James Bond to be revamped for next film [Archive]

Blue Velvet

Sep 17, 2005, 02:48 PM

Now, I'm no huge Bond fan but I know many of you are so I thought I'd share this slightly alarming piece of news for all you Bond-lovers out there...

James Bond is to be given a new image as a younger character with no gadgets, a writer on the next film has told trade paper the Hollywood Reporter.

"We're trying to reinvent Bond. He's 28 - no Q, no gadgets."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4256024.stm

edesignuk

Sep 17, 2005, 02:50 PM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.

TheMonarch

Sep 17, 2005, 02:57 PM

Maybe he'll just have a PB instead? :p

Blue Velvet

Sep 17, 2005, 03:01 PM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.

Maybe they're trying to go for a more stripped-down and less jokey tense thriller-type affair. Which is something I would prob. rent on DVD...

From what I heard about the last one, it sounded pretty dire. Invisible cars, surfing tsunamis etc.

Has anybody here read Casino Royale?

Lacero

Sep 17, 2005, 03:19 PM

"We're trying to reinvent Bond. He's 28 - no Q, no gadgets."His name is Jason Bourne.

ham_man

Sep 17, 2005, 03:26 PM

Since it is taking after the book, I see nothing wrong with it...

Doctor Q

Sep 17, 2005, 03:55 PM

No Q!?!? My knees are getting weak... forehead feels cold... feeling faint...

I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue if they don't have Q! :( :(

Of course, so far this is just the word of writer Paul Haggis. Perhaps if a certain spy, using high-tech gadgets provided to him by Q Division, infiltrated Haggis' workshop and took out his operation and his hundreds of dimwitted henchmen using a hyperthermo cyberholographic plasma gun, swept Miss Comely in the proofreading department off her feet, and escaped, drinking a martini, by riding out on the rolling cart they use for the 5 gallon bottles for the water cooler, we could put a stop to this tentative plot before it gets any further and thereby prevent non-Bond-traditionalists from taking over the world and laughing at us the way only evil megalomaniacs can.

James Philp

Sep 17, 2005, 04:11 PM

I always thought a more realistic, more adult, brutal sadistic Bond would be more compelling. Exposing a little bit of what the cold war as a British spy would be like.
Is there a good reason why this kind of Bond film cannot be made? A few gadgets (realistic to the time) set in the early 80s, revealing the manipulative, calculating, cunning and unscrupulous nature of the spy and their training. (Do a thesaurus on "manipulative" to get a few more good words!)

A Bond with an 18 (R) certificate, adult, questioning, thought-provoking, historical in nature - now that film I would like to see.

The last one was so bad not even Halle Berry in a Bikini could save it! (And all the ones since Goldeneye have also been poor - but then maybe I only like Goldeneye because of the excellent N64 game ?!?)

Sun Baked

Sep 17, 2005, 04:17 PM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.If they delete the Bond girls, the movie is in trouble.

Abstract

Sep 17, 2005, 05:01 PM

Bond girl, gadgets, and Q are essential.

However, the unbelievable, hocus-pocus stuff should be left out. I always felt that way. He should have had cool gadgets, but invisible cars? A cool car with missles is more *cough*realistic*cough* than a great car with missles that also has built-in skis and the ability to drive on ice better than on concrete.

Bond should also be a bit more sexist, be more seductive and aggressive when it comes to hot girls, and have more sex. That's just the way I imagine him. He's not like that anymore, and he'll be even less like that now, from what I heard.

Without the sex and gadgets, they may as well make a movie about me!

rosalindavenue

Sep 17, 2005, 05:06 PM

Bond ought to be a period piece-- set in the early 60's Goldfinger era-- its gotten more and more uncomfortable taking him to Afghanistan and post-cold war places with nutty super-villains and outrageous gadgets. He's a 20th century character; he ought to stay there and be Connery-like, with no more than a very little subtle humor; a little twisted and sadistic, with a rare gadget or two.

