James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

A lot of LaLD takes place in the US, which always looks less exotic compared to the other locations Bond tends to visit. That might explain why it could seem low-rent, although I never really felt that way due to the complexity of some of the sets and that awesome boat chase.

Don't get me wrong, by calling it comparatively low-rent, it's not necessarily a criticism. I like LALD and I like how it's different from other Bonds. It's a bit more down and dirty. They succeeded in doing something a little different with it, maybe they still had Burt Reynolds on the brain when they were planning it because it's got a White Lightning / Smokey and the Bandit feel to it, plus the blaxploitation stuff too. It takes chances unlike something like A View To A Kill which is just a lazy re-dress of previous films.

[Geoffcoll]

Although I watch all the bond films, I prefer view to a kill over live and let die. The guy with the laugh in live and let die annoys me and the ending with the guy blowing up is just a step too far.

[ChromeJob]

Geoffrey Holder? Read his Wikipedia article. The man was brilliant. (If you only know him from LALD and 7-Up ads, you're in for a treat.)

Or Tee Hee? Cmon. Julius Harris was great. Met him at USC once.

Remember that LALD was a reboot. The reboots always change things up a bit. If nothing else, that wild George Martin soundtrack is clear sign. I still love that score, particularly his wild new take on the "James Bond Theme" that retains some of the original 1962 zest and vigor.

I should plug in a turntable and spin my original LP, give myself a Tarot reading…

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

Geoffrey Holder? Read his Wikipedia article. The guy was brilliant.

Or Tee Hee? Cmon. Julius Harris was great.

Most likely he's referring to Geoffrey Holder, he cackles out loud quite a few times in the film. I still remember as a kid seeing him in those 7-Up commercials.

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

Remember that LALD was a reboot. The reboots always change things up a bit.

\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

No it's not. Casino Royale is the only "reboot" in the series.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

Remember that LALD was a reboot. The reboots always change things up a bit.

Originally Posted by baheidstu

No it's not. Casino Royale is the only "reboot" in the series.

True, but it could be argued that The Living Daylights was something of a soft reboot (long before that word was used in the context of movie franchises). Bond and Moneypenny were suddenly younger while M & Q remained older, but there were occasional references to events in previous films (the nod to Bond's marriage in LTK).

Though Casino Royale was the first out-and-out "reboot" in the franchise, the Dalton and Brosnan films are in kind of a murky area, continuity-wise. But to be honest, between the end of Connery's films and the beginning of Craig's, the series wasn't overly concerned with strict continuity.

[drush9999]

I always treated Dr. No through Licence to Kill as one continuity. Goldeneye was the first soft reboot with Casino Royale as a slightly harder reboot.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by BNex99

True, but it could be argued that The Living Daylights was something of a soft reboot (long before that word was used in the context of movie franchises). Bond and Moneypenny were suddenly younger while M & Q remained older, but there were occasional references to events in previous films (the nod to Bond's marriage in LTK)..

People can "argue" all they want and use neologisms like "soft reboot" if it makes them feel happy, but the simple fact remains that the twenty Eon produced James Bond films from Dr. No up to and including Die Another Day are still officially and unquestionably one single series of films. And even if one were to accept that Living Daylights or Goldeneye are some sort of soft reboot, Live and Let Die most certainly isn't when all that's different is the change of lead actor.

Originally Posted by BNex99

Though Casino Royale was the first out-and-out "reboot" in the franchise, the Dalton and Brosnan films are in kind of a murky area, continuity-wise. But to be honest, between the end of Connery's films and the beginning of Craig's, the series wasn't overly concerned with strict continuity.

Using series continuity as evidence to back up a claim in the Bond series is useless. The continuity between the Connery era film themselves is dodgy at times, and even the Craig films despite having been officially "rebooted" with Casino Royale contain some head-scratchers (like how did Bond's DB5 in Skyfall somehow become equipped with Goldfinger era MI6 gadgets, when he was shown winning that car in a poker game in the Bahamas from a private citizen?)

