James Bond

slyc_willie

Captain Crash
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Posts
17,732
BBC America is hosting "Five Weeks of Bond" and they've started at the very beginning, with Dr. No. Damn, what a beginning. Taking into account the time period in which the books and films were made, the movie is extraordinary. It introduced us to both Ian Flemming's iconic character, a man's man who is both inspiring and painful to watch, and the incredible charisma of Sean Connery, who might very well have languished in obscurity if not for the fortuitous inclusion in such a memorable and original series of films.

That first scene in which Connery, as Bond, sits at a canasta table and introduces himself -- "Bond. James Bond." -- was a defining moment in 20th century cinema. The cigarette hanging from the corner of his mouth. The devil-may-care expression. The quiet sense of confidence and skill. No actor in the role has matched it since.

James Bond has been with us since Kennedy was president. Think about it: over 47 years have now passed since the professionally cool and ruthless character of James Bond was first given us through the silver screen, and even more years since Ian Flemming's first introduction in print of a man who would become both icon and metaphor for our time. I wonder how many men could ever claim to have impacted the world through cinema and print as has Mr. Flemming. Our modern idea of a government agent would never have come about the way it has if not for James Bond.

At the same time, what other series could boast such an interesting, incredible, unforgettable cast of supporting characters and villains? If you speak the names Felix Lighter, Jaws, Ernst Blofeld, or Auric Goldfinger in any mixed company, you are virtually guaranteed to receive a response. Everyone knows bond, and everyone knows at least some of his memorable villains.

Ian Flemming and Albert R. Broccoli gave us a piece of culture without which modern cinema could not exist. Certainly, Bond's world is a sexist one, but not all of Bond's women could be considered fair, docile maidens. Honey Wilder, Pussy Galore, Octopussy . . . even Solitaire and Christmas Jones could be argued to be a strong, capable women (okay, so they were all outshadowed by Bond's charisma. The films were intended as guy movies, after all).

James Bond has been a part of modern culture almost as long as Meet The Press, and with arguably more profound impact. The stories of Ian Flemming have infected modern writing and film making since the moment Sean Connery sang to Ursula Andres as she emerged from the Bahaman waters. The fantasic nature, the global scope, the almost unbelievable antics and the twisted depths of the Bond villains have had incredible impact upon the world.

While I consider no actor has ever done Bond justice the way Sean Connery did, I welcome the enduring stamina of an ideal man well into the twenty-first century. Long live Bond.
 
Bond is timeless. :)

And Q, too, who never seemed to age before his accidental death at age 85.
 
Actually, "Casino Royale" was the beginning of the Bond universe. It was the first novel by Fleming, and was the first story to be filmed, presented on television in 1954 and starring Barry Nelson as the intrepid secret agent......Carney (as big of a Bond fan as you are likely to find)
 
Have you got your thesis committee together yet, slyc? ;)
 
The hubs is a Bond FREAK. LOL. We have every Bond movie, save the one in theaters now.

Our first date... Die Another Day.

I will admit, prior to meeting him, I never even paid attention to the Bond movies. Now, they've grown on me, and I enjoy them almost as much as he does. Almost.;)
 
Slyc

I watched the early Bonds as a girl and Sean's romantic machismo made a girl . . . well, you know. Ever since then, however good the actors, it has become too anodyne. I watch for the stunts, not the palpitating bits.
 
I also liked - "Oh, do grow up, 007."

:)

There was no Q in the latest movie. At least, I don't remember seeing him.

I like Daniel Craig as Bond, but I'm not sure I'm a fan of where Broccoli has decided to take the franchise. We already know Bond and have lived with him for years and now they want to go back to the beginning? I'm having a hard time reconciling Bond as a new 007 with the suave set in character Bond that we've lived with for so long.

Quantum of Solace was... confusing. I'm going to have to watch it a second time just to decide if I even liked it or not.
 
There was no Q in the latest movie. At least, I don't remember seeing him.

I like Daniel Craig as Bond, but I'm not sure I'm a fan of where Broccoli has decided to take the franchise. We already know Bond and have lived with him for years and now they want to go back to the beginning? I'm having a hard time reconciling Bond as a new 007 with the suave set in character Bond that we've lived with for so long.

Quantum of Solace was... confusing. I'm going to have to watch it a second time just to decide if I even liked it or not.

Please elaborate on where you see Broccoli taking the franchise.

I like they stayed with an unpolished character. It's more true to the series and as the movies progress with Craig, you'll see him be more suavay and deboner.

I like Craig too. I also liked Brosnan. I was annoyed with the Roger Moore movies because they went far too camp for my Bond taste.
 
I can't even watch any of the newer Bond movies. They all seem like a bunch of guys trying to make believe that they are Sean Connery and not doing a very good job of it. :eek:
 
I can't even watch any of the newer Bond movies. They all seem like a bunch of guys trying to make believe that they are Sean Connery and not doing a very good job of it. :eek:

:rose:
For you. Thanks for covering this so I didn't have to.

Craig is the closest to Connery, but Sean is still the only one.

I think it's kind of like Dr. Who, the first Dr you watched seems to become your favorite.
 
Please elaborate on where you see Broccoli taking the franchise.

The whole "back to the beginning" thing. It just doesn't gel for me. I don't know. Maybe they thought showing what happened with Vespa in Casino Royale would give a hint as to why Bond turned out to be the way he was. But part of the second movie hinged on what happened in the first... and that's not something they usually do. Each Bond movie has been a separate storyline, and it didn't really matter if you'd seen any of the other ones. However, if you didn't see Casino Royale... parts of Quantum will not make sense.
 
