Is every Indy fan a Bond fan?

arkfinder

New member
Ok my reason for not liking (never said hate!) is it's just not my cup of tea. He's just sort of a Bounty Hunter who get's the girl.

Dr. Jones is a mans man. Who is better on the fly and getting into and out of bad spots.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
arkfinder said:
Ok my reason for not liking (never said hate!) is it's just not my cup of tea. He's just sort of a Bounty Hunter who get's the girl.

Dr. Jones is a mans man. Who is better on the fly and getting into and out of bad spots.

I would agree with you, arkfinder.

As much as I enjoyed Daniel Craig's Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Bond does not appeal as a character in the same way that Indy does. Craig played the role pretty straight, and close to the books - Bond was a cold killer and a blatant womanizer. After a while I began to think to myself, just how much fun can you get out of watching an assassin going about his business?

With Indy there's more to appreciate in terms of character, and in terms of the story. A Bond movie might be enjoyable, but it doesn't inspire my imagination in the way that an Indy movie does.
 

Joosse

New member
arkfinder said:
Ok my reason for not liking (never said hate!) is it's just not my cup of tea. He's just sort of a Bounty Hunter who get's the girl.

Dr. Jones is a mans man. Who is better on the fly and getting into and out of bad spots.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's OK if you don't like Bond. Not everybody has to. At least you come up with a reason for disliking him, rasther than just blurting out that he's rubbish without any motivation.

Thank you for that. :D
 

IndyBr

Member
No, I'm not a Bond fan.
I can't say anything about him because I really don't remember much of his movies, and i've never watched all of then.
 

Sarika

New member
I have add my two cents worth here on this topic...

Having two older brothers, who worshipped Bond I'm sure, and I who loved to hang out with my brothers when I was little, and probably worshipped them...lol, I naturally found interest in thier favourite movies and shows too.
So I grew up sitting with my brothers in the living room and catching a bit of 007 films.

I was familiar with James Bond, but really, didn't see all the movies up to the time of what was made back then, until I was about 13 or 14, and started borrowing my eldest brother's video cassettes, that he recorded Bond movies onto, by either taping them off tv, when they were on, or by copying them off hired videos from the local Video Rental store...(opps...wasn't meant to reveal that...;) )...Anyhoo, so I started getting into Bond movies as a young teenage girl.
Loved Connery's films very much, and found it interesting to see how the Bond character was updated with each new era with a new actor, and time set.

I guess what I loved was the fantastic scenery, the fast cars, the moments of Bond's dry humour, the glamourous women, and men, the swanky locations, the car chases, the whole appeal of an international secret spy's life was exciting to watch and get lost in the story lines.

I personally favoured Sean Connery, and have to agree with you Joosse, I didn't much care for Roger Moore, but accept it as it was and can probably find something to like about his movies, but when Timothy Dalton came along...well..I did swoon over him, the tall dark and handsome image he had, and he executed the Bond character very well also!
Pierce Bronson was also an excellent Bond in my opinion.
Daniel Craig is still uncharted territory for me in forming a like or dislike for him as Bond, but I can see how he may be more closer to Flemming's original concept of James Bond.
Casino Royal definatley had a very different tone and feel to it's predesesors.

Haven't seen the Quantum of Solace as yet.

But to see Connery as Indiana Jones' father, will always be just another testimony of how versatile Connery is as an actor.
He's a brilliant actor, and an icon in his own right, that goes without saying though, I think.
Together with Ford, they played beautifully together as father and son.

:D
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Over the weekend I chanced upon several cheap collections of the 'James Bond Car Collection' - the series of highly detailed 1/43 models and mini dioramas made by Universal Hobbies for the partworks people, GE Fabbri since 2006.

Now, as I written above, I'm not a fan of the Bond movies. However, I love these model cars, many of which are scene-specifically tooled and not just generic vehicles. And loving these cars makes me want to see the Bond movies they appeared in.

Maybe the models will make me a fan!
 

Sarika

New member
Y'know, I was a very different kid to other girls..I actually enjoyed playing with matchbox cars...lol and I still have the silver Astin Martin Bond matchbox car...:D

I just remembered that...:p

What you were talking about Montana, made me think of that..:hat:
I have been actually watching Bond movies every Saturday night, as one of our tv networks has been hosting them, beginning with one of the best 007's, of all time, Sean Connery's films.
Been enjoying watching them again.;)
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I like James Bond movies and I love Indiana Jones movies. Indy's the Everyman that we can all be like at least in some way.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Sarika said:
Y'know, I was a very different kid to other girls..I actually enjoyed playing with matchbox cars...lol and I still have the silver Astin Martin Bond matchbox car...:D

I just remembered that...:p

What you were talking about Montana, made me think of that..:hat:

Cool! :cool:

I have been actually watching Bond movies every Saturday night, as one of our tv networks has been hosting them, beginning with one of the best 007's, of all time, Sean Connery's films.
Been enjoying watching them again.;)

I'm seriously considering picking up the DVDs - they're quite cheap and plentiful at boot sales. I think I could get into watching them again, if I look at them with the same attitude I look at Indy movies: as fun outings that don't take themselves too seriously.