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Live and Let Die seems pretty low-rent when compared to most of the other films in the series. There's no elaborate Ken Adam sets, the film isn't shot in scope, we go from watching films in which SPECTRE tries to conquer the world to a Harlem gangster trying to muscle in on the American heroin market, the locations aren't particularly glamorous or exotic (though some of the scenes of squalor in Jamaica are kind of interesting to see), there's no dramatic pre-title sequence in which Bond escapes from danger at the last minute in some spectacular fashion. I mean the film still has high production values compared to a non-Bond film, but it's doesn't seem to have the same spectacle of a film like Moonraker or Octopussy.

But wasn't that the point?
They wanted to change the series slightly as they introduced a new actor and go back to the first 2 movies which were slightly low key aswell in comparison with what was to come.
Didn't really work though did it? When Saltzman's money troubles forced him into selling his share Broccoli realised they would need something very special to keep the series going and he was in it on his own with Spy.
And of course everything was in the right place at the right time and Moore became Uber Bond.
I remember seeing Spy at the cinema and after Golden Gun it was a revelation

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

People can "argue" all they want and use neologisms like "soft reboot" if it makes them feel happy, but the simple fact remains that the twenty Eon produced James Bond films from Dr. No up to and including Die Another Day are still officially and unquestionably one single series of films.

Yes but clearly there has to be some kind of "reboot" on the way when all the films take place in the present day yet the lead character never ages.

Goldeneye is clearly a reboot of some kind. The 6 year gap during the MGM money problems saw many changes which the 007 series had to respond to.
Action films with the kind of spectacle that had been almost exclusive to Bond films up to the late 80's was no more. Movies like Die Hard and the films that followed saw to that.
I doubt that Bond would have been referred to as a "sexist misogynist dinosaur" in any of the films earlier than Goldeneye.
Like The Spy Who Loved Me , Goldeneye did everything right for the time and like Spy it revived the series back to its very best.

Casino Royale was a full reboot starting from day one but by then it was too late. After years of leading Bond was now following and with CR one would have thought you were watching a Bourne film not a Bond film.
They didn't really get there until Skyfall and even then it didn't feel like a Bond film - it was just another action film. Eminently watchable multiple times of course

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

But wasn't that the point?
They wanted to change the series slightly as they introduced a new actor and go back to the first 2 movies which were slightly low key aswell in comparison with what was to come.
Didn't really work though did it? When Saltzman's money troubles forced him into selling his share Broccoli realised they would need something very special to keep the series going and he was in it on his own with Spy.
And of course everything was in the right place at the right time and Moore became Uber Bond.
I remember seeing Spy at the cinema and after Golden Gun it was a revelation

To shake things up a bit? Yes. I don't recall saying anything anywhere that really disputes that, but that's not what I'm entirely getting at when I point out that the first two films feel comparatively low-rent. For example, there's a pretty exciting car chase in TMWTGG that is not out of place for a Bond film, but instead of driving something like a gadget-laden Aston Martin, Bond drives a stolen AMC Hornet. That's a little touch that simply comes across as a way to save pennies as opposed to deliberately going back to basics. Naturally, Cubby Broccoli recognized this and went for the full spectacle with Spy.

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

Yes but clearly there has to be some kind of "reboot" on the way when all the films take place in the present day yet the lead character never ages.

No there doesn't. The first twenty films have a floating timeline. Simple as that.

[Aloha from Hawaii 73]

Curt Jurgens 1980 - YouTube

35 yrs since Stromberg passed away , another one of those Bond stars I wish I'd met

[ChromeJob]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

People can "argue" all they want and use neologisms like "soft reboot" if it makes them feel happy, but the simple fact remains that the twenty Eon produced James Bond films from Dr. No up to and including Die Another Day are still officially and unquestionably one single series of films. And even if one were to accept that Living Daylights or Goldeneye are some sort of soft reboot, Live and Let Die most certainly isn't when all that's different is the change of lead actor.

