106 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Also, I do want to see fun brought back to the franchise. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE (but not the way I love CASINO ROYALE), but it did occasionally strike me as excessively Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish.

To be honest, the bits that were "Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish" were the parts I enjoyed the most!

Same here, but I do think those bits were very seriously undercut by things like the freefall - I'm beginning to see QUANTUM OF SOLACE as just as much of a flawed mixed bag as LICENCE TO KILL (which was also marred by silliness like the Q scenes).

I just think they may as well embrace full-on comic kerayzeeness, since they're evidently unable to give it up entirely.

Is it worth the risk? Casino Royale beautifully restored a sense of credibility to the series that it hasn't had in decades. Sure, Quantum of Solace might have put Bond back on the critical tightrope, but sending Bond back down roads that are already well-traversed is recipe for stagnation, surely.

Well, here's the thing: Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™ Bond is all we've had since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (and, arguably, even A VIEW TO A KILL attempted to be a relatively down-to-earth outing, in Moore terms at least), so the road of doom and gloom and "personal" missions and assorted chest-beating angst is a very well-traversed one.

Similarly, I enjoy THE DARK KNIGHT - I've already seen it more times than I've seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But the real Batman remains, for me, the zany camp of the Adam West era.

As the fella says: "Why so serious?"

When there's little to distinguish Bond from Bourne and THE DARK KNIGHT, it's maybe time to go in the direction of comic sendup. I'd like AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER or DIE ANOTHER DAY (the two best films of 2002, fact fans) to be the model for BOND 23.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, here's the thing: Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™ Bond is all we've had since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (and, arguably, even A VIEW TO A KILL attempted to be a relatively down-to-earth outing, in Moore terms at least), so the road of doom and gloom and "personal" missions and assorted chest-beating angst is a very well-traversed one.

Similarly, I enjoy THE DARK KNIGHT - I've already seen it more times than I've seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But the real Batman remains, for me, the zany camp of the Adam West era.

As the fella says: "Why so serious?"

When there's little to distinguish Bond from Bourne and THE DARK KNIGHT, it's maybe time to go in the direction of comic sendup. I'd like AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER or DIE ANOTHER DAY (the two best films of 2002, fact fans) to be the model for BOND 23.

Loomis?

While I wouldn´t mind Craig´s third one to be TSWLM-like fun, a full blown Austin Powers or even DAD clone would be terrible.

Although, it would get this board full of raves again.

[Jericho_One]

Also, I do want to see fun brought back to the franchise. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE (but not the way I love CASINO ROYALE), but it did occasionally strike me as excessively Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish.

To be honest, the bits that were "Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish" were the parts I enjoyed the most!

Same here, but I do think those bits were very seriously undercut by things like the freefall - I'm beginning to see QUANTUM OF SOLACE as just as much of a flawed mixed bag as LICENCE TO KILL (which was also marred by silliness like the Q scenes).

I just think they may as well embrace full-on comic kerayzeeness, since they're evidently unable to give it up entirely.

Is it worth the risk? Casino Royale beautifully restored a sense of credibility to the series that it hasn't had in decades. Sure, Quantum of Solace might have put Bond back on the critical tightrope, but sending Bond back down roads that are already well-traversed is recipe for stagnation, surely.

Well, here's the thing: Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™ Bond is all we've had since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (and, arguably, even A VIEW TO A KILL attempted to be a relatively down-to-earth outing, in Moore terms at least), so the road of doom and gloom and "personal" missions and assorted chest-beating angst is a very well-traversed one.

Similarly, I enjoy THE DARK KNIGHT - I've already seen it more times than I've seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But the real Batman remains, for me, the zany camp of the Adam West era.

As the fella says: "Why so serious?"

When there's little to distinguish Bond from Bourne and THE DARK KNIGHT, it's maybe time to go in the direction of comic sendup. I'd like AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER or DIE ANOTHER DAY (the two best films of 2002, fact fans) to be the model for BOND 23.

You're joking, right?

[Loomis]

*Arnold Schwarzenegger voice*

Wrong.

[stamper]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

Hey Mr Wint, why are you stealing my lines ?

