IMO, no James Bond game has captured what it is like to be Bond

[JourneyThroughHell]

I didn't say they didn't have any, but it's very thinly stretched. Maybe you need to watch Casino Royale again if you think he's emotionless, and you need to remember that QoS is a direct sequel to Royale in every sense of the word; Vesper betrayed him, she's dead, and he doesn't know how to handle it. If anything I'd say his reaction is what a huge number of men would do (myself included) - close up and pretend they don't care. He's also younger, hence the violence - the rest of him is very Bond though (along with the nature of the films if you watch them, there's still a Bond girl and QoS has it's own evil lair set-piece), albeit one you would take seriously.

As for the fun of the old Bond films, whilst I enjoy Connery's and Brosnan's, there are loooooooooong periods of the old films where simply nothing happens, and even the action scenes can be boring. It's like someone forgot they were allowed to edit them.

I'm actually interested to see how opinions of this divide up by nationality, since most non-Brits I've seen tend to be the ones who long for the older style of Bond films. Perhaps that's just my imagination though.

Yeah, perhaps emotionless is not the particular word for it. Craig is a pretty good actor and, if anything, he does make a great action hero.

However, the fact that Quantum Of Solace tries to be a serious film while retaining the old Bond formula (he gets to know the first Bond girl, she is either an enemy and dies or just dies, he get to know the second girl, if he has a sidekick apart from Q and Felix Lighter, the sidekick dies, he kills the main bad guy, etc.) just doesn't fly today. The first Bond movies were campy and, as such, constant and repeated deaths were kind of understandable. In the new films, they seem out of place.

Royale was an establishing flick, and, as such, not terribly similar to the earlier Bond movies. Ok, granted. Then why did his behaviour change so little after Vesper's death? He looked like he didn't know how to handle it before and, as such, was arrogant, unsure and near-murdered by the main bad guy even before the whole thing happened.

Oh, and the Bond girl in the second movie is not even a Bond girl. Okay, yeah, it would be funny if he forgot about Vesper so quickly, but that's what happens when you make a sequel to a movie that resolved its storyline.

Another problem is that the new movies suffer from the "gigantic conspiracy" disease. You could say all you want about previous super-villains, but at least their plans became clear after a while.

I don't even remember QoS that well, it was pretty mediocre, but I do remember Casino Royale. I dislike it, it isn't particularly clever and it performs character assassination on one of the greatest movie icons of all-time, the man who always knew what to do, never doubted and never failed.

If you find the previous movies boring, well, you have all rights to. They certainly are no Casino Royale with its absolutely stunning fight scenes (except for the last one, that one was kind of stupid). But they have their charm, so much so, that I could watch, like, three movies in a row and still enjoy them.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

snip

Again, "emotional" - wrong word. I screwed up. Sorry.

However, he didn't really need to be. Those weren't serious movies. They weren't contemplating what it's like to be a spy and what it's like to lose people close to you. Those weren't emotional powerhouses - and, as such, Bond came out likeable, even though he is clearly a womanizing, psycopathic murderer.

The modern movies take James Bond and transfer him into the real world.

P.S. I would argue that Dalton movies actually had a bunch of emotional value to them. But those aren't "really" Bond movies either.

 

[Richard Hannay]

For the record, it's a contract thing. When a video game is made, only the incumbent Bond's likeness may be used. That's just the way it is.

EXCEPTION: EA's From Russia With Love was made during the period when Brosnan had been let go, but Craig had not yet been hired. There was no incumbent Bond, and so EA was free to pursue Connery.

POSSIBLE EXCEPTION: I'm not sure what the deal was with Agent Under Fire, but it was probably allowed because the Bond was based on none of the actors at all.

Also, for the record:

01. Connery
02. Dalton
03. Craig
04. Moore
05. Lazenby

---

Oh, and:

06. Brosnan, if you guys are gonna force to remember the damn '90s, plus 2002's Die Another Day, possibly the worst film ever crafted, Bond not withstanding.

EDIT: Re: the OP, thank GoldenEye 64's incredible success and legacy for pigeonholing the franchise until Everything or Nothing came along. Now it looks kinda like Activision's going to try to maintain a "Bond" franchise (starting with Bloodstone, more of a successor to Everything or Nothing and From Russia With Love), and a "GoldenEye" franchise (aping the original and starting with GoldenEye for the Wii) independently of one another.

The only thing that really separates [the Bond of Fleming's novels] from all the megalomaniac-sociopathic billionaires he throws into a volcano is, A)he's no billionaire, and B)he's too suave to be sociopathic, he's just a straight up psychopath that knows how to hide it.