I may have crossed some linguistic jargon line by referring to the films that introduced a new actor as a "reboot." Today, people thinking CR, and Spider-man, and Fantastic Four, and got knows how many other retreads of former TV and movie properties, these are all "reboots" in the sense that you're starting a series or concept from Time Zero. I get that. I'm thinking from a pre-1990 concept of "rebooting the machine to wipe out RAM and load the OS anew" so as to have a "clean machine to work with." More often than not, introducing a new lead in a known, familiar role, required some retooling of things like production design, writing, music score, directorial tone, yada yada yada, or some combination of those. OHMSS wasn't very clearly a refresh, but with a new Bond, they had few gadgets, a more strict adherence to the novel, stronger physicality, and Barry experimented with the synth (his change to the Bond musical theme is pretty radical IMHO). DAF they went back to familiar territory, but for Moore they again retooled things significantly. Part of it, and Moore describes this in multiple interviews, was to avoid things closely associated with Connery where possible (they kept the "Bond, James Bond" from Dr. No, and Moore owned it admirably). No shaken martinis, smoked cigars not Moreland's cigarets, no tuxedo (he's in tux in some promo pics, but I don't recall him wearing one in the film), etc. He had the double-jeopardy of having to steer clear of any Saint-related gestures, as well. I feel that the George Martin score, production design, more down to earth plot/scheme (somewhat in keeping with the novel), all add up to a "refresh" if not a rebooting of the formula to help the audience feel they weren't watching "a movie written for Connery, but performed with a non-Connery." It worked; I cannot for the life of me picture Sir Sean Connery in those LALD scenes. Though Moore was actually a little older than Connery, he looked younger; I think I'd gag seeing Connery seducing little 20(?) or 21(?) year old Jane Seymour. Well, maybe we wouldn't have gagged so hard in 1973.

I have to agree that The Living Daylights doesn't seem such a "refresh" considering, from what I've heard, that the script was kicked off for Moore, then rewritten a wee bit for Brosnan, and then touched up a bit for Dalton when poor Brosnan's contract was optioned by the US TV network. Poor, TLD: it hardly knew who was in the role. I can easily picture Moore in most if not all of that film ("This is one performance I couldn't miss"). Dalton did a great job, I thought. I only wish the climactic battles were more physical and desperate like the pre-titles sequence.

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Using series continuity as evidence to back up a claim in the Bond series is useless. The continuity between the Connery era film themselves is dodgy at times, and even the Craig films despite having been officially "rebooted" with Casino Royale contain some head-scratchers (like how did Bond's DB5 in Skyfall somehow become equipped with Goldfinger era MI6 gadgets, when he was shown winning that car in a poker game in the Bahamas from a private citizen?)

My brain grinds gears on this one. I think it's cute that he wins this classic car in CR. When it appeared in what seemed to be a south London storage warehouse for his household goods, I thought, "Yippee, he didn't turn it over to MI6 as 'winnings acquired while in the service,'[1] because he was on his own, M told him to go hide himself somewhere." I forgave it changing to a right-side drive. But then he showed the gadgets, and I thought, "What …*the … f-?" like J.W. Pepper. MI6 kept a 50 year old relic? Kept it in a nondescript storage locker? Why would it even run, gasoline does go stale after several months? And in SPECTRE, they're restoring/rebuilding it? In God's name, WHY?

[1] In Goldfinger, the $15,000 or so that Junius DuPont pays Bond to expose and embarrass Goldfinger is destined for the White Cross, the charity fund for families of fallen agents, along with a memo to M about it.

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Most likely he's referring to Geoffrey Holder, he cackles out loud quite a few times in the film. I still remember as a kid seeing him in those 7-Up commercials.

Yeah. Harris has a pretty nice, menacing chuckle when he's about to snip Mr. Bond's face off in the finale.

Originally Posted by baheidstu

No it's not. Casino Royale is the only "reboot" in the series.

Okay, okay. I guess what I'm referring to are "soft reboots," if that can be used to refer to new versions of the same timeline, with fresh faces and style cues. If you guys are going to totally restrict the "R word" to films which reset the timeline, state of the characters, everything, then I'm open to linguistic suggestions.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

No there doesn't. The first twenty films have a floating timeline. Simple as that.

No such thing as a floating timeline.
Didn't exist in the world of 007 at least as shown by the producers still mentioning the death of Bonds wife from OHMSS in The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only when it was still possible.

By the time Goldeneye was made a reboot of some kind was needed not only because of the ageless hero but also because of changes in the real world.

