Bond inspires Batman inspires Bond

i remember telling my friends batman begins = golden eye

 

Yeah, it's pretty sad, isn't it? We could have had just another watch-it-half-asleep-and-you-get-the-same-testosterone-pleasing-excitement-out-of-it Bond movie, and I say that in the best way possible. Instead we get a "reboot" because that's more "realistic." Well **** realism. It's Bond, mother****er.

That's why I'll never accept this movie in my personal fanon. It's an unnecessary reboot. The real Bond lives forever.

This has nothing to do with his hair color, by the way. I really want to stress that. I am not one of these people that is obsessing over his hair color.

 

blame it ON QT

 

I never had any interest in seeing Bale as 007, even though I know he was a popular candidate with fans. But to be honest, in light of what we now know storywise, I think he would've been a far better choice. (Almost ideal, even.)

I'm sorry, but James Bond isn't just a generic tough guy. The whole point is that he's the guy who kills someone, then pauses to fix his tie on the way out.

 

you mean THANK QT... bond was going TOO far.its nice to see something new

 

I would have loved seen Christian Bale play James Bond but I'm happy he's Batman.

 

And Daniel Craig was a better selection for that than Bale. The best, of course, would have been to just stick with Pierce Brosnan.

 

they're not going to thank him they stole his idea man didnt you see him mention it ? he wanted to do a casino royale movie way before dude from golden eye stepped in

 

^^
yeah i know, i saw him say it on conan o'brien a LONG time ago...

i tell you....its not fair

 

I also think they should have done a "back to basics" Bond with Brosnan. It would have helped pave the way for Craig or whoever ended up succeeding him. As it stands, the drastic change in tone may end up alienating audiences.

 

exactly its like DC saying let continue with Burton's batman let not explain how he got there. dude they had a clear cut shot to make Casino Royale with Pierce way back in the 90's he was hailed pretty similar to how bale was as hailed as batman (i.e the prefect guy for the role). but they decided to go with a lose re-start or update if you may call it with goldeneye. bryan doing the same approach with superman returns the whole vague sequel ideology

 

Well, from the sound of it, they've made some pretty drastic changes to Bond's character.

It also doesn't sound like this will be the traditional Bond film most audiences expect (ie. no Q, Moneypenny, light on gadgets, etc.). The truth is, most people don't go to a Bond film expecting gritty realism. Even OHMSS (widely hailed as the most realistic one) featured a 'brainwashed females bent on germ warfare' plot that would've made Derek Flint proud.

 

Yes, but Dalton's films are widely regarded as failing to connect with the masses. Desmond Llewelyn once said that LTK's downfall was "straying too far from the typical 'Bond film'".

And although LALD was a bit of an oddity, the six Moore films that followed certainly stuck closely to a traditional formula. Moore has even referred to Bond as "a fairytale- and one in which the story must never change".

But through it all, the character of James Bond has remained pretty consistent. He was always a very sophisticated hero, not someone who got down and dirty like Jason Bourne (ie. in LALD, Bond still stuck out pretty badly in Harlem). He also never slept with married women because they were easy prey. (Which, if you think about it, is about as far from Bond as you can get.)

 

Well, with what we had recently and are having still: mad cow disease, bird flue, foot and mouth disease, I think OHMSS might be the most realistic and contemporary Bond ever. The only downright irrealistic thing is the brainwash if you think about it.

 

The brainwash of beautiful girls at a lavish resort, no less. But let's also not forget Bond's uncanny (and seemingly instant) ability to mimic someone else's voice, the chase through a bobsled track, etc. (In other words, the Bond films have always been tilted more towards the fantastic than the realistic.)

But yes, if Blofeld really had that type of technology, just think of the killing he could have made in the self-help field!

 

I guess this is where Fleming ceased to be realistic to go mythical, beautiful girls prisonner of an uber-evil man who control them via some mental cotnrol is the stuff of fairytales. It worked fine for me, but I always found funny that such an OTT McGuffen was mixed with a veryr ealistic one (although I suspect that back in the 60s, a superterrorist releasing germs to poison the food production of Europe seemed far-fetched).

 

Were people as negative about BB being made as they are about the new Bond? Both franchises are/were in the same position. BB worked for the bat franchise, why can't Casino Royale work for Bond?

 

Nothing wrong with this approach, but that was my point. Bond has never really been about realistic espionage, despite the fact that many fans like to think of him as such. It's always been fictional and fantastic.

In fact, he's probably the worst spy you could possibly choose for undercover work. Whereas the other 00 agents never had a problem staying incognito, Bond introduces himself to everyone as soon as they meet!

Even in Fleming's books, the character was a male fantasy, and the villains he faced were equally exaggerated. I mean, in real life, Dr. No would have just killed Bond- not had him run through some elaborate hamster maze of death!

 

Is it coincidence that the 3 'realistic' ones are far superior?