Veldek

Sep 17, 2005, 06:11 PM

IIRC, the first Bond didn't have any gadgets at all. I agree though, that this is one of the coolest factors in Bond movies.

DJY

Sep 17, 2005, 06:30 PM

Mmm I also agree Bond must have:
great cars, amazing gadgets, Q, and women.

I'm not bothered by possibly a younger Bond - although some of the actors names being thrown around have raised my eyebrow.

Blue Velvet

Sep 17, 2005, 06:34 PM

...although some of the actors names being thrown around have raised my eyebrow.

Surely a Roger Moore type of raised eyebrow?

Macaddicttt

Sep 17, 2005, 06:40 PM

I am so glad they're revamping Bond. The latest ones are so terrible. Just this past summer I watched a few of the older ones, and the new ones need to be more like the Sean Connery ones. Roger Moore got kind of silly, but a few of his are good, too.

As for the gadgets, at first I was disappointed, but after thinking about it a little, I think it'll be much better. We'll have a Bond that gets out of jams by thinking instead of pressing a button on some ridiculous gadget. I can hardly wait for the new Bond movie now.

Lacero

Sep 17, 2005, 06:42 PM

As for the gadgets, at first I was disappointed, but after thinking about it a little, I think it'll be much better. We'll have a Bond that gets out of jams by thinking instead of pressing a button on some ridiculous gadget.
McGuyver?

mpw

Sep 17, 2005, 06:42 PM

Q - I'll take him or leave him (or is it her now?)
Gadgets - I'll take 'em or leave 'em.
Bond girls - I'll take 'em or leave 'em.
Period or present - either

But christ please lose the product placements and please, please, please get a script!

jiggie2g

Sep 17, 2005, 06:51 PM

Hope Jude Law is ready to take on the Bond Legacy, because he's a perfect fit fot the role. Even though he's 32-33 but with a little make-up i'm sure most people be able to tell anyway.

Chappers

Sep 17, 2005, 07:20 PM

Without the sex and gadgets, they may as well make a movie about me!

sorry about the sex bit but I can recommend some gadgets for you.

Counterfit

Sep 17, 2005, 07:53 PM

Q - I'll take him or leave him (or is it her now?)
Well, unless they changed it from before, it's John Cleese now. (If you saw, he played R in The World Is Not Enough, set to be Q's successor. Who knew it would turn out to be true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/571986.stm)? :()

WillMak

Sep 17, 2005, 08:12 PM

It would be kewl if they made it more realistic like the Bourne identity movies. Those kicked major ass.

DJY

Sep 17, 2005, 08:20 PM

I think Bond movies need to stay slightly different though to the other styled movies like the Bourne movies, Mission Impossible series, and a number of other high speed action / thrillers with just a main male character, a few gadgets, to save the world.

Bond films come with a style, a sophistication, and a certain tone or class that I think up till now have generally set them apart from others.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Casino Royale

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 17, 2005, 08:28 PM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.

Amen! The next film may tank, and then the gadgets come back with Q in the next one.

cantthinkofone

Sep 17, 2005, 08:28 PM

id like to know who it idiot is who thought jude law would be a good james bond. no Q? no cars? no women? it cannot be james bond with out them. The gadgets i can live with out. they got more and more ridiculous every movie. Im watching "Die Another Day" right now on SpikeTV and i dont like it at all. They start fighting for no apparent reason. And i have always wondered how you could have a satellite in the sky that acts as a laser to kill stuff with, with out NORAD knowing about it? I dont think i will ever rent another James Bond movie made after 1990.

Verto

Sep 17, 2005, 08:33 PM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.

Tell that to Ian Fleming. Anyone who has read the original James Bond novels will know there is a distinct lack of the OMFG super-duper Aston Martin which turns into a Nimitz Aircraft carrier with the press of a button. IMO, the real, good, James Bond died, and gave way to the Generic Action Hero. Initially, this was compensated by Sean Connery, and to a much lesser extent, Roger Moore, along with fairly good plots (plots that worsened as the movies strayed away from the books). But now James Bond is nothing.

