Great news: the 23rd James Bond film now has a title: Skyfall. Even better, we know it will be out before Christmas next year. There’s just one more thing we need: a bevy of gadgets.
Photo by Stuart Wilson/Getty Images
One of the major changes that came into the Bond franchise when Daniel Craig took over the role was a de-emphasis on cool and clever gadgets. In Craig’s two films to date, there has been no appearance by gadget-master Q. Yes, in part that’s because the producers were aiming for a less jokey, more Bourne-like tone. And in part it’s because Desmond Llewellyn, the original Q, died in 1999 (though John Cleese had already been lined up to take over as Q and did so in Die Another Day in 2002).
It’s not that I necessarily want to see a return to Q saying “Do try and be careful this time, 007″. (Well, maybe I do a little.) It’s more that we all have access to impressively great gadgets these days, so it seems ridiculous not to have a few of them littered around the Bond universe. I don’t want dodgy product placement, with Bond using Siri to remotely activate a secret volcano bomb. I want something awesome and unlikely that I can dream about.
On the face of it, this still seems unlikely, since Skyfall is being directed by Sam Mendes, whose previous movies (American Beauty, Jarhead) don’t exactly suggest he’ll be a technology fiend. But we can live in hope, can’t we?
Julien
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 12:24 PMThe removal of all of the ridiculous gadgets (along with some good acting and non-cringeworthy scripts) breathed life and credibility back into the Bond franchise – why on Earth would anyone want them back? If you want gadgets, go and watch your DVDs from the Roger Moore era.
Neil
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 1:01 PMYeah, Bond films are the paradigms of credibility. Excuse, gotta go back to planet Earth now.
Sylver
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 2:35 PMI made a similar argument while discussing this with my dad a few years ago when Casino Royale came out. I kind of liked the lack of gadgets, as it gave me a chance to see Bond in a less dorky spy movie, which was great!
Apparently though, the Bond books were *meant* to be corny, gadget filled parodies of classic spy movies. And they are! Jaws, tasers built into phones, rocket-firing cigarettes, a mirror filled horror house where the big bad guy practices shooting?
The movies took these absurdities at face value, and portrayed them as real, without emphasis on how silly they might be by sticking Bond in the middle of these situations and then having him act all serious about it.
I liked Casino Royal and its ilk, but Bond != Bourne, and I’d prefer that my 007 movies stayed corny, thankyou very much.
Oliver Rose
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 10:44 PMEhh, I disagree. James Bond films have been around forever, and they have always been in the same style, that is until the ”Blonde Bond” era came up. So far there’s only been two films with Daniel Craig, since when does that dictate the right to shift the whole franchise into that style? To me this isn’t Bond, it’s an entirely different film that just happens to have the same title.
My preferred Bonds back in the day were Sean Connery and Piece Brosnan. I observed the Casino Royale film on its release and it was a bore, nothing but predictability. Movies are meant to be a form of escapism slightly unbelievable to drag us out of the reality we exist in every single day. Quantum Of Solace? That was a atrocious movie , lacked structure and continuity. It felt like they had finished filming the movie, and then jumbled up the scenes and decided they were finished, I was totally lost the whole time, not sure of what was going on. HORRIBLE. go back to the old Bond movies. We have Bourne to be Bourne, let Bond be Bond.
Mitch Johnson
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 12:34 PMI thought Casino Royal had a glove-box heart-defib kit.
Not exactly standard issue…
DarkAura
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 1:54 PMWhat!! You don’t have one in your car?
Matt
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 6:59 PMThese actually do exist, we have a couple a work that we take with us if we are working in remote locations.
http://www.firstaidstore.com.au/products/resuscitation/heartstart-first-aid-defibrillator
Daniel
Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 12:24 AMI think the problem is what kind of gadgets. All the gadgets from the old films (like radios in your watches, remote control for cars in your mobile, GPS etc etc) these are all real life options for us in the 21st Centery.
How do you put a gaget into a movie, that is both believable, but not updated by next year’s latest iOs update?
007
Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 7:32 AMI agree, that the gadgets should come back. They don’t have to be outlandish, just cool and based on realism. People forget that in a good chunk of the James Bond movies, that some of his coolest vehicles (the rocket boat in TWINE, or the minijet in Octopussy) were pretty close to their real-life counterparts. Those are the kind of gadgets that I miss, and that would fit perfectly in any bond’s world since they are 99% real-life things. I guess what would be the perfect balance in how they can use the gadgets is two ways: the first is to make the majority of them cool surviellance gadgets. I agree with a lot of people that 007 having all of these gadgets to help him save his life instead of breaking into secret compartments or stealing secret files is less secret agent-y and creates a lot of corny and easy excuses for him to escape his perilous predicaments. The other way I think they can do it right is pretty simple: JUST LOOK AT WHAT CHRISTOPHER NOLAN DID WITH BATMAN’S gadgets! Batman is the superhero most closely associated with 007, and his movie series also was known for having outlandish toys before Nolan took over. Now, Batman is much more dependable on gadgets than Bond is, but notice how Nolan made them so BEAUTIFUL AND REALISTIC, and you never really get anybody complaining about how Nolan was able to sew those two together. That’s what should come to fruition in SKYFALL. I mean, come on, I don’t think it’s that hard. Hopefully they heed to my advice!