Old Bond VS New Bond
I was watched the new Bond film ‘Quantum of Solace’ and was reflecting upon whether I liked the old Bond as characterized by Pierce Brosnan or the new Bond as in Daniel Craig. It was widely believed that the old bond was suave and the new bond was steely. And when it came to deciding which of the Bonds were better that it was the suave one that was better than the steely one. Many bond fans, including myself, were disappointed that the old suave Bond wasn’t there anymore. I went to the theatre expecting to be disappointed when I would be walking out. But I was surprised that the case wasn’t so.
I believe that the reasons why the new Bond was more endearing are two fold. The old bond had just one rule of engagement ‘be cool’ the new bond had just one rule of engagement ‘do right’. Consequently the old bond was more about the 'spellllling' his name and tightening his tie where as the new bond was about duty and principles. This meant quite a difference in how their individuality was portrayed. The old bond was portrayed as being defiant towards, the top boss of British Intelligence, the ‘M’ in a very silly way. Like in sleeping with a girl she wouldn’t want him to and would already have made a maternal note of caution to him about. So the old bond’s defiance was often about how much of a silly play ’boy’ he was. Where as with the new Bond the way he defies the great ‘M’ is real and manly. He goes by his ‘gut’ even if it meant having to outright defy her orders and take M’s own agents to task when they try to arrest him. And 'M' says something about the new bond she never said to the old bond "He is my man, I trust him".
Second differnce between them is, the old bond has much sensitivity in only one organ of his body which I shall leave unnamed whereas the new bond has inside a 'really' steely body a soft sensitive heart. A heart that loves, hurts and seeks vengeance with an enormous ardor. The old bond was a man without a chest, whereas the new bond is a man with a strong and sensitive one. It is the chest that makes a man a ‘real’ man. A man without a chest is still a silly play ‘boy’.
The bottom-line is that it felt great to look at the old Bond whereas it feels great to really like, admire and perhaps even love the new Bond.
I believe that the reasons why the new Bond was more endearing are two fold. The old bond had just one rule of engagement ‘be cool’ the new bond had just one rule of engagement ‘do right’. Consequently the old bond was more about the 'spellllling' his name and tightening his tie where as the new bond was about duty and principles. This meant quite a difference in how their individuality was portrayed. The old bond was portrayed as being defiant towards, the top boss of British Intelligence, the ‘M’ in a very silly way. Like in sleeping with a girl she wouldn’t want him to and would already have made a maternal note of caution to him about. So the old bond’s defiance was often about how much of a silly play ’boy’ he was. Where as with the new Bond the way he defies the great ‘M’ is real and manly. He goes by his ‘gut’ even if it meant having to outright defy her orders and take M’s own agents to task when they try to arrest him. And 'M' says something about the new bond she never said to the old bond "He is my man, I trust him".
Second differnce between them is, the old bond has much sensitivity in only one organ of his body which I shall leave unnamed whereas the new bond has inside a 'really' steely body a soft sensitive heart. A heart that loves, hurts and seeks vengeance with an enormous ardor. The old bond was a man without a chest, whereas the new bond is a man with a strong and sensitive one. It is the chest that makes a man a ‘real’ man. A man without a chest is still a silly play ‘boy’.
The bottom-line is that it felt great to look at the old Bond whereas it feels great to really like, admire and perhaps even love the new Bond.