Abstract

Sep 17, 2005, 08:35 PM

id like to know who it idiot is who thought jude law would be a good james bond.

"Quick, we need an actor who can sleep with multiple women and exhibit no loyalty towards any of them, even if one of the women is his fiancé and a supermodel. Now who can we get? Hmmmmmm....." ;)

----Bowie----

Sep 17, 2005, 08:58 PM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.

Dr. No, the first Bond film, didn't have gadgets. All he got from Q was his trusty Walther PPK. In my opinion its one of the best Bond films.

When Die Another Day came out I thought the real James Bond was dead. What an over-the-top piece of crap that was, IMO. Its good to see Bond films are going back to the way they should be.

:) :) :)

Doctor Q

Sep 17, 2005, 09:19 PM

When a Bond film is shown on TV for the umpteenth time in a year, I usually don't sit through them, but I will almost always turn them on as they start to hear the opening music. Duh-dut. Duh. Duh-dut. Duh. Duh-dut da-duh-dut.

When they can't think of a good plot, perhaps they should skip the rest of the movie, except for the visit to Q Division. That and the openings are always the best parts anyway.

Lacero

Sep 17, 2005, 09:21 PM

I just saw Die Another Day, yesterday on TV. I actually enjoyed it. Rosamund Pike, yummy. Madonna's appearance ruined the movie, though.

Super20

Sep 17, 2005, 09:24 PM

Bond movies have gotten a little carried away. There are only so many evil geniuses that can steal nuclear war heads or some sort of earth destroying weapon.

Xtremehkr

Sep 17, 2005, 10:10 PM

Benjamin

Sep 17, 2005, 10:11 PM

Rosamund Pike is yummy indeed as said above. However no Q?! and no gadgets?! thats not really james bond.

jessearl

Sep 17, 2005, 10:42 PM

His name is Jason Bourne.

You're exactly right. Perhaps they should be looking at Matt Damon for a possible replacement. He's already done this role.

Abstract

Sep 18, 2005, 12:23 AM

I'm 28, and I don't want to see a 28 year old Bond with no gadgets. They should be working creating a Bond more like the original the one in the original movies.

This isn't Batman, where you can arbitrarily change the storyline when it suits you. There are dozens and dozens of Bond movies that were great, the trouble started when they feminized Bond. The storylines haven't been as good and the product placement got out of hand as well.

They could do a separate, young Bond, series. Don't ruin Bond though.

Not even the originals. We just need a Bond with gadgets. He's not some guy running around trying to solve crimes. He's a suave, well-dressed, gadget-ed up! motherf***er with more girls than time. He's supposed to make all guys feel inadequate and boring. He's not supposed to be PC.

I don't mean that the series should be ruined in the same way Batman was ruined, with the futuristic sets, weird superhuman abilities,

If he doesn't have gadgets, sure he's a bit like Bourne, but I don't think they should be the same or similar.

Mr. Anderson

Sep 18, 2005, 12:43 AM

No gadgets? Bleh

You could down play them a bit, that's for sure, but there has to be some. And making him younger might be a mistake as well - he's always the well educated, mature and suave. Making him too young just doesn't seem right.

I'll wait and see the movie before I make a final judgement on it....

D

Agent Smith

Sep 18, 2005, 12:47 AM

His name is Jason Bourne.

No, his name is Robert Paulson. :D

Kidding aside, you're absolutely right....

Mechcozmo

Sep 18, 2005, 01:29 AM

His name is Jason Bourne.

Yes, but those movies had nothing to do with the books. Not BAD movies, but surely the books would have been MUCH better than what they released. :mad: Damnit, those books showed what it should truly be like for a spy, not the movies.

Oh well. Good renting movies.

AlBDamned

Sep 19, 2005, 05:01 AM

Yes, but those movies had nothing to do with the books. Not BAD movies, but surely the books would have been MUCH better than what they released. :mad: Damnit, those books showed what it should truly be like for a spy, not the movies.