QOS is at 150 millions in the US, it's fair to say this bad film fell flat on it's face. Marc Foster is a fake. Let's make the next one a good movie first and foremost, not Bournish or Bulletlike or whatever hype he made the producers believe. Too bad that Quantum will not come back... I think QOS effectively killed all the work set by Martin Campbell.

[Harmsway]

Well, we can now pinpoint the time when Loomis finally entered the state of insanity.

[00Twelve]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

Hey Mr Wint, why are you stealing my lines ?

QOS is at 150 millions in the US, it's fair to say this bad film fell flat on it's face. Marc Foster is a fake. Let's make the next one a good movie first and foremost, not Bournish or Bulletlike or whatever hype he made the producers believe. Too bad that Quantum will not come back... I think QOS effectively killed all the work set by Martin Campbell.

?

[Publius]

I sincerely hope Bond 23 isn't his YOLT or Moonraker or DAD, but I'd be thrilled if it was his Thunderball or TSWLM (well, a slightly toned down version of that last one). He's already had his OHMSS and his Dr. No/FRWL.

I also hope Quantum returns as the primary antagonist. Leaving it for Bond 24 would put a 4-6 year gap between its appearances, which is just too much (imagine if after Dr. No, Bond didn't encounter SPECTRE again until YOLT!). Ride the momentum and interest while it's still fresh.

Anyway, at least we can rest assured that Bond 23 will be nothing like TWINE.

[SecretAgentFan]

QOS is at 150 millions in the US, it's fair to say this bad film fell flat on it's face.

QOS has reached 150 millions faster than CR. It will top CR´s US box office soon and end up as the biggest Bond ever.

Marc Foster is a fake.

Really? Then he did not direct all his films? Interesting. Who did it then?

Let's make the next one a good movie first and foremost, not Bournish or Bulletlike or whatever hype he made the producers believe.

Right. EON was always a producer team that was fooled by the other so-called "creative" types. They only wanted to do a "Bourne" film, not a new "Bond" film. I mean, they did enough with this Bond character, didn´t they?

Too bad that Quantum will not come back

Please check the quotes. Of course, Quantum will be back. EON and Craig already said so.

... I think QOS effectively killed all the work set by Martin Campbell.

Only if you taped QOS over GE and CR. Apart from that, your logic is, again, faulty.

[Jim]

QOS is at 150 millions in the US, it's fair to say this bad film fell flat on it's face.

I know that I really shouldn't be dignifying any of this with a response, but I genuinely don't understand that assertion.

[TheREAL008]

Perhaps Bond can meet up with another operative of Quantum for 23 and not focus so much on Mr. White?

I like 0012's idea of something more local and relaxed for the film, perhaps have some British industrialist working with Quantum to destroy England's economy or perhaps make a new ingenious state of the art missile that secretly could be launched at Parliament?

just a thought.

[[dark]]

Also, I do want to see fun brought back to the franchise. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE (but not the way I love CASINO ROYALE), but it did occasionally strike me as excessively Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish.

To be honest, the bits that were "Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish" were the parts I enjoyed the most!

Same here, but I do think those bits were very seriously undercut by things like the freefall - I'm beginning to see QUANTUM OF SOLACE as just as much of a flawed mixed bag as LICENCE TO KILL (which was also marred by silliness like the Q scenes).

I just think they may as well embrace full-on comic kerayzeeness, since they're evidently unable to give it up entirely.

But they are. Casino Royale was virtually free of such wackiness. The only scenes that could have been construed as such (actually, Bond charging through the wall during the parkour chase is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) were successfully played for levity.

Is it worth the risk? Casino Royale beautifully restored a sense of credibility to the series that it hasn't had in decades. Sure, Quantum of Solace might have put Bond back on the critical tightrope, but sending Bond back down roads that are already well-traversed is recipe for stagnation, surely.

Well, here's the thing: Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™ Bond is all we've had since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (and, arguably, even A VIEW TO A KILL attempted to be a relatively down-to-earth outing, in Moore terms at least), so the road of doom and gloom and "personal" missions and assorted chest-beating angst is a very well-traversed one.

Similarly, I enjoy THE DARK KNIGHT - I've already seen it more times than I've seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But the real Batman remains, for me, the zany camp of the Adam West era.

