chairdriver Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Chair; the bond movies are part of the bloke stereotype. Girls, gadgets, guns, cars. All that's missing is football! You're not a bloke, therefore you are not the target audience, so you aren't meant to enjoy the movies. Makes sense. "Bloke" is my least favourite gender.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Chair; the bond movies are part of the bloke stereotype. Girls, gadgets, guns, cars. All that's missing is football! You're not a bloke, therefore you are not the target audience, so you aren't meant to enjoy the movies. I would add that the Bond films have pretty much created/shaped the classic spy genre as we know it. That's something to consider in its own right.
Retro_Link Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 What other series would you put in the spy genre?
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 What other series would you put in the spy genre? Let's see ... Austin Powers, Get Smart, Johnny English, Mission: Impossible ... Yes, most of what we see today in the genre is parody, but that is pretty much what the classic spy genre has become. Mission: Impossible is one of the more serious takes on the genre, but the classic elements of the genre don't lend themselves well to serious or realistic interpretations: Over-the-top villains bent on world domination by means of fairly silly schemes, unrealistic but funny equipment and gadgets often disguised as common objects, a secret agent who's cool, suave, intelligent, hardcore, drives a nice car and gets ALL the ladies, even the evil ones, etc. Now, do note that I'm talking about the "classic" spy genre as we see it mostly in popular culture. I'm sure there are much more serious spy stories in different media out there, but I'm willing to bet they don't resemble the above description in any way.
Retro_Link Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Last week Javier Bard was linked to the film as its villian... well now he's been speaking about Bond 23... http://www.totalfilm.com/news/javier-bardem-talks-bond-23 Javier Bardem talks Bond 23 “They’re changing the whole thing” Oscar nominee Javier Bardem has yet to officially sign on for a role in Bond 23, but he’s been talking about what he knows – and it all sounds very intriguing. While talking with the LA Times, he admitted: “I’m a huge fan of the James Bond saga. When I was little, I went watching Mr. Connery doing James Bond with my father. “Who in the world would think I’d be in one of those movies.” He then went on to talk about the new Bond film, revealing: “They’re changing the whole thing, the whole dynamic. “I’d be playing Bond’s nemesis, yes, but it’s not that obvious. Everything is more nuanced. It’s very intriguing.” Trust Bardem to bring a whole new ball game to the Bond universe. Though the actor’s commitment to the film apparently relies entirely on how the script pans out, he certainly seems excited at the prospect. From what we’ve heard, whatever director Sam Mendes is brewing behind the scenes, it’s going to be fascinating stuff. Bond 23 opens 9 November, 2012. Interesting! Instantly I think of a Goldeneye 007/006 dynamic, but I doubt that's what they're doing, plus he doesn't exactly fit the part as a British 00' Agent! :p But anyways. Also, if he does sign up as the latest villian, these latest line of 'Real World' looking Bond villians are certainly lacking over the old ones. It just feels like the same badguy... I can't even remember anything about the one in Quantum of Solice, apart from him being way to similar to the one in Casino Royale!
Dan_Dare Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Yes! Bardem is amazing- looking forward to this one.
darksnowman Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Bardem has been cast as Roland in the Dark Tower adaptations. Not sure what I think of that... he's nowhere near how I imagined the gunslinger.
Daft Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 He could be cast as Catwoman and I wouldn't have a problem.
