TLD Ending

I'll leave that one to the coroner.

FieldsMan wrote:

And since Dalton was going to return for a third Bond film, I don't think it is what the ending implies.

That depends on your viewpoint, whether you look at how the film may have been planned or how it actually is. Since GE is a reboot that is what we are left with. This is one of the reasons why I am not a fan of GE and I am sure that I am not the only one: the discontinuation aspect.

You are aware that Fleming's Bond is mostly bound to a desk and only now and then gets an assignment which takes him outside his office? That's why he's so excited about them. Once he looses the double-O status, it's the deskwork that remains.

Dalton's third was planned, all right. Details -

http://www.007.info/the-007-film-that-never-was-daltons-third-bond/

Quote :

The opening sequence was set in a chemical weapons laboratory in Scotland, and involved technicians performing tests with robotic devices. Suddenly, one of the robotic machines would run amok and the building would explode.

It's gone beserk!

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Dalton's third was planned, all right. Details -

http://www.007.info/the-007-film-that-never-was-daltons-third-bond/

I know. But since they decided for a complete reboot after things went wrong we have to take it as it is. That WAS their decision after all: to make it very clear that GE was not a continuation of LTK. So they left us with LTK dangling in the air as it is.
Which means fence, doggy, kids.

GE's a continuation (even if it doesn't pick up on things left 'dangling' by LTK), as far as I'm concerned.

The series' only actual reboot was Casino Royale.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

GE's a continuation (even if it doesn't pick up on things left 'dangling' by LTK), as far as I'm concerned.

The series' only actual reboot was Casino Royale.  

But how and when does Bond get his licence back? Are we to assume that this has somehow happened in the meanwhile?
And we simply have too many new actors for my taste...

Yes, I think we are supposed to assume it ... there'd been a 6-year gap between movies at that stage.

I am sorry to say that it doesn't work for me. The female M showing disdain for a boyish Bond whose charm does not work on her feels too new to me. I mean, you can imagine Bond getting his licence back, but M becoming transgender and Bond even younger (or, developing this boyish charm) and getting an entirely different set of character traits? 6 years are quite some time, but that? I cannot buy it. The Brosnan-Bond and Dalton-Bond are too different for that.
We will have to agree to disagree here.

It's probably futile but I'll give it a go. 

1. It's a new M, Kath:

"I hear the new M is a lady" - Valentin Zukovsky, Goldeneye.

Judi Dench's casting doesn't mean M underwent genital reassignment surgery. 

2. Whether Bond has boyish charms or not (which is what every Bond actor gave to the role, except for Dalton and Craig), it's more about M's impression of her agent, just as Bond's impression of her is that she is a "bean counter". Bond didn't develop it during the years between LTK and GE. Not everything is an origin story, or a reboot.

It's a conversation regarding the timeline, which not even Eon can explain. Best not let that ruin the enjoyment of a film.

FieldsMan wrote:

It's probably futile but I'll give it a go. 

1. It's a new M, Kath:

"I hear the new M is a lady" - Valentin Zukovsky, Goldeneye.

Judi Dench's casting doesn't mean M underwent genital reassignment surgery. 

2. Whether Bond has boyish charms or not (which is what every Bond actor gave to the role, except for Dalton and Craig), it's more about M's impression of her agent, just as Bond's impression of her is that she is a "bean counter". Bond didn't develop it during the years between LTK and GE. Not everything is an origin story, or a reboot.

It's a conversation regarding the timeline, which not even Eon can explain. Best not let that ruin the enjoyment of a film.

Ah, I have missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. And still...it is not only a question of lot lines (although I will come back to this in a minute), but also a question of style and atmosphere.

One of you guys has pointed out that there are several reboots within the series and I love that idea very much. So, could the person in question please hold a virtual hand up?
Haven't I said in here before that I hate this forced illusion that all films are part of one huge story arch? When Felix tells Della that Bond was married a long time ago we all know that this Bond is way too young to have buried Tracy. He's even younger than the Bond who visits Tracy's grave in FYEO. Why pretend? They cannot sell the illusion that there is only one big, fat Bond story plot-line. I hate the sheer attempt.