Thinking back to the 1/43 Bond Car Collection - it would be neat if there was a similar series done in the same scale for all the vehicles in the Indy movies: perfect little replicas with drivers and passengers on a sculpted mini diorama base. Imagine building an interconnecting desert convoy from Raiders!
 

Exulted Unicron

New member
I think that some Indyfans are Bond fans too. Bond is that mix of adventure with the cold war era spying game. Like Indy, we've seen Bond get into impossible scrapes that would kill an ordinary man, but he always gets out of it without much harm and like Indy, always has the witty remark
 

fieromx

New member
I liked James Bond when I was much younger.
But I haven't kept up on Bond movies past 15 yrs., nor have a desire to.

I've turned to hero movies, like Batman, Ironman, TombRaider, etc.
because they seem fresher.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Having acquired all 24 Bond movies, and having started my marathon Bond-DVD watching, I'm already seeing what looks like the direct inspiration for scenes in Indy.

In Bond #1 Dr. No there's a line that goes something like, "You left just when things were getting interesting." Which is echoed by Connery in The Last Crusade.

In Bond #2 From Russia With Love, I was struck by the scene where Bond and Tatiana escape from the Russian Consulate through the catacombs, evading a hoard of rats, before emerging through a trapdoor and out into the street. Again I was reminded of a scene from The Last Crusade: the library, rats and up onto the street through the manhole cover.

Maybe these were direct homages of Connery's Bond, since Bond the father of the Indy series, was also Indy's father.
 

James

Well-known member
I have to admit to being a little surprised by the response here. I've always loved Bond, but never really thought about judging any of his adventures as "films". To me, this is one of those franchises that can only be rated against itself. The irony of Bond is that what most people hate- the formulaic nature- is also the thing that has allowed it to endure.

In terms of cultural significance, I think the sixties Bonds are the only ones to really capture the essence of what Fleming intended. Much like the novels, those films were cutting-edge, politically-incorrect escapism that introduced the Playboy aesthetic to a mainstream audience. The subsequent entries have all either followed popular trends or found the series paying tribute to itself.

Much like Lucas' archaeologist, James Bond was never intended as a realistic depiction of a working spy. His adventures were fantastical travelogues full of exotic women, megalomaniacal villains, and imaginative threats such as krakens (Dr. No) and rockets (Moonraker). If you wanted realistic spy fiction, you turned to people like John Le Carre, Eric Ambler, and Len Deighton. If you wanted P***y Galore and The Man With The Golden Gun, you sought out Ian Fleming.

This is one reason why I don't really buy the current marketing hype that presents Daniel Craig as the definitive Bond. (I don't have any problem with him in the role- I just don't think it's an accurate claim.) It sounds good, but it's also a theme the producers like to trot out every few years.

In reality, each actor has possessed some aspect of Fleming's character- whether it was Sean Connery's cruelty, Roger Moore's snobbery, or George Lazenby's athleticism. Timothy Dalton was actually closer to the printed Bond than the current films, while Pierce Brosnan even had his share of traits that were eerily close to Fleming. (Recall the beach scene in Goldeneye where he calmly explains that his friend has become his enemy.)

One problem with the current approach is that Fleming's Bond didn't enjoy killing. On the rare occasion where he was ordered to assassinate someone in cold blood (The Living Daylights), he found himself unable to do so. This is an area where they really dropped the ball with the last film- an outing which was also at odds with how Fleming felt about things like personal honor and loyalty. They had a great opportunity to show the character developing into a seasoned professional (which, incidentally, is how the literary Bond began life), but instead chose to go the other way and present him as an inept brute.

To be fair to the producers, unless someone decides to a period film (or tv series) one day, I don't think we will ever see a portrayal of the character that is completely faithful to Fleming's vision. It's simply a product of a radically different time that requires too much updating for today's audiences.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
James said:
I have to admit to being a little surprised by the response here. I've always loved Bond, but never really thought about judging any of his adventures as "films". To me, this is one of those franchises that can only be rated against itself. The irony of Bond is that what most people hate- the formulaic nature- is also the thing that has allowed it to endure.