Oh well. Good renting movies.

Agreed, I couldn't believe the plot of the films having read the Bourne Trilogy. The plot they used was peripheral to the entire story of the books. Crazy.

As for Bond, I'd be well up for him as a much more serious, brutal character with a proper story behind him. However, a few gadgets wouldn't go amiss as long as there's no more invisible cars and Bond girls and women in general are intrinsic to any story. No 'bond girls' would mean no women in the entire story wouldn't it?

There is no point though, in just doing another 'Die Another Day'. If it wasn't a big-budget, big studio, big name but poor actors 'Bond' movie, it would have gone straight to video.

MacDawg

Sep 19, 2005, 06:49 AM

Agreed, I couldn't believe the plot of the films having read the Bourne Trilogy. The plot they used was peripheral to the entire story of the books. Crazy.

OK, I read the Bourne trilogy this past winter... are you telling me the movies don't follow the books (now there's a shock). I liked the books, but movies always disappoint. If I ever see the Bourne movies, I guess I should be prepared.

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

AlBDamned

Sep 19, 2005, 07:11 AM

OK, I read the Bourne trilogy this past winter... are you telling me the movies don't follow the books (now there's a shock). I liked the books, but movies always disappoint. If I ever see the Bourne movies, I guess I should be prepared.

Woof, Woof – Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

To be honest Dawg, I wouldn't bother with the films. You will shake your head in disbelief at the lack of plot compared to the books. Before anyone says that films always miss out stuff from the books, that is true - you can't fit it all in a film. But the Bourne films are pretty much unrelated [to the books] bar character names and a dose of amnesia.

I won't spoil the films by saying that in them, Conklin is not in the second one, they cannot actually make the third film due to that and (and this is the big one), there is no mention of Carlos the Jackal AT ALL (ditto they cant make the third film because of that).

That last point alone should be enough. ;)

mpw

Sep 19, 2005, 07:58 AM

...I won't spoil the films by saying that in them, Conklin is not in the second one, they cannot actually make the third film due to that and (and this is the big one), there is no mention of Carlos the Jackal AT ALL (ditto they cant make the third film because of that)...

You think lack of stories that are connected to the books is going to stop them making more of a successful series of movies? ...Err 23 Bonds and counting!

They did the same with Clancy's books. Leave out the detail and it's just another Hollywood formula story except they've bought in recognition from the books publisher.

aswitcher

Sep 19, 2005, 08:08 AM

I don't care if he's 28. But you just cannot have Bond without Q and gadgets.

It just ain't right dammit.

That about sums it up for me.

number9

Sep 19, 2005, 08:12 AM

You all know that the first bond movie had no Q and there were very few gadgets, right? Casino Royale is supposed to show how Bond becam who he was in the rest of the movies. Hes young, not actually a Double-O agent yet, and hasn't been "toughened up." It'll be a much more realistic movie about Bond, and not some rediculous plot to destroy thigs with a sun ray that requires surfing a tidal wave to stop.

AlBDamned

Sep 19, 2005, 08:32 AM

You think lack of stories that are connected to the books is going to stop them making more of a successful series of movies? ...Err 23 Bonds and counting!

They did the same with Clancy's books. Leave out the detail and it's just another Hollywood formula story except they've bought in recognition from the books publisher.

Fair point actually and, a quick search suggests they are actually doing a third film; The Bourne Ultimatum. However, seeing as in the books, the 'Ultimatum' of the title is directly linked to the mainplot of The Bourne Identity - a plot which is completely disregarded in the film – it's safe to say the third film will be as remotely connected to the proper stories as the first two were. and again very poor in comparison.

I haven't read any of the Bond books, but if each story was separate (with links obviously) then it's fair enough to make separate films and build on them in this way, though there's no excuse for the Popcorn style of the most recent ones. I liked Goldeneye and even Tomorrow Never Dies up to a point, but past that...