[baheidstu]

If you guys want to consider films such as Goldeneye or The Living Daylights "soft reboots", or if some other guy wants to invoke the whole "James Bond 007 is a code name used by multiple agents", or some other pet theory in order to make things more logical to you, then go for it. I am absolutely not saying that you cannot do that. Personally I watch Diamonds Are Forever with the stance that all of the Blofelds, including the "real" one, are duplicates and that the true Blofeld was disabled and semi retired after OHMSS as it fits better with the PTS of FYEO. But to reiterate, these are PET THEORIES. According to Eon Productions, the creators of these films, the first twenty Bond films are one continuous series of adventures featuring the same human being and only Casino Royale is officially and unquestionably a reboot.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

If you guys want to consider films such as Goldeneye or The Living Daylights "soft reboots", or if some other guy wants to invoke the whole "James Bond 007 is a code name used by multiple agents", or some other pet theory in order to make things more logical to you, then go for it. I am absolutely not saying that you cannot do that. Personally I watch Diamonds Are Forever with the stance that all of the Blofelds, including the "real" one, are duplicates and that the true Blofeld was disabled and semi retired after OHMSS as it fits better with the PTS of FYEO. But to reiterate, these are PET THEORIES. According to Eon Productions, the creators of these films, the first twenty Bond films are one continuous series of adventures featuring the same human being and only Casino Royale is officially and unquestionably a reboot.

Eon can say what they like.
Clearly from a narrative point of view that is nonsense but to be fair there are little elements all the way through the series where the narrative is adjusted to suit the film.

Having fought Blofeld for a couple of hours in You Only Live Twice the series continues with OHMSS where apparently Bond and Blofeld don't even recognise each other.
That's no more logical than Khan recognising Chekov in Star Trek 2

For me Goldeneye is a soft reboot as it changes the formula for the series, the attitudes to and from women and tailors the movie to cover the 6 year gap.
The Living Daylights doesn't seem to be a reboot of any kind. Playing down the gadgets is something they'd done before. If anything Licence To Kill might be called an attempted reboot but that was a deliberate attempt to make the film more adult, a move that backfired resulting in censor cuts for both the UK and US

[ChromeJob]

In this era of extended universes and sequels and puzzle pieces that all fit together to form a multi-film mosaic, yes, "reboot" means a complete break in the "extended storyline." Since the Bond films have almost always (pre-Craig) been standalone works with only the slightest connections between them (aside from the Blofeld arc from Dr. No), this modern "reboot" definition seems meaningless. James Bond, agent OO7, has not been in active field service from 1962 to 2006. It's impossible.

I've bought that he's in mid-career in most or all of the films, and the time in which he's in this state is "today." In Dr. No, he mentions that the Beretta has "never failed me," so he's not a new agent IMHO. Tracy Bond's death since OHMSS has happened "sometime in the past" for Moore, Dalton, and (I guess) Brosnan. Or maybe not, but since Brosnan was a widower by the time of Goldeneye IIRC I could believe that he'd already been through that experience.

Again, my reference was to "stylistic reboots" when they had to introduce a new actor in the role. I'm really sorry if I detoured everyone down a rabbit hole discussion.

Addendum:

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

… For me Goldeneye is a soft reboot as it changes the formula for the series, the attitudes to and from women and tailors the movie to cover the 6 year gap.
The Living Daylights doesn't seem to be a reboot of any kind. Playing down the gadgets is something they'd done before. If anything Licence To Kill might be called an attempted reboot but that was a deliberate attempt to make the film more adult, a move that backfired resulting in censor cuts for both the UK and US

I concur. I was just thinking. The Living Daylights is indistinguishable from the latter Moore outings, but License To Kill surely was. I can't picture Moore in that except perhaps 15 years younger, say circa TMWTGG or TSWLM. I think it's generally agreed this was Michael G. Wilson's first real attempt to make Bond darker.

BTW, TLD didn't play down the gadgets, did it? Aston Martin loaded to the roof sills with gimmicks, exploding and gas-emitting key fob, oil pipeline personnel shuttle, um … what am I missing?

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

Again, my reference was to "stylistic reboots" when they had to introduce a new actor in the role. I'm really sorry if I detoured everyone down a rabbit hole discussion.

Not at all. It's always good to read alternate viewpoints and theories about our favourite film series.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

Eon can say what they like.

Well, when it boils right down to it, that's correct. Because they created the films.

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

Clearly from a narrative point of view that is nonsense but to be fair there are little elements all the way through the series where the narrative is adjusted to suit the film.

