• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Lashana Lynch to be the new 007...

sttngfan1701d said:
Clever. Rebut it, then.
Click to expand...
Until such time as you can make an argument that doesn't rely on such moronic phrases such as "virtue signaling", then you haven't made an argument that I take seriously enough to rebut. You lose all credibility with me the moment phrases such as that and "sjw" are used in any non-ironic context.
 
Last edited:
Tenacity said:
The interesting thing about Craig's Bond is that the character does seem to be aging, a somewhat surprising move on the producers part.
Click to expand...

Rather fast. Young new agent to over the hill in a couple of movies. One of the reasons why the reboot doesn’t seem to have stuck.
 
jaime said:
Rather fast. Young new agent to over the hill in a couple of movies. One of the reasons why the reboot doesn’t seem to have stuck.
Click to expand...

It has been 13 years. Time stands still for no one, not even James Bond.
 
Last edited:
Spot261 said:
Closer to Fleming would include stories where Bond was a secondary character. It would mean making Bond a whole lot less charismatic and interesting since he was explicitly designed to be largely a blank canvas onto whom (mostly) male readers could project themselves. Even the name was picked to be bland and uninteresting.

It would mean exploring his reliance on alcohol as a form of self medication or to bolster his courage and the times he is unable to perform missions because he is simply too scared. It would mean including the scenes where he vomits before or after violence or is paralysed by shock. It would mean including the scenes where he rapes people and inflicts pain for fun.

If you want to get closer to the source material then taking the spotlight off Bond and displacing him as central to the heroism is entirely in fitting.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I remember why I couldn’t quite get into Fleming.
Sometimes I should apparently be glad I didn’t.
 
BeatleJWOL said:
Interesting. Very cool! I haven't read many of those.
Click to expand...

The Benson ones are the only ones I bothered reading all of. Whilst, like the films, there’s a sort of sliding continuity, they are basically Brosnan Bond (Though GoldenEye was written by the previous Bond author, Gardner.) and get about as much flack sometimes xD. They are on kindle, but sadly not the film adaptations he did in continuity with his novels (the Brosnan films.) I enjoyed zero minus ten so much I stopped reading it on kindle and bought an ancient paperback. It’s one of only two Bond books I own in physical...tell a lie, I think we were given a hardback or Carte Blanche (which is also pretty good if a bit...long feeling.)
Baring in mind there’s probably about a thousand books, give or take, in my house, that’s fairly high praise from me xD
(I won’t mention the size of my kindle library. It’s embarrassing.)
 
jaime said:
Tell that to Roger Moore. Or even Pierce Brosnan. XD
Click to expand...

Good point, though to Moore's credit, he was set to leave after Moonraker (thinking was getting too old for the role), but was (more or less) talked into coming back to shoot For Your Eyes Only. He's still believable in FYEO, and in my view, its his far and away best Bond movie.
 
Last edited:
Serveaux said:
God, they were embarrassing after a while. Two old men...

Fleming's books and stories were great.
Click to expand...

I don’t think Brosnan got that old by the end tbh. He’s not his floppy haired GoldenEye self, but still believable.
Moore...well...yes...he kind of kept coming back because they didn’t want to change until they felt they were ready. It got silly, but they just about got it almost believable for his last one (in which he takes part in an avengers crossover) as long as you squint and assume he is very very healthy indeed for his age. It helps that his were often a bit silly anyway.

Edit: I keep losing mental track and answering only half a comment. Ah well. I am poorly atm. Let me off.

I only read a few Fleming...all second hand from libraries. Live and Let Die, Which I like, on her majesty’s secret service, which I...don’t much like because the super villain plot is silly (I don’t really like that stuff in the films much either.) and...from Russia with love. Which I sort of liked. Oh...and Casino Royale, Which I didn’t like much at all, though I suppose it set the template. Live and Let Die is the only one I didn’t lose over the years.
I have a ton of them on my kindle, (bought a collection, cheap, probably turned out to be a Chinese pirate job, but once you’ve bought it from amazon it’s yours, even if they have to pull it.) but every time I start reading, I just can’t get interested. Fourteen year old me it seems had more patience than after I rebooted me.... xD
I find he’s not as...flowing as say Le Carre or later Deighton. And Bond is actually quite hard to give a monkeys about when he’s waffling about food or his car. In this regard I prefer the film Bond(S) Which is why I got on better with the Benson. The women are much more interesting in those too.
I should probably give You Only Live Twice a go...I have this feeling I already read it and somehow forgot most of the book version, which is unusual for me. Since it’s the one where Bond does a Kirok.
 
