James Bond: 007 - Spectre - Part 8

[Marvolo]

Again? I thought this James Bond became the James Bond we know after the end of Casino Royale, then after the end of Quantum of Solace, then after the end of Skyfall...in fact, all of Craig's Bond films have played like false starts, they all try to aim at showing the character before he became 007 as we usualy know him. By now it's getting a little ridiculous imao.

Agreed. I like that the character it getting some depth and that they are dealing with Bond's childhood in Skyfall and apparently here as well, but its going to leave Craigs films feeling like they never looked forward. They are always looking backwards. QOS looked back at the events of CR. Skyfall looked back at both M and Bond's past. And now this film is looking back at Bond's and Blofield's childhoods and apparently the entirety of Bond's suffering in life. Can a Bond film not just be a piece of escapist fun, anymore. Must it always be a heavy personal story tied to some other previous film and/or Bond's past?

 

[rashad]

Allow me the honours Fake Sam.

Oh my damn!

 

[AnneFan]

I'm not sure that we'll ever see Bond smoke again on-film. He hasn't since Dalton is I remember correctly. Studios just don't want to go their anymore in their big budget franchises, or a lot of them don't anyway.

Bond smoked a cigar in DAD.

 

[Golgo-13]

New article from Entertainment Weekly and new photo!
ew.com/article/2015/08/14/spectre-james-bond-origin-story?hootPostID=0e4d2284202d4f3f4be1329bd25bcb3f

Glorious!

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm not sure that we'll ever see Bond smoke again on-film. He hasn't since Dalton is I remember correctly. Studios just don't want to go their anymore in their big budget franchises, or a lot of them don't anyway.

I figured. For God's sake we live in a world where smoking now falls under a rating description. Smoking just adds a nice little character quirk yet for Bond it fits into his habitual personality.

 

[Golgo-13]

Wolverine/Logan is a habitual smoker.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Wolverine/Logan is a habitual smoker.

That's a rare exception these days. And it's a cigar. Cigars aren't typically looked down upon as much.

 

[Batman jr.]

Agreed. I like that the character it getting some depth and that they are dealing with Bond's childhood in Skyfall and apparently here as well, but its going to leave Craigs films feeling like they never looked forward. They are always looking backwards. QOS looked back at the events of CR. Skyfall looked back at both M and Bond's past. And now this film is looking back at Bond's and Blofield's childhoods and apparently the entirety of Bond's suffering in life. Can a Bond film not just be a piece of escapist fun, anymore. Must it always be a heavy personal story tied to some other previous film and/or Bond's past?

We have all the time in the world.

The next one will have him look forward. Craig needs to go out with a bigger bang.

 

[Batman jr.]

Oh my damn!

Magnifique

 

[Visceral]

Spoiler

The kitchen area will have cameos from Dalton, as the chef, and Brosnan as the dishwasher. Connery flatly refushed.

Lol that guy is still mad.

You know I was watching the Rock the other day. People talk a lot of **** on Michael Bay and some of right fully so. He has some good moments though. Connery 's character telling his daughter that she is the only proof of his existence, always makes me chuckle

 

[chamber-music]

I think I've decided I'm rooting for Dan Stevens at this point.

Dan Stevens would be great. Stevens was great in The Guest.

I'm still hoping Michael Sheen and Jason Issacs get to play a Bond villain at some point.

 

[Batman jr.]

Lol that guy is still mad.

You know I was watching the Rock the other day. People talk a lot of **** on Michael Bay and some of right fully so. He has some good moments though. Connery 's character telling his daughter that she is the only proof of his existence, always makes me chuckle

Haha.

Sir Sean rules, make no mistake. t:

 

[Loki882]

The cast of that movie was amazing:

-Sir Sean.
-Nic Cage (in one of his good roles).
-Ed Harris.
-David Morse.
-Tony Todd.
-Michael Biehn.
-Etc.

They really elevated that film by sheer virtue of their awesomness (especially Cage and Connery with their "buddy cop" routine and Harris with his sympathetic antagonist).

 

[Fallen Angel]

The Rock is an epic movie. Bay's greatest and the score from Zimmer is awesome.

 

[Loki882]

I wonder if they'd ever consider Zimmer to do the score for a Bond film?

 

[Golgo-13]

The Rock is an epic movie. Bay's greatest and the score from Zimmer is awesome.