Having fought Blofeld for a couple of hours in You Only Live Twice the series continues with OHMSS where apparently Bond and Blofeld don't even recognise each other.
That's no more logical than Khan recognising Chekov in Star Trek 2

That was a continuity error based on the fact that due to pre-production problems on OHMSS, they ended up filming that after YOLT. Richard Maibaum's script for OHMSS was largely faithful to the book, Roald Dahl's script for YOLT was not. And just as Trek fans can claim that Chekov was on the Enterprise but that he just wasn't part of the bridge crew, Bond fans can still come up with ways around that error.

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

For me Goldeneye is a soft reboot as it changes the formula for the series, the attitudes to and from women and tailors the movie to cover the 6 year gap.
The Living Daylights doesn't seem to be a reboot of any kind. Playing down the gadgets is something they'd done before. If anything Licence To Kill might be called an attempted reboot but that was a deliberate attempt to make the film more adult, a move that backfired resulting in censor cuts for both the UK and US

Well, and that's the thing. What seems like a reboot to you (soft or otherwise) might not be to the next guy. So, again, approach it however you want but acknowledge that it's your personal preference and NOT any sort of official decree from the people who actually made the films.

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

In this era of extended universes and sequels and puzzle pieces that all fit together to form a multi-film mosaic, yes, "reboot" means a complete break in the "extended storyline." Since the Bond films have almost always (pre-Craig) been standalone works with only the slightest connections between them (aside from the Blofeld arc from Dr. No), this modern "reboot" definition seems meaningless. James Bond, agent OO7, has not been in active field service from 1962 to 2006. It's impossible.

I've bought that he's in mid-career in most or all of the films, and the time in which he's in this state is "today." In Dr. No, he mentions that the Beretta has "never failed me," so he's not a new agent IMHO. Tracy Bond's death since OHMSS has happened "sometime in the past" for Moore, Dalton, and (I guess) Brosnan. Or maybe not, but since Brosnan was a widower by the time of Goldeneye IIRC I could believe that he'd already been through that experience.

Again, my reference was to "stylistic reboots" when they had to introduce a new actor in the role. I'm really sorry if I detoured everyone down a rabbit hole discussion.

James Bond is always mid-career (at least in the first twenty) because, as I said earlier, the series has a floating timeline.

I get what you're staying with regards to "stylistic reboots". That's just obvious. Live and Let Die has an entirely different feel to it than You Only Live Twice, but then For Your Eyes Only has an entirely different feel to it than Moonraker. In some ways The Living Daylights feels different from its predecessors, and yet in other ways it feels a lot more connection to, say, Octopussy than Licence To Kill.

So, again, whatever makes the viewer feel comfortable in consolidating those tonal differences, continuity errors, casting changes, floating timelines in his or her own mind is fine with me, but don't conflate those personal theories with any sort of official stance by the films' creators.

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

Addendum:

I concur. I was just thinking. The Living Daylights is indistinguishable from the latter Moore outings, but License To Kill surely was. I can't picture Moore in that except perhaps 15 years younger, say circa TMWTGG or TSWLM. I think it's generally agreed this was Michael G. Wilson's first real attempt to make Bond darker.

BTW, TLD didn't play down the gadgets, did it? Aston Martin loaded to the roof sills with gimmicks, exploding and gas-emitting key fob, oil pipeline personnel shuttle, um … what am I missing?

The Living Daylights still uses gadgets, yes, but by and large it takes things a tad more seriously than most of the Moore films. I honestly cannot see Moore in such scenes in TLD like when Bond helps Koskov to defect.

[Geoff D]

Spot on. I take each era as it comes, and each has its own set of gags and references for what came before without it necessarily being beholden to that exact same continuity. Hell, I could take Dalton's Bond as having been married to Tracy ("he was married once, but it was a long time ago") but I just can't see it with Moore's smoother-than-a-buttered-bannister portrayal, even though he visits her grave.

[StingingVelvet]

I definitely treat each era as a reboot. Even Diamonds are Forever starts in Asia and you can ignore OHMSS if you want. I tend to ignore continuity in general unless a series makes a point of it (Marvel stuff for example) or it's my forever love Star Trek.