Lord Blackadder

Sep 19, 2005, 09:41 AM

I think it may be a good idea, depending on how far they take it. A young Bond will be something new, it's a gamble but I dont see it as a bad idea.

The problem with the last few movies is that there were too many gadgets, gimmicks and product placements.

All they have to do to rejuvenate the franchise is tone it down a little bit, make it a little more gritty and realistic, and (like others have said) get a real script!

Mechcozmo

Sep 19, 2005, 09:35 PM

After G

Sep 19, 2005, 11:12 PM

I thought the guy who played Q, Desmond Llewelyn, died; therefore, no Q?

http://www.klast.net/bond/q.html

dejo

Sep 19, 2005, 11:24 PM

I thought the guy who played Q, Desmond Llewelyn, died; therefore, no Q?

http://www.klast.net/bond/q.html

You musta missed the last couple of Bond films when Q was played by John Cleese.

dejo

Sep 19, 2005, 11:29 PM

I've read Casino Royale. Real good book but I'm not sure if there's enough material in there for a 2-hour movie. Would be a perfect way to restart the series, if that's what they're doing. Wonder if they'll keep all the cold showers James takes. And no gadgets. I kinda like the idea of doing it much closer to the way that Ian Fleming intended in his novels than the popcorn-schlock it eventually became.

nbs2

Sep 20, 2005, 09:39 AM

I think the failure of DAD has been recognized by the filmmakers. They were doing fine (more or less) until the tidal wave. Regardless of how you feel about the other aspects of the movie - believability notwithstanding. The problem was that until that scene (I am pretty sure it was that scene), all Bond stunts could be performed without CGI - they had been done with stuntwork and such. Even TMWTGG when the Hornet does a 360 barrel.

I don't see that error happening again, but gadgets have become entrenched in the Bond mystique, along with senseless violence and womanizing. I see CR going back to the Bond roots. There is a history to Bond/Moneypenny that I see developing, but not being fleshed out as I think EON will want to preserve the sexual frustration and not jump the shark. Rather, it will probably be a blend of the Connery machismo, Moore class, and Brosnan cynicism.

jdechko

Sep 20, 2005, 11:03 AM

They could do a separate, young Bond, series.

That reminds me of the animated series James Bond Jr. that they did a while back.

I hope that they do something good for Bond this time. The last ones were pretty awful. Please save Bond!

greatdevourer

Sep 20, 2005, 11:45 AM

McGuyver? Heh, I remember watching McGyver for the "this is how to blow a house up with a hairbrush, a pair of speakers and a large tube of toothpaste" bits :p Like the A-Team, but they tried to make it scientific

I'm glad it's becoming more like the origional books. I mean, what would Flemming say about the current movies? Goldeneye, maybe, but Tomorrow Never Dies is beginning to lose it, but The World Is Not Enough? Or how about the plain stupid latest one (so bad I can't even remember it's name). Everything Or Nothing (a game published by EA ffs) has a better, more Bond-ish storyline

I'm 28, and I don't want to see a 28 year old Bond with no gadgets. They should be working creating a Bond more like the original the one in the original movies. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

2jaded2care

Sep 21, 2005, 05:55 PM

I would love to see a Bond comeback. Wouldn't mind if they stuck with some credible gadgets. Real spies have used gadgets for decades... Didn't manage to catch the whole of DAD on dish, but at least the invisible car is tactically useful and slightly credible (taking off from current research on active camouflage and making it practical). Jet-powered, drivable gondolas are just silly. ("Mama, look at the super-secret spy driving that gondola down the street!")

If they could stay away from cliches like "monologuing" scenes (a la "Incredibles") and bad one-liners...

Actually, good one-liners serve a story function -- they show that Bond is a professional killer, he's not upset about having to kill, he just cracks wise in an attempt at black humor.

And I agree, keep the stunts real... And no more Rupert Murdoch as a villain, that's just silly! That's competition for Bond? Yeah, right. Bond needs credible villains and credible threats. And a real singer for the movie's theme song.

My 2 cents.