Last edited:
Serveaux said:
The Craig movies have all been massive improvements over the programmed crap that the franchise had ground out for decades.
Click to expand...

That’s a damning compliment. Other than Casino Royale, Craig’s movies haven’t been very good. He’s good to great in the role. He deserves better.
 
jaime said:
Ok...how come Craig Bond has Connery Bonds car? ;p

Right down to the number plate.
Click to expand...

It's called an Easter Egg.

And Brosnan’s M, right down to the work address?
Click to expand...

Same actress, completely different character whose roots lie in a 'collective similarity'

Hence it both is and isn’t a reboot.
Click to expand...

Something is either a reboot or it isn't; there's no "middle ground".

Bond continuity is absolutely, totally, impossible to make any sense of. It’s like the Schrodingers Cat of continuity...it’s in two states at once till you look at it, but it seems to depend rather a lot on who the observer is.
Click to expand...

No.
 
DigificWriter said:
You can disagree all you want; that doesn't change the facts, which are that Casino Royale is the first and only time the Bond franchise has been rebooted.
Click to expand...
XldJTLe.jpg


I0d1bUD.jpg


incorrect.
wont even go into 1954..
 
Yeah, Roger Moore was getting long in the tooth, he should have stopped at For Your Eyes Only.. For me thats one if not The favorite bond move for me. After that he was in his 50's! trying to swoone a 20 year old >_<
Brosnan stopped at a good age, Connery in Diamonds are forever looks old.. and Really old in "That movie that must not be named" hehe
 
valkyrie013 said:
Yeah, Roger Moore was getting long in the tooth, he should have stopped at For Your Eyes Only.. For me thats one if not The favorite bond move for me. After that he was in his 50's! trying to swoone a 20 year old >_<
Brosnan stopped at a good age, Connery in Diamonds are forever looks old.. and Really old in "That movie that must not be named" hehe
Click to expand...
For Your Eyes Only is one of my favorites. Ocotopussy and View to a Kill are films in decline, though Moore does his best with it, aided by Walken and Jones in his final outing. I actually like NSNA, I just hate the soundtrack. I wish Sony would just re-score and rerelease it, let it finally join the stable.

DigificWriter said:
Apocryphal crap doesn't count.
Click to expand...
You like to make a lot of absolute statements about things that are not absolute. Those two movies are not apocryphal, they're just not EON.
 
BillJ said:
I feel badly for that hill you're dying on. It is getting the crap pounded out of it! :lol:
Click to expand...
Don't feel too badly - this happens to this poster on almost every thread they chime in on. My theory is that it's an elaborate character someone is playing, and honestly I have grown to really like it. Eighty percent of the time I come on this board, I am looking for DigificWriter's posts. I think it's a character because imagining someone type half this stuff with a straight face is just too... hilarious to consider...
 
DigificWriter said:
It's called an Easter Egg.



Same actress, completely different character whose roots lie in a 'collective similarity'



Something is either a reboot or it isn't; there's no "middle ground".



No.
Click to expand...

So, the things that provide continuity in earlier Bonds do not for Craig’s Bond. I mean I just don’t think that reboot stuck. M is clearly the exact same M, and while we can squint and go ‘yeah it’s a reboot’ it all sort of goes out the window in Skyfall, and Craig is just the same sliding continuity again, except now there’s a new Blofeld. But that’s ok, because last time there was a reboot (GoldenEye) he probably slipped off the table cloth of continuity as it slid.
GoldenEye was even more of a reboot, behind the scenes, than Casino Royale. There’s either more than one reboot or none, so far as I can tell by your sensible reasoning for it.
I am not disputing the logic or heart of your argument about Royale being a reboot, but essentially...it’s not the only one, and it pretty swiftly slips back into its comy sliding continuity comfy shoes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top