 

[Rocketman]

Longest origin story ever.

No kidding.

Again? I thought this James Bond became the James Bond we know after the end of Casino Royale, then after the end of Quantum of Solace, then after the end of Skyfall...in fact, all of Craig's Bond films have played like false starts, they all try to aim at showing the character before he became 007 as we usualy know him. By now it's getting a little ridiculous imao.

Totally agreed. It's completely absurd at this point.

I love Craig in the role, but the biggest misstep they've taken is having him dance around the character instead of just becoming the character. In Skyfall, his older age is an important story point, and by the time he actually becomes the fully established Bond we know in the 5th or 6th film, it'll be his last film.

Dude is already pushing 50 and we're still exploring his origin. It's like they're ashamed of the previous movies and want to distance themselves as far away from them as possible. We can't even have the gun barrel sequence in the beginning.

Agreed. I like that the character it getting some depth and that they are dealing with Bond's childhood in Skyfall and apparently here as well, but its going to leave Craigs films feeling like they never looked forward. They are always looking backwards. QOS looked back at the events of CR. Skyfall looked back at both M and Bond's past. And now this film is looking back at Bond's and Blofield's childhoods and apparently the entirety of Bond's suffering in life. Can a Bond film not just be a piece of escapist fun, anymore. Must it always be a heavy personal story tied to some other previous film and/or Bond's past?

Agreed.

 

[Loki882]

A guy like Bond, with all of his problems/issues, it WOULD take a long time. It comes with years and years of being worn down by “the job.” Also, what exactly is “status quo” depends on who you ask and this is a franchise that’s been around for FIFTY YEARS! Almost all of that time in “status quo,” so I have no issue with them taking their time. It’s something different. He’s still doing Bond things, he’s still going on Bond adventures, he’s still fighting Bond Villains, he’s still meeting Bond women, he’s freaking Bond already. It's much to do about nothing.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I like the idea that Craig's Bond will never be the "complete Bond." That means his character will always be in flux and in a state of change, an enigma to the audience, to other characters, maybe even to himself. He will never be complete, because he will never be at peace.

You know who was the "complete Bond" right off the bat? Pierce Brosnan. Who at times seemed to be basically playing a character based on James Bond rather than James Bond himself.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Weren't all the previous Bond's complete Bonds right at the outset? The first time we meet Connery in that iconic scene, he is already Bond.

 

[Gold Samurai]

You know who was the "complete Bond" right off the bat? Pierce Brosnan. Who at times seemed to be basically playing a character based on James Bond rather than James Bond himself.

Right he has the Aston and he knows the valet at the Monaco casino. He was a caricature.


All the things the James Bond character is known for.

Also Alec Trevelyan is in a way poking fun at the mystic of James bond

"Only Bond...."

"No pithy comeback?"

"So how is old "Q"?

"...memorial service with only Moneypenny and a few tearful restaurateurs in attendance"

 

[Pink Ranger]

Weren't all the previous Bond's complete Bonds right at the outset? The first time we meet Connery in that iconic scene, he is already Bond.

I think with Connery, the character was brand new, and the new franchise revealed itself in layers. We saw Bond the card sharp, then Bond as the passive seducer, then a killer, then an active seducer, then the science fiction hero, etc. Bond the connoisseur did not really get cemented until FRWL, also the first film where we begin to see the full resources he has backing him up.

Moore had to re-establish the role after an iconic actor who nobody said could be equalled. There were numerous continuity issues with the character that had to be sorted out (i.e. Theresa's death) and the plots were going to get really outlandish at this point.

By the time Brosnan took over the character, Bond had become so well-established that they could just have him step into whatever characteristics the audience knew by rote at that point. He was like me at a buffet: weird gadgets, sure. Bad puns, why not. Cool suits, okay. Cold blooded killer, fine. Fewer but more meaningful female conquests per movie, okay.

 

[The Batman]

Its just reboot culture these days. Nearly every installment of a reboot series is pretty much about a rebooted character "becoming the version you know and love", except that they never really do. Batman in the Nolan Trilogy is a perfect example.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

____ is becoming the character you know and love. 2nd film, the character is still becoming THE character you know and love. Third film, whoops, he is old and disheveled now. He has moved beyond the character you know and love.

 

[Lencho01]

Where's Xzibit when you need him?