Comments on: It’s Time for James Bond to Retire

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:12:32 +0000

Ease up, pardner. No need to get so snappy, I’m just having a little fun. But I think my point is valid, that the character is essentially a blank cipher of “debonair British spy” who starts out as a blank slate at the beginning of each film. What’s driving him? What are his motivations? We really have no idea…

…or at least we didn’t, until they rebooted the franchise with Casino Royale a coupla years ago. They were very successful at answering just about all of the criticisms I had about the franchise in that film, making this 3 1/2-year-old article pretty much moot at this point.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:53:41 +0000

Hey man, if you’re going to focus a typo on “drivel” and ignore the rest of the comment. You should probably re-consider why you even typed such an ignorant post in the first place.

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:46:32 +0000

Chris: And perhaps you should look up the word “drivel” in the dictionary before posting such a pointless comment.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:14:15 +0000

I’d just like to point out that half of your questions about bond (for example, has he ever really loved anybody) are actually answered throughout the series. The other half (such as a political affiliation) are totally irrelevant to the character. Maybe do some research before posting pointless dribble.

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:01:38 +0000

Yes, George I did rent Casino Royale recently. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and Daniel Craig’s take on the character was so much more interesting than the usual spoiled-playboy-with-gadgets thing. I’m not sure I’d consider it a great film, but now I’m actually interested in the franchise again. That’s saying something.

By: George Pedrosa

George Pedrosa — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:31:49 +0000

It’s funny reading this now, because Casino Royale is a movie that answers all your questions. It will certainly change your opinion about James Bond, which it certainly did for me. Daniel Craig’s performance is brilliant. Watch it now.

By: Lou Anders

Lou Anders — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:54:04 +0000

Well, shame on you.
OHMSS is entirely without gadgets, follows the book 100% (THUNDERBALL does too, but because the book was written by Fleming afterwards based on his co-authored screenplay), and Bond shows real emotion (I won’t say WHICH emotion so as to catch you unawares. Watch it. Watch it now.
Oh, and the film was also the inspiration for the character of Ras Al Ghul in Batman.

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:28:42 +0000

Ah, that’s one of the ones I haven’t seen. I’ll have to check it out. Because they certainly didn’t answer any of those questions in, say, “Octopussy.”

By: Lou Anders

Lou Anders — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:11:33 +0000

I wish that HBO, and that’s the only place you could do it, could get the rights to do a series called Ian Fleming’s James Bond – the author’s name in the title to distinguish it from, and therefore not threaten, the film franchise. Shoot the books as written, in order, in the correct time period. Sans gadjets. The only book that has actually been filmed to date is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, which is translated almost completely accurately to the screen, and is, therefore, the only Bond film where 007 has an actual character. Falls in love. Retires. Questions his government. Hell, addresses all your questions. It’s my personal favorite and is the film I show Bond-haters, to show them what might have been.