About continuity, the Brosnan series is the first series after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. When LTD is firmly rooted in Fleming material as well a Cold War scenario (although the Berlin Wall was exchanged for a concert venue), the Brosnan series evokes a feeling of contemporary scenarios and / or the future. In TLD, they have a "pipeline to the West". Once we have Brosnan, these things (have to) go. Instead, we have scenarios that are focused on technology, science, media - the big powerful weapons of our world. What should be the birth of SPECTRE has become the birth of a world ruled by gadgets and science (and media). Even a Bond girl has a doctor title now (and then she becomes Dr Jones and looks like she has fallen out of Tomb Raider, but this is another story).
I once read an article in which the author said that the Brosnan era was almost science fiction and I agree with that.
The Cold War feeling has gone. It had to, sure, but we did not get SPECTRE. We got something entirely else.
It is too different from the Fleming-based precursors to me to count as continuation.

(Before you start pointing fingers, the main plot of LTK is close to what happens in LALD - the maiming of Felix. That Bond goes all havoc to take revenge is not exactly based on the novel, but still close enough. It is possible. The bond between Bond and Felix is very strong and this film illustrates it in a way that is definitely flemingesque - at least for my money).

(I'm a Fleming purist. I will never see in the Brosnan films what you see, so, I admit, THAT is indeed futile).

You say you hate the sheer attempt of a big story arch but that's exactly what's happening in the Craig era, which you adore.

I'm not going to get into a timeline conversation, but I will say that the first 20 Bond films aren't a story arch. 

And GE feels more like a Cold War Bond film then many of the preceding films - YOLT, TSWLM, MR, AVTAK, etc., all feature within this period and use it as a basis for the plot, but GE is up there with FRWL and FYEO as Cold War heavy Bond films. Not to mention it's the first time we see Bond visit Russia. And if we do get technical, the PTS does take place during the Cold War. 

And while Eon look at new threats to the world, both the media (TND) and stateless terrorists (TWINE) are sizeable and credible threats. And while gadgetry might be a means to an end for the villains in DAD, at the end of the day, a megalomaniac North Korean communist was in fact the enemy, which falls rightly within the realm of James Bond. 

Kath wrote:

Even a Bond girl has a doctor title now (and then she becomes Dr Jones

FieldsMan wrote:

You say you hate the sheer attempt of a big story arch but that's exactly what's happening in the Craig era, which you adore.

Do you equal five films featuring one lead actor with the examples I have presented above? And, have I said that I abhor one big story arch or that I abhor the attempt to unconvincingly sell the Bond films as one story arch when the actor in question is too young to sell that?

FieldsMan wrote:

I'm not going to get into a timeline conversation, but I will say that the first 20 Bond films aren't a story arch.

So, Bond is not one big story arch and you are among those who detest a universe (correct me if I'm wrong). So, what is it if it's neither one story line nor a universe? And, if it is not one story arch, where are the reboots if GE is not among them? You have to give me more details here; I cannot follow you.
As far as I see it these are the three options we have (one story arch; universe; reboots); if you have a fourth I will be happy to learn about it.

FieldsMan wrote:

And GE feels more like a Cold War Bond film then many of the preceding films - YOLT, TSWLM, MR, AVTAK, etc., all feature within this period and use it as a basis for the plot, but GE is up there with FRWL and FYEO as Cold War heavy Bond films. Not to mention it's the first time we see Bond visit Russia. And if we do get technical, the PTS does take place during the Cold War.

I know you would point out the aspect that we see all those statues in Russia...
And still, the feeling is different. I mean, this is exactly the point, Bond can ENTER Russia; he can move on the other side of the Iron Curtain. This is the visual demonstration that the Berlin Wall has gone, isn't it? I mean, if you look at it like this, it is quite brilliant. But it marks it as Post Cold War in my eyes. And, going back to the PTS, the plot-line is not grounded in Cold War, but a personal feud. Janus' motive is personal.
You count FYEO as Cold War heavy? There are too many bright colours and too many paradisiac settings for my taste. If I think of spy films I associate greyish colour schemes and an oppressed atmosphere, not "Let's have a drink in sunny Greece"…I mean, we never have that with Bond, but FYEO does not count as Cold War HEAVY for me. But this is just me.
Fleming is different when it comes to spy fiction and FEYO is a prime example of it. Fleming has managed to turn spy fiction into a form of utopia, something we want to have. Spy films that are located in the GDR are completely different, logically, but probably more "Cold War".

