NEWS: Say Goodbye to the James Bond We Used to Know

CULTURE: Say Goodbye to the James Bond We Used to Know

What’s a culturally astute scriptmeister to do post-politically saturated film? In his next venture, Haggis takes on that charming misogynist James Bond. Will the socially conscious script doctor do serious damage or bring some much-needed depth to the series?

MTV’s Kurt Loder interviewed Haggis prior to his win for Crash on Sunday night. In the interview, Haggis gives Loder the inside scoop on the script for Casino Royale:

I think I know the answer to that question. Um, because he CAN.

Meanwhile, the folks over at Defamer were once again spot on with their commentary:

I’m still laughing at that York montage. Or crying. I can't decipher.

Is it too early to send condolences on this one?

technically the "real" James Bond from Ian Flemmings books was far moodier and less gadget prone than the movie Bond anyway so it would be a more accurate Bond if anything.

that said by now James Bond is probably more defined by the movies than the books.

If the series survived Roger Moore, it'll survive this.

And Snottlebocket is right. The Ian Fleming Bond is a whole shitload different than the movie one.

Trivia note: Ian Fleming also wrote the musical "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"

hopefully this new bond film will also tackle some hard hitting (read: hitting us over the head with a sledgehammer to make the point) personal and social issues as well. why does bond like martinis so much? does he have childhood trauma that leads to his drinking? why does he drive so damn fast? does he not like himself at the core and wish to be dead? is he maybe at heart a racist? we'll see.

The series has become mired in its own nostalgia. It is worth going in another direction.

James bond is good as is. Bringing in a blond bond and changeing the layout will just piss diehard fans off.

It's the same with the final fantasy series. It all went to hell after 7...

[Edited on Mar 07, 2006 by zoton]

I was under the impression that the last few sucked. Denise Richards? Shannon Elizabeth? Ugh.

I agree, but I think the general idea of that is that it should have plots again. Not that Bond should fall in love or some lame shit like that.

I would definitely welcome a bit of a darker turn, though.

Wow. Genuinely subversive...

Or, it will bring back the diehard fans of the REAL Bond and piss of the diehard fans of the silly pieces of shit they've been churning out.

Funny thing about them telling the story of why Bond treated women as he did. I wrote a monologue from the POV of Bond for a high school class regarding just that. It went over really well.

James Bond can be an exciting character when he has boundaries. The series has had an "anything goes" attitude since Goldfinger, and the focus shifted entirely to production design and villians where the filmmakers could indulge themselves, but Bond himself is really fascinating on a conceptual level - a trim, cultured, unsentimental smoothie who happens to be the eyes and arms of the British government, and spends his time tracking down people who aren't what they seem either. I haven't read the books, but it seems to me like that's how the Bond stories were supposed to be framed; all of the political scheming and megalomania and enormous armed fortresses hidden just under the surface of polite civilization, of which Bond, who is infinitely well-cultivated, is a perfect reflection. The way that Bond would be invited to a civilized dinner by his captors is a vestigial example of that concept. He should be more Reginald Jeeves than John McClaine.

[Edited on Mar 07, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

People say this, but I think Brosnan was the best Bond apart from Connery. The movies themselves more or less sucked because they were generic action movies, but as Jeff says above, the character was fun. I liked that he was older, because it theoretically should have given the character more of a spy element and less action. Sadly, they went the other direction. It wasn't really his choice; he wanted to do the Casino Royale movie with Quentin Tarantino on a smaller budget, returning Bond to the plot-based movies. I don't know if that would have been good or not, but I would have been interested.

^^^ Right on Ted.

I love how everyone talks about who James Bond really was in the books, or what he should be, when they haven't even read the books (Not saying that's anyone here). I've read the books, and all I hear now is people twisting the character to hell. And this Haggis fellow is a royal idiot that has no idea what he's talking about.

Wait, wasn't Goldfinger only the third movie?

Neither McClaine and certainly not Jeeves. The guy in the book is a jerk, a chain smoker, and half an alcoholic. The polish definitely is something that the movies added.

also, people are taking this wayyyy too seriously. Every single time a new actor plays Bond, or a new director takes on the series, they ALWAYS say they're going to do something new and make Bond more human. They never do.

If this series can survive the terrible Brosnan pictures, Denise Richards being cast as a rocket scientist, and Roger Moore's bad suits, I doubt Craig or Haggis will be able to kill it (I'm not sure that's a good thing, really). To be honest, if it means less product placement for BMW, I'm fine with saying good bye to Q.

[Edited on Mar 08, 2006 by PointBlank]

on a "as by the books view" Timothy Dalton was the best Bond.

on a "as by the movies view" Sean Connery was the best Bond.

that said my fav Bond book, and Bond movie remains On Her Majesty's Secret Service. that movie is the closest adaptation of a Bond book.

of course this is just my opinion.

not to try and sound rude, but BMW have been out of the Bond movies. Ford (their Aston Martin division) has been the car, and cars in the series now. also Q is dead, John Cleese took over that role after Desmond Llewelyn died, and i think he is called something different from "Q".

awesome.

from a purely movie perspective, the Bond films became pretty dire after Goldeneye - where all the effort seemed to go into the lengthy opening sequence - the remainder of the film playing like a series of mini-stuntman showcases inbetween product placements.

i'm looking forward to seeing a Bond film that has a different feel to it

Not to sound rude, but:
Cleese was also called Q (formerly "R"). In the books, Q is a division, not a person and in the first films Llewellyn (some other guy in the first one) plays the head of Q division, Major Boythrood (sp?) which is the name of the character who pops up (rarely) in the books.

Also, the "BMW" i'm referring to is the one that Brosnan drove in The World is not Enough, which was the second most recent Bond picture. Ther really haven't "been out of the Bond movies" for long.



[Edited on Mar 08, 2006 by PointBlank]

"Q" stands for Quartermaster = armorer .. I'm looking forward to seeing the origins of Bond too .. It'll be refreshing to see a new twist in this series .. rumor has it that they are remaking the all of them in chronological order if Casino is successful... we'll see

[Edited on Mar 08, 2006 by alienz]

i'm really not wanting this guy as bond... for a few reasons... but anyways, as for this 'new' type of thinking for the series... i'll see it, and wait to say anythiing till i do... hopefully it does well.

We all know if he does really bad, they'll just toss him.

Oh, you mean the Brosnan pictures that steadily made more and more money as he stared in them? Yea, like em or not, they revived the series and actually made them some money.

Boothroyd was only in one book as far as I can remember, and he wasn't the head of Q, he was just one of the armorers. Fleming speaks of Q branch, but they're very different, a quartermaster is not an armorer.


In any event someone mentioned that Dalton was the Bond closest to the books and I highly disagree. First of all the whole of Licence To Kill would have never happened with Ian Fleming's Bond. Personally, I think Pierce Brosnan looks the part best, and his character is pretty damn close to how it was in the books. People always think they're so different, but the only real difference is that in the books you can hear Bond's thoughts. But his outward attitude and demeanor are very similar to that in the books.

Bottom line is Barbara's a senile old woman who should not be making decisions about the Bond franchise. Nor should all these people that skim through a couple of the books and instantly think they're an expert on "the real Bond" (I'm speaking of the writers/producers/director)

Granted. But I was responding to people complaining that this movie would suck. As far as I can tell no one has complained that it wouldn't be profitable. My point was that there hasn't been a good Bond movie in years, and that this one was a very good chance of being better than the last few. A very good chance.

I think, also Boothroyd was in a couple of the Fleming novels, and I'm sure he's been in a couple of the Gardner ones as well.

Bond nerds, unite!