
OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks for reading.
I would post, but doing so after this would just be redundant. Well said sir.
I'm simply saying that the 'reboot' concept in CR served no purpose and achieved nothing original in my eyes.
I see where you're coming from, darenhat, but the more I think about, the more purpose I believe the reboot serves. I think it's possible that CR is, in reality, what DAD was supposed to be--the film that brings Bond squarely into the 21st century.
It's inevitable that the comparisons of "CR after DAD" versus "FYEO after MR" arise...amd I think it is very applicable. I'm excited to see Bond in a post-9/11 world. As far as that portion of the reboot exists, I think it fits perfectly. But I really believe that the "How James became Bond" bit was a cheap marketing gimmick that, if left out, would have made CR a better picture, without casting a shadow on the previous films. As mentioned above, FYEO is a great film that is in no way diminished by the inclusion of Tracy's grave. Since the whole 'Bond's first two kills' scene had no strong relevance to the story, it feels as if it was tacked on just so the movie had some unique angle to lure people into the theaters. It was a wasted opportunity IMO.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Personally, I don't think CR casts a shadow over the previous 20 films at all---quite the opposite: it sets a standard that future films must attempt to exceed, or at least equal. As CR becomes the biggest box office grosser in in Bond history, I believe the reboot will prove to be an historic strategic turning point for the series.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
CR has a relatively simple villian motivation--I want to save my neck! Most if not all of the classic Fleming villians had similarly simple criminal motivations: to steal, to kill, to extort, to win the Cold War(!) even. DAD, like TWINE and GE, had a weird (for Bond films) Fruedian vibe going on in it (and them), the villian(s) wanted to get back at daddy (or in GE's case, the adopted father-like institution). For a franchise trying to leap into the 21st Century, they felt stuck in the 19th. Just keeping things simple in CR helps loads IMO--bad guys can do bad thing just to get ahead. Bond himself had a bit more of an arc in CR, and I can see where for some that was a distraction. I always thought that was vital to the CR story, so I'm glad they did it as is, and so well.
I also think they've been struggling to find an evil enterprise for the villian to be involved in/go after. Fleming made great use of the Cold War, really gave a nice pulpy quality to his stories. The modern equivalent seems to be terrorism and what it's evolved into, and using that sorta solves that problem for them. It's not a perfect comparison, sure, but it does play out similarly as utilized IMO, and in how you talk about (much more eloquently than me, so I'll stop now ).
Personally, I don't think CR casts a shadow over the previous 20 films at all---quite the opposite: it sets a standard that future films must attempt to exceed, or at least equal. As CR becomes the biggest box office grosser in in Bond history, I believe the reboot will prove to be an historic strategic turning point for the series.
Agree Loeff. For me CR is actually highlighting a few of the previous films in very favorable ways, making me appreciate things that have come before (that are similar to things CR does) in ways I haven't before. It's really expanding my appreciate of Bond, it's surprising and quite welcome.
Comments
And you consider 'retelling' an existing story original? In my opinion, it's a cop out. Anyway, that's not what EON did. I'm simply saying that the 'reboot' concept in CR served no purpose and achieved nothing original in my eyes. The only thing I think it did achieve was make the other films less cohesive. That's not a crime, and it's not the end of the world, but it raises wierd questions. You can't say it won't because this site is already rife with them. Writers don't have to be confined to a timeline, but don't blame the timeline for interfering with their creativity. The fact that they tossed out the timeline and continuity and still acheived a film that was mediocre is just evidence to me that the timeline was not the problem to begin with.
I get your point, but CR's faithfulness to the source book makes me jump for joy, and the separation from a bunch of rather more non-Fleming Bond films is very much appreciated.
But taking that to logical extremes, consider how most Bond films are watched these days ... not by the fanatics, but by the general populace.
The Bond films are rarely on once a day over three weeks in order. I guess that this Christmas will have a selection of Bond films on the TV, but what are the chances that they will be consecutive. If they aren't will anyone care?
I think this is key to the placement of CR within the series. Sure there are aspects that are at odds with DAD, but will the vast majority of those watching it care?
For most people, won't CR simply become the "one with the game of poker" or "the one in which Bond got his manhood beaten" or the "one where he jumps off a crane"?
A casual cinema goer will take what they want from a film ... it is generally us fanatics who will become more agitated at an inconsistency.
I see where you're coming from, darenhat, but the more I think about, the more purpose I believe the reboot serves. I think it's possible that CR is, in reality, what DAD was supposed to be--the film that brings Bond squarely into the 21st century. DAD, of course, was advertised as the Bond of the new millenium, but the reasons for calling it so were purely technical and superficial: it would be the first Bond movie to use computer-generated effects and Matrix-style "speed bumps" in the editing; and it would feature a female lead who has as big of a name as--maybe even a bigger name than--the guy playing Bond. But when it comes right down to it, the movie really hearkened back to the traditional--and entirely fantasy-laden--Bond of the 1960s and '70s: despite some sqwuaking from the Koreans, it's really apolitical (Colonel Moon is a renegade who wishes to destroy the west, while his father, General Moon, is a good guy who believes in open dialogue); the villain and his henchman are outsized monsters; and the plot turns on such fantastic devices as a satellite with an intense heat beam and a face-changing machine.