FieldsMan wrote:

And while Eon look at new threats to the world, both the media (TND) and stateless terrorists (TWINE) are sizeable and credible threats. And while gadgetry might be a means to an end for the villains in DAD, at the end of the day, a megalomaniac North Korean communist was in fact the enemy, which falls rightly within the realm of James Bond.

We are talking about relations here. 24 films are quite a bunch and I simply compare them with each other. That doesn't mean that I say that the Brosnan era is not Bond or does not feature anything Bond-related.
I do not only mean the face changing machine in DAD (which is featured so brilliantly as a joke in SPY), but also Bond's gadgets, which become even more elaborate and even more technical. I simply think that more emphasis is put on technology on both sides - the Q branch as well as the villains develop more extraordinary and advanced technology. This is of course a translation of the arms race, I see that. But as the whole gadgetery is foreign to Fleming it puts me off.
I am delighted when Craig-Bond meets the new Q and complains because he only gets one gun and a radio transmitter (which is ridiculously old-fashioned) or when he has to suffer from the Q technology by being monitored with smart blood. The Craig cycle has a different approach to technology but we should probably open a new thread for that (remember what happens to smart blood - it is declared a threat and deactivated. Technology has to go and Bond becomes "Bond" again, an agent on his own who has to somehow fight his way through, relaying on his wits instead of gadgetry. I am simply happy when those foreign elements go and you see Fleming's Bond underneath. People never believe me when I say: "But the novels are SO different "and I think the focus on gadgets in the films is one of the aspects which put women off. Yes, many women hate Bond, face it...)

FieldsMan wrote:

Kath wrote:

Even a Bond girl has a doctor title now (and then she becomes Dr Jones

She's a CIA agent and an astronaut. I don't recall a doctor title, but I don't pay much attention to these things anyway. Point being, Goodhead is an agent while Jones is a scientist and a scientist only. I just say that her character further underlines the attention paid to technological development. When Bond was paired with a CIA co-worker (and astronaut) earlier, he is paired with a scientist in the Brosnan era. I do not mean doctor title in the meaning of doctor title, but the fact that they have introduced another true lab rat next to the Q branch.

Kath wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

You say you hate the sheer attempt of a big story arch but that's exactly what's happening in the Craig era, which you adore.

Do you equal five films featuring one lead actor with the examples I have presented above?  And, have I said that I abhor one big story arch or that I abhor the attempt to unconvincingly sell the Bond films as one story arch when the actor in question is too young to sell that? 

FieldsMan wrote:

I'm not going to get into a timeline conversation, but I will say that the first 20 Bond films aren't a story arch.

So, Bond is not one big story arch and you are among those who detest a universe (correct me if I'm wrong). So, what is it if it's neither one story line nor a universe? And, if it is not one story arch, where are the reboots if GE is not among them? You have to give me more details here; I cannot follow you.
As far as I see it these are the three options we have (one story arch; universe; reboots); if you have a fourth I will be happy to learn about it.

FieldsMan wrote:

And GE feels more like a Cold War Bond film then many of the preceding films - YOLT, TSWLM, MR, AVTAK, etc., all feature within this period and use it as a basis for the plot, but GE is up there with FRWL and FYEO as Cold War heavy Bond films. Not to mention it's the first time we see Bond visit Russia. And if we do get technical, the PTS does take place during the Cold War.

I know you would point out the aspect that we see all those statues in Russia...
And still, the feeling is different. I mean, this is exactly the point, Bond can ENTER Russia; he can move on the other side of the Iron Curtain. This is the visual demonstration that the Berlin Wall has gone, isn't it? I mean, if you look at it like this, it is quite brilliant. But it marks it as Post Cold War in my eyes. And, going back to the PTS, the plot-line is not grounded in Cold War, but a personal feud. Janus' motive is personal.
You count FYEO as Cold War heavy? There are too many bright colours and too many paradisiac settings for my taste. If I think of spy films I associate greyish colour schemes and an oppressed atmosphere, not "Let's have a drink in sunny Greece"…I mean, we never have that with Bond, but FYEO does not count as Cold War HEAVY for me. But this is just me.
Fleming is different when it comes to spy fiction and FEYO is a prime example of it. Fleming has managed to turn spy fiction into a form of utopia, something we want to have. Spy films that are located in the GDR are completely different, logically, but probably more "Cold War".