C) His single-minded devotion to British imperialism

But yeah, you make a good point.

 

[Woodsey]

I didn't say they didn't have any, but it's very thinly stretched. Maybe you need to watch Casino Royale again if you think he's emotionless, and you need to remember that QoS is a direct sequel to Royale in every sense of the word; Vesper betrayed him, she's dead, and he doesn't know how to handle it. If anything I'd say his reaction is what a huge number of men would do (myself included) - close up and pretend they don't care. He's also younger, hence the violence - the rest of him is very Bond though (along with the nature of the films if you watch them, there's still a Bond girl and QoS has it's own evil lair set-piece), albeit one you would take seriously.

As for the fun of the old Bond films, whilst I enjoy Connery's and Brosnan's, there are loooooooooong periods of the old films where simply nothing happens, and even the action scenes can be boring. It's like someone forgot they were allowed to edit them.

I'm actually interested to see how opinions of this divide up by nationality, since most non-Brits I've seen tend to be the ones who long for the older style of Bond films. Perhaps that's just my imagination though.

1)However, the fact that Quantum Of Solace tries to be a serious film while retaining the old Bond formula (he gets to know the first Bond girl, she is either an enemy and dies or just dies, he get to know the second girl, if he has a sidekick apart from Q and Felix Lighter, the sidekick dies, he kills the main bad guy, etc.) just doesn't fly today. The first Bond movies were campy and, as such, constant and repeated deaths were kind of understandable. In the new films, they seem out of place.

2)Royale was an establishing flick, and, as such, not terribly similar to the earlier Bond movies. Ok, granted. Then why did his behaviour change so little after Vesper's death? He looked like he didn't know how to handle it before and, as such, was arrogant, unsure and near-murdered by the main bad guy even before the whole thing happened.

3)Oh, and the Bond girl in the second movie is not even a Bond girl. Okay, yeah, it would be funny if he forgot about Vesper so quickly, but that's what happens when you make a sequel to a movie that resolved its storyline.

4)Another problem is that the new movies suffer from the "gigantic conspiracy" disease. You could say all you want about previous super-villains, but at least their plans became clear after a while.

5)I don't even remember QoS that well, it was pretty mediocre, but I do remember Casino Royale. I dislike it, it isn't particularly clever and it performs character assassination on one of the greatest movie icons of all-time, the man who always knew what to do, never doubted and never failed.

[small]Just gonna number the points for ease.[/small]

1)I don't really get this - the bad guy dying is hardly a main formula of Bond films, namely most films of the same nature. And one girl dies whilst the other he doesn't sleep with, and is a pretty good character; not revolutionary, but not 2-dimensional and well acted, as well as being used to show what Bond really thinks about the Vesper thing.

2) Why did what behaviour change so little? Between Royale and QoS, or between Royale and the other films?

3) Of course she's a Bond girl, she just doesn't sleep with him. She's the main female character in a Bond film, that makes her a Bond girl. As for the sequel being unnecessary, there were still threads left hanging (i.e. Who are Quantum, why was Vesper working for them, and what about Bond?)

4) I guess so, that's a matter of taste, although one of the Bond villains was in but not revealed for 2 or 3 films I'm sure.

5) Again, it's a younger Bond, and I don't think you can commit character assassination by portraying them more closely to how the character's creator intended.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

[small]Just gonna number the points for ease.[/small]

1)I don't really get this - the bad guy dying is hardly a main formula of Bond films, namely most films of the same nature. And one girl dies whilst the other he doesn't sleep with, and is a pretty good character; not revolutionary, but not 2-dimensional and well acted, as well as being used to show what Bond really thinks about the Vesper thing.

2) Why did what behaviour change so little? Between Royale and QoS, or between Royale and the other films?

3) Of course she's a Bond girl, she just doesn't sleep with him. She's the main female character in a Bond film, that makes her a Bond girl. As for the sequel being unnecessary, there were still threads left hanging (i.e. Who are Quantum, why was Vesper working for them, and what about Bond?)

4) I guess so, that's a matter of taste, although one of the Bond villains was in but not revealed for 2 or 3 films I'm sure.

5) Again, it's a younger Bond, and I don't think you can commit character assassination by portraying them more closely to how the character's creator intended.