As I wrote before, I began in this thread being indifferent to Bond the character. Then Rocket encouraged me to see the Craig's Casino Royale, then I started to take notice of the 1/43 Bond Car Collection.

Now I'm watching the movies in date order, and also watching the documentaries that accompany them.

I know what you mean about judging the franchise against itself, as it's clear that with Dr. No Saltzman and Broccoli created something that others quickly followed.

James said:
In terms of cultural significance, I think the sixties Bonds are the only ones to really capture the essence of what Fleming intended. Much like the novels, those films were cutting-edge, politically-incorrect escapism that introduced the Playboy aesthetic to a mainstream audience. The subsequent entries have all either followed popular trends or found the series paying tribute to itself.

Much like Lucas' archaeologist, James Bond was never intended as a realistic depiction of a working spy. His adventures were fantastical travelogues full of exotic women, megalomaniacal villains, and imaginative threats such as krakens (Dr. No) and rockets (Moonraker). If you wanted realistic spy fiction, you turned to people like John Le Carre, Eric Ambler, and Len Deighton. If you wanted P***y Galore and The Man With The Golden Gun, you sought out Ian Fleming.

Dr. No and From Russia With Love were feeling their way in this new genre, on a limited budget. Success made Goldfinger a much bigger looking production, and that success gave rise to Thunderball, which I'm halfway through now. Thunderball (#4) is the first one which has a really modern feel, and what appears to be a much bigger budget.

James said:
This is one reason why I don't really buy the current marketing hype that presents Daniel Craig as the definitive Bond. (I don't have any problem with him in the role- I just don't think it's an accurate claim.) It sounds good, but it's also a theme the producers like to trot out every few years.

In reality, each actor has possessed some aspect of Fleming's character- whether it was Sean Connery's cruelty, Roger Moore's snobbery, or George Lazenby's athleticism. Timothy Dalton was actually closer to the printed Bond than the current films, while Pierce Brosnan even had his share of traits that were eerily close to Fleming. (Recall the beach scene in Goldeneye where he calmly explains that his friend has become his enemy.)

One problem with the current approach is that Fleming's Bond didn't enjoy killing. On the rare occasion where he was ordered to assassinate someone in cold blood (The Living Daylights), he found himself unable to do so. This is an area where they really dropped the ball with the last film- an outing which was also at odds with how Fleming felt about things like personal honor and loyalty. They had a great opportunity to show the character developing into a seasoned professional (which, incidentally, is how the literary Bond began life), but instead chose to go the other way and present him as an inept brute.

I can see that Craig is Bond packaged for a more modern and cynical audience, and I enjoyed both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. However, by watching the films in order of release, I'm going to force myself to watch the evolution of the character through the different actors.

Craig's brutishness and ineptness was perhaps overplayed in the attempt to create a more realistic character, since Connery's Bond was described as a 'superhero'.

James said:
To be fair to the producers, unless someone decides to a period film (or tv series) one day, I don't think we will ever see a portrayal of the character that is completely faithful to Fleming's vision. It's simply a product of a radically different time that requires too much updating for today's audiences.

Is there a chronology of movie Bond (the Eon movies) that takes into account the historical placing of the adventures? Is it possible to work them all in? Given that Bond never really ages much, I'd think it was impossible to get all the movies Bonds into one chronology, which is where Indy wins as a cinematic character.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Dr. No and From Russia With Love were feeling their way in this new genre, on a limited budget.

Even though they weren't as big as Goldfinger and Thunderball, those films were still a radical departure from what was standard for action films at the time. The villain had this amazing lair, Ursula Andress left little the imagination, and Connery was this new type of hero that doled out one-liners. (SPECTRE even had access to methods of disguise that Ethan Hunt wouldn't get his hands on until decades later!)


Montana Smith said:
Craig's brutishness and ineptness was perhaps overplayed in the attempt to create a more realistic character

This takes us back to the fundamental problem that James Bond isn't a realistic character. Casino Royale is the story of a guy that is sent by his boss to gamble with company money. He gets to do this in an exotic foreign country, escorted by a beautiful woman with a punny name.

It may seem mundane by today's audiences, but to someone commuting to work back in 1953 this was a pretty good male fantasy. (Even the recent film version fails the 'real world' test, unless I simply missed the episode of Celebrity Poker where British Intelligence squared off against bin Laden.)

Producer Michael Wilson understands this key aspect, and has often referred to Bond's world as "a kind of hyper-reality parallel to our own". But if you don't truly believe the character is supposed to be realistic, there's an obvious dilemma when you set out to put him into such a world. So you end up with a "realistic" agent that kills informants before he can question them, survives Moonraker- style freefalls, and seemingly can't maintain a decent grip on his gun. :D


Montana Smith said:
Is there a chronology of movie Bond (the Eon movies) that takes into account the historical placing of the adventures? Is it possible to work them all in?