Now, I actually like DAD for what it is, but a question arises from watching it: just how "twenty-first century" is it? Audiences flocked to the movie, so they clearly enjoyed it; but how often would an outsized, escapist extravaganza continue to appeal to modern audiences? I believe that the producers may have looked inside, said to themselves that while DAD may be "21st century" in the technical department, it was too retrospective, too detached from the real world. To connect with today's audiences, the answer, ironically, was to look not to the 1960s, but to the novels of the 1950s.
The '50s, the time in which Bond was born, was a nervous, paranoid, somewhat unstable era. Certainly these qualities mark the post-9/11 world. Look at the news today: a 67-year-old grandmother in Palestine became a suicide bomber, and former KGB agent Alexander Litivenko died in London after being poisoned with "Polonium-210." On his deathbed he blamed Vladimir Putin, who, by the way, has just sold an anti-missile system to Iran. (Um, weren't the Russians supposed to be our friends now?) Everywhere we're paralyzed by a fear of terrorism. Supposedly, America and Britain are fighting to secure democracy, yet in Latin America fascist dictatorships are on the rise, and one of the last Stalinist bastions--North Korea--is attempting to launch a nuclear weapon. As an American I have to shake my head in confusion and shame that so many people in the world think Uncle Sam is far more dangerous than some of the most anti-humanist regimes on the planet. These are weird times, topsy-turvy times, dangerous times. Compared to the reality most people see on the news every day, the average Bondian megalomaniac with an elaborate scheme is, well, quaint.
But terrorism is very relevant and very terrifying. By making Le Chiffre the moneyminder for people who will kill on a massive scale just to make a political point, EON clearly situated the character in our world. I would also suggest that by going back to the basics with Bond--making him rawer, more brutal, much more of a killing machine--EON is announcing that the gentlemanly Bond of the past (even Connery and Dalton at their meanest are cupcakes compared to the determination of Craig) is not capable of handling the terrors of today. Bond had to be reborn--fundamentally as the same man, but a man more ready to operate outside the system and to act with savagery when required.
And, for what it's worth, I stopped caring about continuity when Dalton became Bond. You could plausibly argue that the first fourteen Bond films operated on the same timeline--the actors were all around the same age and the supporting cast remained largely unchanged. But once Dalton came aboard and it became clear that this guy was far too young to have battled Dr. No and Goldfinger, I started to view each new 007 as existing within his own continuity.
OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks for reading.
If there is a codename theory it has to go around the board - felix leiter, M, moneypenny, etc.
Felix leiter is what pushes away the codename theory in my mind - him and Bond have a genuine ongoing relationship.
I don't see the point in trying to be practical in piecing together the series chronologically. Just get lost in the fantasy of it all
The scene is at the very opening of For Your Eyes Only.
Bond married Teresa (Tracy) at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, only for her to be shot dead on their way from the wedding by Irma Blunt, Blofeld's hench-woman.
The grave-side scene in FYEO merely served as a back-reference to Bond's past adding a little depth to his character, after a decade of movies which offered little or no insight in that direction at all.
That, I think, sums up my thoughts on the film entirely.
I would post, but doing so after this would just be redundant. Well said sir.
It's inevitable that the comparisons of "CR after DAD" versus "FYEO after MR" arise...amd I think it is very applicable. I'm excited to see Bond in a post-9/11 world. As far as that portion of the reboot exists, I think it fits perfectly. But I really believe that the "How James became Bond" bit was a cheap marketing gimmick that, if left out, would have made CR a better picture, without casting a shadow on the previous films. As mentioned above, FYEO is a great film that is in no way diminished by the inclusion of Tracy's grave. Since the whole 'Bond's first two kills' scene had no strong relevance to the story, it feels as if it was tacked on just so the movie had some unique angle to lure people into the theaters. It was a wasted opportunity IMO.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
CR has a relatively simple villian motivation--I want to save my neck! Most if not all of the classic Fleming villians had similarly simple criminal motivations: to steal, to kill, to extort, to win the Cold War(!) even. DAD, like TWINE and GE, had a weird (for Bond films) Fruedian vibe going on in it (and them), the villian(s) wanted to get back at daddy (or in GE's case, the adopted father-like institution). For a franchise trying to leap into the 21st Century, they felt stuck in the 19th. Just keeping things simple in CR helps loads IMO--bad guys can do bad thing just to get ahead. Bond himself had a bit more of an arc in CR, and I can see where for some that was a distraction. I always thought that was vital to the CR story, so I'm glad they did it as is, and so well.
I also think they've been struggling to find an evil enterprise for the villian to be involved in/go after. Fleming made great use of the Cold War, really gave a nice pulpy quality to his stories. The modern equivalent seems to be terrorism and what it's evolved into, and using that sorta solves that problem for them. It's not a perfect comparison, sure, but it does play out similarly as utilized IMO, and in how you talk about (much more eloquently than me, so I'll stop now
Agree Loeff. For me CR is actually highlighting a few of the previous films in very favorable ways, making me appreciate things that have come before (that are similar to things CR does) in ways I haven't before. It's really expanding my appreciate of Bond, it's surprising and quite welcome.