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

M

me!X0

New member
NEWS REPORT by BBC NEWS:

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.
Paul Haggis, who is working on the script for Casino Royale, said: "It's going to be good.

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

OH, DEAR - BRONSON IS "DEAD".
 
I thought they were going to try Quentin Tarantino to direct the next Bond film. I wonder if John Cleese has any desire to work with him ?
 
Totally agree, BIG mistake changing Bond. The character and movies are what they are because fans like them that way. Bond has always been ageless, but not gadgetless. Spoils all the fun and glamour.
 
I can live without the gadgets (Dr No and OHMSS do fine without them) but don't understand the '28 years old' bit. Bond should be in his mid/late 30s, no younger. Plus, isn't Judi Dench supposed to be in this film as M? Kinda wrecks the continuity re. GoldenEye.
 
:D but don't you really mean...

"What about giving him a metrosexual look to appeal to all markets ....... Gentlemen I think we're onto a winner" (NOT)

It's a terrible re-invention for an ever more dull series of films. I take it that with him being 12 years old and without gadgets it's going to be a prequel then :rolleyes: :yawn:
 
Frankly I love the sounRAB of all this and can't wait to see how the new Bond turns out.

Any fans of the original books will know Bond was always a cold assassain. The early films, particularly Dr No, played along to this.

Unfortunately in recent times we've had a Gillette model with smug one liners and ludicrous invisible cars to contend with. As far as I'm concerned, "Die Another Day" as an absolute travesty of a movie and an insult to Ian Fleming.

Getting back to basics could be excellent for the franchise. A charming, dark, rugged newcomer will show that all Bond neeRAB is a central presence to root for.
 
I think it's good that they're getting away from the overblown gadget-fest that was Die Another Day but he should at least have a gadget in his watch or phone!
 
v true tiger.. the thing with the recent ones was it was far too much product placement with some CGI and stunts.... one liners and pretty women..
it was too formulaic, when they weren't doing advertising, and there was very little more that could be done..

yes it was very successful but it had it's course really.. the only thing left was to actually fi;m what Flemming wrote.. something that hasn't been done since From Russia With Love..

i had the book \ film argument with some frienRAB awhile back.. always prefer the books to a film and they couldn't see how a book could be better... as i said you can do anything in a book... i could even write one where I got to get married to Dannii Minogue but couldn't do that one on a film :D
 
as i said you can do anything in a book... i could even write one where I got to get married to Dannii Minogue but couldn't do that one on a film



Well fairy tales sometimes come true...... :)
 
That's a good point but aren't most 'Bond fans' really fans of the glamourous movies who've probably never read any of the books? I read a couple quite some years ago and thought they were good in a pulp-adventure way but they're hardly high art, it's odd that the movie people struggle to write something, er, Fleming-esque.

The idea of a younger, gadgetless character sounded boring to me but then I remembered Michael Caine's Harry Palmer films. They were really good in a downbeat sort of way and I liked the way he kept angling for a rise. More civil than secret service..
 
Forgive me, but that is a gross misrepresentation. Ian Fleming was actually one of the most underrated writers of the 20th century. Philip Larkin thought so, and so did Anthony Burgess. In fact, I think Burgess summed it up best when he wrote, "those who deny the Bond books are literature are the same aesthetic snobs who deny the Sherlock Holmes books are literature either."
 
You took the worRAB out of my mouth elpaw.

I dont mind the gadgets as long as they have some resemblence of realism. I mean, you COULD fit some rockets into an Aston Martin DB5... but make a car invisible? riiiiight.

And dont use the CGI, please.
 
Not so. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969), the best Bond film in my opinion, was the closest to the original book and was made six years after From Russia With Love. And For Your Eyes Only (1981) was remarkably faithful to two Fleming short stories.

Oddly enough, underneath all the fireworks, the basic plot of Die Another Day - villain completely changes appearance; creates a super weapon ostensibly for peace; uses said weapon against the West - is actually closer to Ian Fleming's Moonraker than the film of that book.
 
Back
Top