1) Not reallly what I meant... I meant that the constant deaths that Bond has to deal with should make him care at least somewhat, and they don't (with the obvious exception of Vesper). In the older movies, it was acceptable - they weren't taken seriously. These ones are and, as such, Bond caring little for people who die, aiding him in reaching his goal is downright sadistic.
2) Royale and QoS. Then again I don't remember QoS too well.
3) Well, there's pretty much no attraction between them. Sure, that can be said for some other examples... but those are not Bond girls either. You wouldn't call M a Bond girl.
4) I'm assuming you're talking about the very first ones... in which case, true, but he wasn't the main villain either. The main villains of those movies died - Dr. No, Klebb, Goldfinger.
5) Touché.

 

[Woodsey]

[small]Just gonna number the points for ease.[/small]

1)I don't really get this - the bad guy dying is hardly a main formula of Bond films, namely most films of the same nature. And one girl dies whilst the other he doesn't sleep with, and is a pretty good character; not revolutionary, but not 2-dimensional and well acted, as well as being used to show what Bond really thinks about the Vesper thing.

2) Why did what behaviour change so little? Between Royale and QoS, or between Royale and the other films?

3) Of course she's a Bond girl, she just doesn't sleep with him. She's the main female character in a Bond film, that makes her a Bond girl. As for the sequel being unnecessary, there were still threads left hanging (i.e. Who are Quantum, why was Vesper working for them, and what about Bond?)

4) I guess so, that's a matter of taste, although one of the Bond villains was in but not revealed for 2 or 3 films I'm sure.

5) Again, it's a younger Bond, and I don't think you can commit character assassination by portraying them more closely to how the character's creator intended.

1) Not reallly what I meant... I meant that the constant deaths that Bond has to deal with should make him care at least somewhat, and they don't (with the obvious exception of Vesper). In the older movies, it was acceptable - they weren't taken seriously. These ones are and, as such, Bond caring little for people who die, aiding him in reaching his goal is downright sadistic.
2) Royale and QoS. Then again I don't remember QoS too well.
3) Well, there's pretty much no attraction between them. Sure, that can be said for some other examples... but those are not Bond girls either. You wouldn't call M a Bond girl.
4) I'm assuming you're talking about the very first ones... in which case, true, but he wasn't the main villain either. The main villains of those movies died - Dr. No, Klebb, Goldfinger.
5) Touché.

1) Well, he cares when she dies and he cares when Mathis dies, and as for the others he's seen people die before (I know I call him a younger Bond but he's still 35-40 and has served in the navy) and he doesn't form that many ties.

2) There's a fairly big difference between him in Royale and him in QoS concerning Vesper; his character doesn't change too much, but then he's trying to suppress what happened with Vesper and get on with what he's doing (although he's still out for revenge).

3) There is (he kisses her near the end) but I think it falls aside considering how damaged the two of them are, and M isn't considered a Bong girl because she's M. Other than not sleeping with him Camille (the one in QoS) fulfills the Bond-girl role.

4) He was the overarching villain of their organisation, wasn't he? Or at least something to do with them from what I remember; Le Chiffre died in Royale and Greene died in QoS.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

You've forgotten something: James Bond (the early Bond anyway) doesn't end an adventure until he's been laid. Mix in Mass Effect's dialogue system and you get the suave Bond who can talk his way into exclusive parties, get info on targets etc and most importantly, build up a harem of women with whom to make sex on.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

1) Well, he cares when she dies and he cares when Mathis dies, and as for the others he's seen people die before (I know I call him a younger Bond but he's still 35-40 and has served in the navy) and he doesn't form that many ties.

2) There's a fairly big difference between him in Royale and him in QoS concerning Vesper; his character doesn't change too much, but then he's trying to suppress what happened with Vesper and get on with what he's doing (although he's still out for revenge).

3) There is (he kisses her near the end) but I think it falls aside considering how damaged the two of them are, and M isn't considered a Bong girl because she's M. Other than not sleeping with him Camille (the one in QoS) fulfills the Bond-girl role.

4) He was the overarching villain of their organisation, wasn't he? Or at least something to do with them from what I remember; Le Chiffre died in Royale and Greene died in QoS.

1) Did he care when that lady from Royale got tortured to death? Not really. Did he care for that woman from QoS? As far as I remember, not really.

2) Concerning Vesper - yes. Overall - no.

3) Yeah, maybe.

4) Well, still, Spectre's plans were much more ridiculous, but also a lot simpler. And the organization itself was not the bullshit shadow-y types from the new Bond movies. They just extorted money and wrecked shit.