As the fella says: "Why so serious?"

First, I wouldn't lump A View to a Kill alongside the films that preceded it in terms of a "Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™" Bond film. No way! I'd also nix Tomorrow Never Dies and half of Die Another Day from that list.

Regardless, we may have had plenty of "Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™" Bond flicks since the end of the Moore era, but they have never been handled with such panache and artistic integrity as in the Craig era. For me, that's what's hugely refreshing about his tenure. A lighter, jokier outing would come across as a stale regression.

When there's little to distinguish Bond from Bourne and THE DARK KNIGHT, it's maybe time to go in the direction of comic sendup. I'd like AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER or DIE ANOTHER DAY (the two best films of 2002, fact fans) to be the model for BOND 23.

Whoa.

Well, we can now pinpoint the time when Loomis finally entered the state of insanity.

Hehe.

[Eddie Burns]

Some pretty good ideas.

As for me, I didn't really enjoy QoS even though it has it's moments. I think once the novelty of all this "oooooh it's daaaaaaaark" wears off people will see that it's not that special and rather forgettable.

What next for B23? I don't think Eon know to be honest. Hence why all this song and dance about two relatively minor and sometimes irrelevant characters. I for one do not think Craig's Bond's arc is complete. He did have the simplest of arcs for a main character in QoS that you could basically skip most of the movie and watch about 10min of it and still get the gyst of it.

I'd like to see Craig given more to do other than running around and killing people, hopping from building to building. He's not Seagal. I'd like to see him given better dialogue. It was as if Forster was afraid to let him talk, you know, like be witty or have a conversation. Not dreary lines I hear in every other movie that don't develop character.

I'd like the producers to stop being lazy and actually be creative. Do they want to make a mark or do they just want to imitate? I don't think they know exactly what they want to do with the character, which is pathetic considering they had the luxury of a widely acclaimed reboot. The more and more I think about it, Bond is really just their plaything and they are never going to do the character justice. What exactly is their vision of the character? Is it make it up as you go along or wait for the next Bourne movie and take it from there?

[Bradley De La Cloche]

*Sigh*

I think we get the message by now, Eddie.

[uvhadyrsix]

Who need laughs, if so bring back Brosnan make Connery a master Villian and Moore takes over as M go so far as Dalton being the P.M and Lazenby taking over as Mr Fix It L.

Why do so many people jump to the conclusion that a slight adjustment in tone automatically means a return to the Moore/Brosnan style of films? All it means is that, having been through a lot in QOS, Bond will perhaps enjoy himself a bit more in the next one, be a little more comfortable in his skin, a little less tortured.

QUOTE(uvhadyrsix @ 8 December 2008 - 21:19)
Graig's comments worry me, is he aging quicker than he expected, after his third film is he going to jump ship, then we wait another 2 to 4 years for the Brocolli twins to decide who will be next, atleast with the Bourne people we know its real

Um... what?

This from a person who brings a Superman Character to a Bond group

Don't you listen to any of Daniel Graig interviews just yesterday on Entertainment Tonight Once again Graig mentioned at 40 he is getting old and its getting harder to do the action scenes he carried on like he had one foot in the grave thats what i was commenting on. there's your "Um... What? answer. i suppose your a little slow in the Phantom zone.

hey Zod.

[Loomis]

Regardless, we may have had plenty of "Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™" Bond flicks since the end of the Moore era, but they have never been handled with such panache and artistic integrity as in the Craig era.

Well, true, very true, but the newfound higher quality of the execution doesn't disguise the fact that "personal" Bond is now as old as the hills.

I dunno. I just want a bit of change, that's all.

[Judo chop]

Sounds like Craig is ready for his Thunderball.

[Loomis]

Bugger that. I want him to go straight to his DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER!

[Judo chop]

Bugger that. I want him to go straight to his DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER!

I can't even imagine...

Besides. In order for something to be a DAF by definition, it has to succeed an OHMSS.

Or are you saying that QOS was his OHMSS?

[Loomis]

Or are you saying that QOS was his OHMSS?

As a matter of fact, I am.