Retro_Link Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/114/1147819p1.html Fiennes Rumored for James Bond 23 The Avengers' John Steed may meet another 007. Ralph Fiennes is reportedly under consideration for a "darkly complex" role in Bond 23, one that is said to be different from the villain role that Javier Bardem has been offered. Granted, the story comes from a British paper, The Daily Mail, but what they have to say is quite intriguing: "Fiennes is not interested in the usual run-of-the-mill action picture, but he was intrigued when he was told of [director Sam] Mendes's 'revolutionary' plans for Bond 23. 'It's the first of a new generation of Bond films, and the ideas Mendes has push the film into darker territory where the characters are modern, mature and challenging,' a film executive in Los Angeles connected to the production told me. At the moment, the situation with Fiennes is purely at the discussion stage." (It should be noted that Fiennes and Mendes are old friends from the British theater scene.) Sean Connery vs. Ralph Fiennes in The Avengers. Ironically, Ralph Fiennes played secret agent John Steed in the big screen version of the TV classic The Avengers, opposite original 007 Sean Connery. Fiennes himself was long rumored to be up for the 007 role himself back in the day. Bond 23 will see Daniel Craig back as 007 and Judi Dench as M. What the heck are they doing with the franchise now?... This reboot has only just started!
Murr Posted June 2, 2011 Author Posted June 2, 2011 Bond 23 UK Release Date Announced A little under a year ago, with financial difficulties plaguing MGM, it seemed unlikely that we'd see the next Bond movie anytime soon. Today, we have a confirmed UK release date: October 26, 2012, two weeks ahead of its US release (November 9). According to a press release, Daniel Craig will reprise the role of Ian Fleming's iconic spy in the as-yet untitled Bond 23, with Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes at the helm. The film will be produced by Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli. In recent months, South Africa has been mentioned as a possible setting for Bond 23, with Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem all rumoured as possible villains. What would you like to see make its way into the next Bond movie? The return of Q? Let us know below. Source - IGN
ViPeR Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Anything has got to be better than the 4 lines of dialogue mixed in with car chase, gun fight, fist fight, bike chase, boat chase, gun fight, plane chase, explosion, gun fight, fist fight, that was QoS.
Cube Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 I still think that CR/QoS is a brilliant long film. QoS on it's own isn't great, but the plot means a lot more when combined with CR.
Retro_Link Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/119/1195933p1.html An Old Villain Back For Bond 23? Screenwriter drops some intriguing hints. The spectre of a classic Bond villain loomed large following curious remarks made by Bond 23 screenwriter John Logan at a BAFTA Screenwriters lecture Tuesday. /Film points out this article at WhatCulture! that said: "Rather interestingly, during the talk last night Logan was reminded by an audience member of a quote that he said some ten years ago that, in his opinion, 'Bond should always fight Blofeld'. When pressed on this he gave a wry smile and said 'Bond should always fight Blofeld'." Yes, supervillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) previously played by the likes of Donald Pleasence, Telly Savalas, Charles Gray and Max Von Sydow. Blofeld has been rumored as returning for Bond 23 for awhile, with actors such as Michael Sheen and Anthony Hopkins linked with the role. But with Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes reportedly set for Bond 23, could one of them be the new Blofeld? We shall see. Wouldn't mind. It'd be a very different take anyway, with hair and shit... they're gonna want to get as far away from Dr Evil as possible! :p I'd like to see another 00'Agent or two appear again in a Bond film for once.
LegoMan1031 Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Wouldn't mind. It'd be a very different take anyway, with hair and shit... they're gonna want to get as far away from Dr Evil as possible! :p I'd like to see another 00'Agent or two appear again in a Bond film for once. Lol yeah I can see your point with the reference to Dr Evil! As much as I love the Daniel Craig films I wouldn't mind some of the more old 'traditional' stuff making a return, a Q... moneypenny...some gadgets (they don't have to go OTT, car with some extras and maybe a few other small things) etc etc. I miss them from the old bonds! But i suppose times change.
Retro_Link Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Yeah I miss those things too! You'd expect the top agents to get the best 'gadgets' (whether that's realistic or not I don't know), so I don't think there's anything wrong in the films reintroducing a Q character... they don't have to be crazy/funny gadgets... but some form of Tech Department would be nice... and really, to be expected! And yeah a few extra elements on his car would be nice.
Jimbob Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 It's gonna be Jaws, i can see it now. Blofled, na. Unless they base Bond before Dr No as they have done with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, wouldn't work based afterwards. You know, being dead and all that. For Your Eyes Only, opening scene.