 

[Last Valiance]

Daniel Craig is a great Bond (though Sean Connery is obviously the best). And before I read this thread I've never heard anyone describe him as the worst of all, I mean, have you seen Timothy Dalton/George Lazenby? Thems was fucking terrible.

At least Craig is English too, unlike *pretty much* every other Bond.




And Bond games never feel like you're a spy, but neither do the films or, really, the books, so it's all good. Dear god I don't want another 3rd person game though.

 

[Woodsey]

1) Well, he cares when she dies and he cares when Mathis dies, and as for the others he's seen people die before (I know I call him a younger Bond but he's still 35-40 and has served in the navy) and he doesn't form that many ties.

2) There's a fairly big difference between him in Royale and him in QoS concerning Vesper; his character doesn't change too much, but then he's trying to suppress what happened with Vesper and get on with what he's doing (although he's still out for revenge).

3) There is (he kisses her near the end) but I think it falls aside considering how damaged the two of them are, and M isn't considered a Bong girl because she's M. Other than not sleeping with him Camille (the one in QoS) fulfills the Bond-girl role.

4) He was the overarching villain of their organisation, wasn't he? Or at least something to do with them from what I remember; Le Chiffre died in Royale and Greene died in QoS.

1) Did he care when that lady from Royale got tortured to death? Not really. Did he care for that woman from QoS? As far as I remember, not really.

2) Concerning Vesper - yes. Overall - no.

3) Yeah, maybe.

4) Well, still, Spectre's plans were much more ridiculous, but also a lot simpler. And the organization itself was not the bullshit shadow-y types from the new Bond movies. They just extorted money and wrecked shit.

1) I wouldn't say he didn't care exactly, but there's a definite disconnect - although I'd argue that simply emphasizes Vesper's importance. And like I said, there were no ties with that woman in particular.

2) Well, he seems more violent, but he's a pretty closed character anyway, so I don't know how much it's supposed to change him. He doesn't kill Vesper's old boyfriend at the end of QoS though, which shows he isn't just a cold-hearted killer.

4) Yes, but I don't see Spectre Island really fitting in tone with films that are pushed slightly closer to the believable side of things.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yeah the best James Bond game ever is Deus Ex...

Deus Ex is quite possibly the only spy game that actually plays like a spy game.
Sure, you can shoot people, but it was never the one true focus of the game; you can just as well end the game without directly more than 3 people total.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

4) Yes, but I don't see Spectre Island really fitting in tone with films that are pushed slightly closer to the believable side of things.

And that's my main problem with the movies.

Should James Bond become believable, it either won't be the James Bond I grew up with or the world will become a bad place.

And yet now he is.

 

[Woodsey]

4) Yes, but I don't see Spectre Island really fitting in tone with films that are pushed slightly closer to the believable side of things.

And that's my main problem with the movies.

Should James Bond become believable, it either won't be the James Bond I grew up with or the world will become a bad place.

And yet now he is.

More believable, I wouldn't simply call it believable.

The best comparison I can think of is when Batman met the 60s (the comics before that were fairly dark I believe), and now we're back to the way it was meant to be (mostly - Craig's Bond is more violent than I remember in the books, although the guns had a rather extensive amount of description).

 

[Cowabungaa]

You know, I agree that EoN would have to be thrown in there, because that was the only Bond game that seemed like a game where you couldn't take Bond out and put, say, Doom Marine in.

However, Brosnan must be the face to the spy.

I agree with Brosnan, he was my favorite Bond. He can provide the voice acting for this game of mine too

Brosnan was like a fresh version of Sean Connery. Hence why I liked him so much.

There's nothing suave about most of the other Bonds; if any of them came out with lines they do in the films in real life you'd laugh your arse off.

Craig's is younger, has more emotional-depth, charming and arrogant. His two films also carry more emotional weight then the others have mustered together across 30-40 years.

He is Bond to the fullest extent.

OT: Just finished Blood Stone, and it's pretty Bond-y. The story is pretty dreadful (getting a Brosnan writer for Craig's Bond was silly, but this guy can't write at all). It's fairly brutal, and pulling off a couple of melee attacks and then a focus shot or two look ridiculously effortless.

A definite framework that other Bond games should build from.

Eh, I beg to differ. I don't care about Fleming's books honestly, when I think of Bond I think of the sexy, dangerous adventures of Connery. Delightfully cheesy, light-hearted, over-the-top, and oh so much fun. I sure as hell laugh my ass off at those movies, you can bet that.