Actually, "Casino Royale" was the beginning of the Bond universe. It was the first novel by Fleming, and was the first story to be filmed, presented on television in 1954 and starring Barry Nelson as the intrepid secret agent......Carney (as big of a Bond fan as you are likely to find)

Ya learn something new every day. ;) I always wondered why they didn't start the big-screen franchise with Casino.

Have you got your thesis committee together yet, slyc? ;)

*snerk* I got on a roll and just kept going. :p

Slyc

I watched the early Bonds as a girl and Sean's romantic machismo made a girl . . . well, you know. Ever since then, however good the actors, it has become too anodyne. I watch for the stunts, not the palpitating bits.

After Goldeneye, that was the feeling I got as well. I had long anticipated Pierce Brosnan's role as Bond (even though, I'll admit, I liked Timothy Dalton. He reminded me in some ways of Connery's portrayal and helped to balance out Moore's comical Bond), but after that first outing, the franchise became a special effect extravaganza and the plotlines seemed either forced or shallow.

I can't even watch any of the newer Bond movies. They all seem like a bunch of guys trying to make believe that they are Sean Connery and not doing a very good job of it. :eek:

Bingo.

I haven't seen either of the Daniel Craig movies. I'm sure he's done a good job, and from I've seen in various previews, he shares a lot of Connery's earlier energy and ruthlessness. But . . . I dunno. I think I'd rather stick with my nostalgic preferences.
 
The whole "back to the beginning" thing. It just doesn't gel for me. I don't know. Maybe they thought showing what happened with Vespa in Casino Royale would give a hint as to why Bond turned out to be the way he was. But part of the second movie hinged on what happened in the first... and that's not something they usually do. Each Bond movie has been a separate storyline, and it didn't really matter if you'd seen any of the other ones. However, if you didn't see Casino Royale... parts of Quantum will not make sense.

True. I guess it didn't really bother me, though I did want to watch CR again. With the Bourne movies and others, I've sort of got used to going along with it and wait for things to be revealed. If a prior movie is referenced I assume it makes sense even if I don't know exactly what happened.

Having said that, I also prefer each Bond movie as adventure of its own and not built as serials.
 
I personally think that Daniel Craig is the best bond since Connery. and unlike many of the other bonds, i can actually believe, when i watch Craig, that he could pull of some the shit he does in the movies. I found the two newest bonds to be far superior to the previous two before them.

and not to split hairs, but i do believe, and i could be wrong, that Felix's last name is spelled Leiter.


slainte
 
Back in 2006 the movie Renaissance was released, which had the voice of Daniel Craig before he was Bond. I saw parts of it the other week, and could have sworn that his voice sounded like Connery's from time to time. So he has that going for him too.
 
I haven't seen QofS, but I enjoyed Daniel Craig in CR, even though I didn't expect it. I went in the theater ready to hate him as Bond (I'm another Connery fan), but now, IMO, he is the best Bond since Connery.

The other issues raised don't matter. ALL the Bond movies require "the willing suspension of disbelief," some more than others. I'm not a purist where it comes to Bond, maybe because I came to enjoy the movies later in life. I find something unique and special about each one. They are reflective of the decades in which they were made, and show quite an interesting progression. Of course, the fact that the first, Dr. No, was released the year I was born might have something to do with my interest in the evolution of the films.

It's fantasy... and we obviously buy it. 23 movies (counting Never Say Never), spanning 46 (almost 47) years, and 6 different actors playing Bond. Iconic.

Mmmmm time to pull out the DVD's for a marathon, I think.
 
We used to have Bond movie marathons at the fraternity house when I was in college (I was a little sister). I have fond memories of speaking in Bond-ish for the next week or so. :)

Definitely a cultural icon.
 
Slyc, like Cloudy refers too, Fleming's Bond was hyper-macho and had a rather disparaging view of women's role in life - yet we girlies kept watching Sean with passion.

Those smiling eyes and upturned lip - that gorgeous accent and the bod. Serious, no-one has come close to that raw masculinity again and - whilst I like Daniel Craig - he's a bit too metrosexual for me. Wanna be a cavegirl.
 
Slyc, like Cloudy refers too, Fleming's Bond was hyper-macho and had a rather disparaging view of women's role in life - yet we girlies kept watching Sean with passion.

Those smiling eyes and upturned lip - that gorgeous accent and the bod. Serious, no-one has come close to that raw masculinity again and - whilst I like Daniel Craig - he's a bit too metrosexual for me. Wanna be a cavegirl.

At least you don't have to fantasize that Bond's first name is really "Jane" and she is a cross dressing lesbian like some of us do! :D
 
OOoohh... 008 Bond, Jane Bond.....


8 is so much better than 7... looks like a woman... and sounds.. well...:kiss:


Plot bunny?:cattail:
 
Slyc, like Cloudy refers too, Fleming's Bond was hyper-macho and had a rather disparaging view of women's role in life - yet we girlies kept watching Sean with passion.

Those smiling eyes and upturned lip - that gorgeous accent and the bod. Serious, no-one has come close to that raw masculinity again and - whilst I like Daniel Craig - he's a bit too metrosexual for me. Wanna be a cavegirl.

Yet, strangely enough, I have the feeling you don't quite swoon over Stacy Keach as Mike Hammer, even though he was also hyper-macho . . . ;)

It's all in the delivery.
 
IMO Craig is the best Bond since Connery...Dalton was ok...I hated Moore...the rest..ehhh.

The QoS opening sequence was way cool...no gadgets...just cars and guns.

James Bond is back, baby!!:D
 
Ya learn something new every day. ;) I always wondered why they didn't start the big-screen franchise with Casino..

It's because Fleming sold the rights to his first (and only, at the time) Bond novel to one company, and then later sold rights to all the other books to Broccoli's company. They only, finally, acquired the rights to film that book a few years ago, which is why they finally did Casino Royale in the "canonical" series.
 
Back
Top