FieldsMan wrote:

And while Eon look at new threats to the world, both the media (TND) and stateless terrorists (TWINE) are sizeable and credible threats. And while gadgetry might be a means to an end for the villains in DAD, at the end of the day, a megalomaniac North Korean communist was in fact the enemy, which falls rightly within the realm of James Bond.

We are talking about relations here. 24 films are quite a bunch and I simply compare them with each other. That doesn't mean that I say that the Brosnan era is not Bond or does not feature anything Bond-related.
I do not only mean the face changing machine in DAD (which is featured so brilliantly as a joke in SPY), but also Bond's gadgets, which become even more elaborate and even more technical. I simply think that more emphasis is put on technology on both sides - the Q branch as well as the villains develop more extraordinary and advanced technology. This is of course a translation of the arms race, I see that. But as the whole gadgetery is foreign to Fleming it puts me off.
I am delighted when Craig-Bond meets the new Q and complains because he only gets one gun and a radio transmitter (which is ridiculously old-fashioned) or when he has to suffer from the Q technology by being monitored with smart blood. The Craig cycle has a different approach to technology but we should probably open a new thread for that (remember what happens to smart blood - it is declared a threat and deactivated. Technology has to go and Bond becomes "Bond" again, an agent on his own who has to somehow fight his way through, relaying on his wits instead of gadgetry. I am simply happy when those foreign elements go and you see Fleming's Bond underneath. People never believe me when I say: "But the novels are SO different "and I think the focus on gadgets in the films is one of the aspects which put women off. Yes, many women hate Bond, face it...)

FieldsMan wrote:

Kath wrote:

Even a Bond girl has a doctor title now (and then she becomes Dr Jones

She's a CIA agent and an astronaut. I don't recall a doctor title, but I don't pay much attention to these things anyway. Point being, Goodhead is an agent while Jones is a scientist and a scientist only. I just say that her character further underlines the attention paid to technological development. When Bond was paired with a CIA co-worker (and astronaut) earlier, he is paired with a scientist in the Brosnan era. I do not mean doctor title in the meaning of doctor title, but the fact that they have introduced another true lab rat next to the Q branch.

As I've said, I'm not going to get into a dialogue about the continuity of the Bond series. Until recently, each film is a mere episode of Bond's life; the assignment he must complete by the film's end. It's not one big storyline, it's not a big story arch, they aren't reboots. It's like the Simpsons - the characters don't age, or really develop at all, but, for example now they have mobile/cell phones when they didn't back in the 80s episodes. 

Fleming himself was interested in gadgetry, and they did feature in the novels, i.e. the identicast, the attaché case. Of course, as technology progressed in the real world, of course Eon would need to find new ways of making the gadgets more exciting. Don't forget, the gadgets in MR were considered OTT for the time and some fans thought it was a bit excessive - just like they did for DAD (and we can all agree that the robosuit was never going to be a good idea), so this isn't exclusive to the Brosnan era. I also agree that when Q Branch supplies something that puts Bond in peril in some way can be a good idea, but the problem with smart blood, in a world of cybersecurity breaches (and particularly after the events of Skyfall - again, another problem with the overarching storyline in Craig's era) is that it's a vacuous idea, and probably there to join the events in Morocco to Bond getting to Blofeld's lair. It paints Q (and M) as incompetent. As mentioned elsewhere, Q's gadget fails Bond on the island with the crocs in LALD which forces him to use his wits - that's when it works. 



What does it matter if Jones is a scientist and scientist only? And I think Jones being a scientist and a scientist only is actually more believable than a CIA agent meets Doctor meets Astronaut. She's be much more a lab rat that Jones is, and it shouldn't matter that these characters demonstrate contemporary technological development. After all, Tanya was a cipher clerk which is already a step in that direction as early as Fleming's FRWL. Besides, it would be dull if all Bond girls were the same kind of character.