LegoMan1031 Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Blofled, na. Unless they base Bond before Dr No as they have done with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, wouldn't work based afterwards. You know, being dead and all that. For Your Eyes Only, opening scene. But it is set before that... I think it is meant to be a trilogy of films. But even if it is not they are not going to do them two films and then go back carrying on after Die Another Day with Daniel Craig still as Bond. This set of films are more a re-make (re-imagining if you like)rather than just s straight prequal anyway... Think different timeline like the latest Star Trek film. Also the idea of a big corporation behind everything bad is very similar to the idea of SPECTRE and we have not seen the head of it, only people who are part of or work with. Edited September 23, 2011 by Mike1988uk
Jimbob Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 But it is set before that... I think it is meant to be a trilogy of films. But even if it is not they are not going to do them two films and then go back carrying on after Die Another Day with Daniel Craig still as Bond) This set of films are more a re-make (re-imagining if you like)rather than just s straight prequal anyway... Think different timeline like the latest Star Trek film. If it's a trilogy showing the creation of Bond, then all good. Blofeld would work as an enemy for the 3rd.
LegoMan1031 Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 If it's a trilogy showing the creation of Bond, then all good. Blofeld would work as an enemy for the 3rd. I added something to my above post which I think you just missed. The idea of these films wasn't to show the creation of Bond it is just a reimagining of Bond like all the other films are doing, Spiderman, Superman, Batman Star Trek etc. And a obvious starting point of a reimagining to is to start the story from the beginning, again think with how Nolans Batmans started, the latest Star Trek, even the new Spiderman & Superman are set to show their own version of the story from the start. So yeah they can re-use anyone they have done before. On a complete side note i LOVED how they did it with Star Trek by explaining it with alternate reality stuff because of time travel!
Jimbob Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I added something to my above post which I think you just missed. The idea of these films wasn't to show the creation of Bond it is just a reimagining of Bond like all the other films are doing, Spiderman, Superman, Batman Star Trek etc. And a obvious starting point of a reimagining to is to start the story from the beginning, again think with how Nolans Batmans started, the latest Star Trek, even the new Spiderman & Superman are set to show their own version of the story from the start. So yeah they can re-use anyone they have done before. On a complete side note i LOVED how they did it with Star Trek by explaining it with alternate reality stuff because of time travel! Ah right, i get you now. From what i understood from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, they were grasping a back-story to Bond, before he got is 00 status (or soon after). Kind of a re-imagining, but allowing us to see Bond develop into the 00 he is known for.
Nintendohnut Posted September 24, 2011 Posted September 24, 2011 Blofeld never really dies. He has doubles all over the place and can change his appearance regularly, so they could easily just say he didn't actually die. Also the last two films are a reboot of the series. It is going right back to the start of Bond in MI6, showing his first few missions under M. It's set before Doctor No and all the following films, as far as I know.
LegoMan1031 Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Blofeld never really dies. He has doubles all over the place and can change his appearance regularly, so they could easily just say he didn't actually die. Also the last two films are a reboot of the series. It is going right back to the start of Bond in MI6, showing his first few missions under M. It's set before Doctor No and all the following films, as far as I know. It is pretty much a given though that blofield did die at the start of for your eyes only since he was never referenced again (although he was uncredited in that film I think due to legal issues over the name). The only thing I will never understand is why they kept Judi dench as M, as the films are obviously a reboot/reimagining set in the present time rather than in the 60s but by keeping the same actress as the same character would confuse some movie watchers.
Mokong Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 The only thing I will never understand is why they kept Judi dench as M, as the films are obviously a reboot/reimagining set in the present time rather than in the 60s but by keeping the same actress as the same character would confuse some movie watchers. that always threw me off on the whole reboot thing too. Goldeneye quote: "I here the new M is a woman" Casino Royale, set before Goldeneye: Judi as M: here is your 1st mission Bond
Recommended Posts