Not really, aside from the rare occasions where they hinted at some loose thread of continuity. For example, Sylvia Trench briefly returns in From Russia With Love; On Her Majesty's Secret Service references several of Connery's missions; Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan each have a reference to Tracy Di Vicenzo; etc. Quantum of Solace was really the first film to be created as a true sequel. (They actually took the concept a little too far- expecting the audience to still have the events of Casino Royale fresh in their memories.)

It's best to just watch them in the order they were released. Even Casino Royale doesn't quite work as a prequel to Dr. No, since it contradicts some of the Connery films.

I think the real secret to approaching Bond is to realize that each film is like a little time machine. When I was first getting into the series, something like Live And Let Die couldn't hold a candle to what was going on in modern action films. But what it could do was take me back to the summer of 1973 and show me what that world looked like. I always found that part of it pretty fascinating.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
James said:
This takes us back to the fundamental problem that James Bond isn't a realistic character.

...

Producer Michael Wilson understands this key aspect, and has often referred to Bond's world as "a kind of hyper-reality parallel to our own".

That's how I was trying to explain my view of Indy's world in the "Atheist" thread. (I'd forgotten Jean Baudrillard's "hyper-reality", which was pretty central to my English essays and thesis in my university days).

James said:
It may seem mundane by today's audiences, but to someone commuting to work back in 1953 this was a pretty good male fantasy.

I went searching through bookshelves earlier and found a bunch of early Pan Bond paperbacks, complete with their racy and pulpy covers. Now I have some bedtime reading!

James said:
Not really, aside from the rare occasions where they hinted at some loose thread of continuity. For example, Sylvia Trench briefly returns in From Russia With Love; On Her Majesty's Secret Service references several of Connery's missions; Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan each have a reference to Tracy Di Vicenzo; etc. Quantum of Solace was really the first film to be created as a true sequel. (They actually took the concept a little too far- expecting the audience to still have the events of Casino Royale fresh in their memories.)

It's best to just watch them in the order they were released. Even Casino Royale doesn't quite work as a prequel to Dr. No, since it contradicts some of the Connery films.

That's how I'm watching them.

James said:
I think the real secret to approaching Bond is to realize that each film is like a little time machine. When I was first getting into the series, something like Live And Let Die couldn't hold a candle to what was going on in modern action films. But what it could do was take me back to the summer of 1973 and show me what that world looked like. I always found that part of it pretty fascinating.

The thing I love about old movies are the fashions and styles, and all the little details that were just part of everyday life. I'm looking forward to the For Your Eyes Only/Octo***** era, as those were the first ones I saw in the cinema. Back then I must have been a fan, as I now remember having cinema programmes and comic adaptations, but somewhere along the way I lost interest in 007.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Okay, now I'm in the middle of Bond film #13 Octopus*y.

So far, the events of all the films since Dr. No in 1962 take place in the year they were released.

For example, in OHMSS 'M' mentions the bullion job of '64 (Goldfinger); in For Your Eyes Only the Theresa Bond's tombstone reads "1943-1969", 1969 being the release date of OHMSS.

With Octopus*y (1983) I couldn't help but see direct connections to the Temple of Doom (1984):

The obvious setting of India and the palace; Bond in the white texedo; Bond loses his signature pistol, just as Indy lost his revolver in Shanghai; the disgusting dinner scene in the palace with Kamal pulling the eye from the sheep's head and eating eating it.

There's also a great deal of slapstick comedy in Octopus*y, which was also apparent in TOD.

And even a possible reference back to ROTLA, with the Indian agent, Vijay, saying "I hate snakes."
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
When I got to the end of Octopus*y I remembered I should add jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute to the list of TOD similarities.

Bond #14 A View to a Kill (1985) - the dullest one so far :sleep: - has a similarity possibly inspired by TOD: a flooding mine.

With A View to a Kill both Roger Moore and the format were both looking tired.

It was past time for the first reboot, and the end of the original cold war chronology.

So, I see there are three separate Bond chronologies: 1962-1985; 1987-2002; and 2006 on to the present (Daniel Craig).

David Niven's Casino Royale and Connery's Never Say Never Again don't really count.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Is every Indy fan a Bond fan?

I can't speak for every Indy fan, but I can speak for me. Yes, I'm a huge Bond nerd and have been since 1973. Just as much as Indy. Long-time member of a 007 board, have all the films, several soundtracks, books, etc.

image.gif
 
Top