[[dark]]

Regardless, we may have had plenty of "Serious™ or Would-Be Serious™" Bond flicks since the end of the Moore era, but they have never been handled with such panache and artistic integrity as in the Craig era.

Well, true, very true, but the newfound higher quality of the execution doesn't disguise the fact that "personal" Bond is now as old as the hills.

I dunno. I just want a bit of change, that's all.

I think it brilliantly disguises it. But maybe that's because pre-Craig (Dalton excluded), the personal schtick wasn't handled nearly this well.

Besides, yours is probably a fanboy criticism - I'm not sure Joe Public is jaded with the personal approach. Maybe Quantum of Solace pushed the grittiness a bit far, but I wouldn't say Bond's personal involvement was a major criticism I've heard (if anything, it's that Bond's personal investment in the mission wasn't fleshed out enough).

Sounds like Craig is ready for his Thunderball.

I'm hoping his next is his Goldfinger, followed by his Thunderball.

Bugger that. I want him to go straight to his DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER!

Pink ties, moon buggies, cross-dressing villains... you sure can pick 'em!

[Judo chop]

Or are you saying that QOS was his OHMSS?

As a matter of fact, I am.

But isn't a large part of being an OHMSS by definition, being the successor to a YOLT?

I'm going to stick with my THUNDERBALL guess. Craig clearly wants this next Bond to continue to pick away at the ranks of his version of SPECTRE, while, in between action sequences, idly basking in the Caribbean sun, toppling Dominos and fondling voluptuous Volpes, and generally just looking cool.

Though something tells me this Felix isn't about to take one in the gut all for the sake of Bond's coolness.

[TheREAL008]

I'd rather see Daniel have his version of Goldfinger first.

[DaveBond21]

I think this is good news, even though I'd like to see Mr White dealt with at some point. However, he does state that they can always go back to Quantum (in the same way that Spectre appeared in Connery's first two, but then Goldfinger was a standalone, followed by Spectre's return in Thunderball).

Now, I just hope there isn't some massive emphasis and making something unecessarilly big out of introducing Q and moneypenny

The film itself may not make a big thing about this, but the press will love it, especially the British press. Many fans and critics will also cheer the return of these old characters, because they've missed them. I am happy about this news, I just want it done in the right way. I hope Moneypenny flirts with Bond though.

[00Twelve]

Though something tells me this Felix isn't about to take one in the gut all for the sake of Bond's coolness.

Here here.

[Harmsway]

Sounds like Craig is ready for his Thunderball.

I'm hoping his next is his Goldfinger, followed by his Thunderball.

I can live with either, though I do prefer THUNDERBALL to GOLDFINGER, so I'd sooner see a film in the former mold than the latter.

[Eurospy]

I can live with either, though I do prefer THUNDERBALL to GOLDFINGER, so I'd sooner see a film in the former mold than the latter.

I'd much prefer the mold of Thunderball, one of my all time fave Bond movies. I'm afraid I don't enjoy Goldfinger as much as most of the fans.

[HH007]

QOS is at 150 millions in the US, it's fair to say this bad film fell flat on it's face.

I know that I really shouldn't be dignifying any of this with a response, but I genuinely don't understand that assertion.

Agreed. That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read on these forums.

[Judo chop]

Though something tells me this Felix isn't about to take one in the gut all for the sake of Bond's coolness.

Here here.

And to be frank, I simply couldn't support such an act knowing that Felix is bearing 00Twelve's children.

QOS is at 150 millions in the US, it's fair to say this bad film fell flat on it's face.

I know that I really shouldn't be dignifying any of this with a response, but I genuinely don't understand that assertion.

Agreed. That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read on these forums.

He's working on a monopoly.

[Mr. Du Pont]

At first I was terrified when I read the headline and subtitle, but was greatly releaved to read:

"We’ve finished this story as far as I’m concerned. We’ve got a great set of bad guys. There is an organization that we can use whenever we want to."

Now I'm delighted by the balance he wants to strike. Specific plotline of Vesper is wrapped up, but QUANTUM isn't.

As for Moneypenny and Q, I'd be happy to have them back, but I don't want even the HINT of a backstory. Just reinsert them. The characters explain themselves: secretary and quartermaster. Period.