Craig is pretty much the complete opposite from what Sean Connery was, hell he reminds me more of Jason Bourne. All that 'emotional weight' and gritty action has turned the recent Bond movies into cookie-cutter, forgettable action flicks. Bond flicks always had their own style, their own flavour. Now they're throwing it away for what's so popular right now.

No, Bond isn't about the action or deep, troubled emotions. Bond ain't Jason Bourne. This is Bond:
Craig can frell himself.

[sub]Disclaimer; The poster is a passionate Bond lover. Thanks to all the exposure to the sexiness of Sean Connery he is not completely mentally sane and therefore fanboy rantings cannot be blamed on him. Thank you for your understanding.[/sub]

 

[m.zajac]

Actually, No One Lives Forever came pretty close to the James Bond feel...

THIS! Fantastic game.

 

[Woodsey]

You know, I agree that EoN would have to be thrown in there, because that was the only Bond game that seemed like a game where you couldn't take Bond out and put, say, Doom Marine in.

However, Brosnan must be the face to the spy.

I agree with Brosnan, he was my favorite Bond. He can provide the voice acting for this game of mine too

Brosnan was like a fresh version of Sean Connery. Hence why I liked him so much.

There's nothing suave about most of the other Bonds; if any of them came out with lines they do in the films in real life you'd laugh your arse off.

Craig's is younger, has more emotional-depth, charming and arrogant. His two films also carry more emotional weight then the others have mustered together across 30-40 years.

He is Bond to the fullest extent.

OT: Just finished Blood Stone, and it's pretty Bond-y. The story is pretty dreadful (getting a Brosnan writer for Craig's Bond was silly, but this guy can't write at all). It's fairly brutal, and pulling off a couple of melee attacks and then a focus shot or two look ridiculously effortless.

A definite framework that other Bond games should build from.

Eh, I beg to differ. I don't care about Fleming's books honestly, when I think of Bond I think of the sexy, dangerous adventures of Connery. Delightfully cheesy, light-hearted, over-the-top, and oh so much fun. I sure as hell laugh my ass off at those movies, you can bet that.

Craig is pretty much the complete opposite from what Sean Connery was, hell he reminds me more of Jason Bourne. All that 'emotional weight' and gritty action has turned the recent Bond movies into cookie-cutter, forgettable action flicks. Bond flicks always had their own style, their own flavour. Now they're throwing it away for what's so popular right now.

No, Bond isn't about the action or deep, troubled emotions. Bond ain't Jason Bourne. This is Bond:
Craig can frell himself.

[sub]Disclaimer; The poster is a passionate Bond lover. Thanks to all the exposure to the sexiness of Sean Connery he is not completely mentally sane and therefore fanboy rantings cannot be blamed on him. Thank you for your understanding.[/sub]

Of course Bond isn't Jason Bourne, that's why they're still not alike (even the shaky-cam fight scenes aren't that similar).

Bond is still stylish and charming, but he's also brutal and somewhere near what you'd expect a (still romanticised version of a) government hitman to be. If I wanted to laugh at some middle-aged men I'd watch some YouTube clips.

Like I said to the other guy, Bond has basically gone through what Batman did - serious to unbearably camp to serious again.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Of course Bond isn't Jason Bourne, that's why they're still not alike (even the shaky-cam fight scenes aren't that similar).

Bond is still stylish and charming, but he's also brutal and somewhere near what you'd expect a (still romanticised version of a) government hitman to be. If I wanted to laugh at some middle-aged men I'd watch some YouTube clips.

Like I said to the other guy, Bond has basically gone through what Batman did - serious to unbearably camp to serious again.

Thing is, everything is so serious and gritty nowadays. It's all the rage and oh so popular. Bond was something different and with Craig it's now joining the Hollywood bandwagon. Bond movies ain't Bond movies anymore, they're action flicks with someone named James Bond in them.

You're absolutely right Bond was campy (though I wouldn't say unbearable, except perhaps some Roger Moore moments [http://www.pauliddon.net/img/Bond%20Clown.jpg]), but to me that was a big part of it's charm; it was silly, it was over-the-top, it was fun, it was light hearted and I loved every single bit of it, pure unfiltered entertainment. It had it's own face, it's own style, there was pretty much nothing like it. Now Bond is like the rest of them.

And I wouldn't call Craig charming either, with that constant face as if he just ate 20 lemons. Plus he oh so often just acts like an asshole. Smashing someone's face in various bathroom appliances? Who is he, Sam Fisher?

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

Something like Hitman yes.

That does sound awesome actully. As long as Bond is played by Dalton.

*cough*
<youtube=4kATMJUiz_8>