271 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

First of all, I think everyone knows on here that I'm a massive Daniel Craig supporter, and Casino Royale was a blessing. BUT, I really do feel that the producers are becoming too un-connected with the classic Bond era. As much as I've enjoyed the Craig era, I really do think that it's becoming quite irritating.

Why is Daniel Craig still earning the Bond theme? It's not even in Blood Stone. Why? Blood Stone has been marketed as a classic Bond adventure, and as much as I look forward to playing it, this is really bugging me. It was established at the end of Casino Royale that James became Bond, and we were rewarded with a Bond theme at the end of the movie. In Quantum of Solace, we still didn't get the Bond theme in it's full form until the end credits. I can kind of understand the reason why, but the thing is WHY is there no Bond theme in Blood Stone? Bond is over Vesper, Bond is Bond. There's not even a hint of the Bond theme in the score, as great as it sounds. You would've thought that Craigs Bond has earnt a massive Bond theme appearance by now during an action sequence?

So, we now move onto the gunbarrel. Why isn't this in Blood Stone either? I can understand why Quantum of Solace had it at the end, to show Bonds story arc is now completed Vesper wise, but no gunbarrel at the start of Blood Stone, why? It doesn't take much effort to slam it at the start and have it open up on the shot of Athens. Why is there no Gunbarrel in GoldenEye 2010, either? You would think they'd put one in that.

The casual Bond look is getting tiresome as well. I don't understand why Criag's Bond feels the need to run around in jeans and a T-shirt. Yes we get a tux in Blood Stone, and a suit. But seriously, a green jersey? He looks like my grandad.

I'm all up for the producers shaking up the formula, and it was brilliant for Casino Royale and most of Quantum of Solace. I just get the impression now that they're messing it up just for the hell of it. It's like the Craig era is just against the idea of the Bond theme and the gunbarrel, even though it's a Bond film...

There's no need for Blood Stone or GoldenEye not to have a gunbarrel, or the Bond theme. It's as if they thought "Oh look, it's the Craig era, no one wants it anymore."


I love Craig. I love Bond. I'm just really getting worried that this era just won't be Bond anymore. They're changing too much.

[zencat]

Well, I'll be honest, I think Craig is an amazing Bond and CR was a brilliant, brilliant film, but for whatever reason, my interest and enthusiasm for the film Bond has been diminishing at a mysterious and alarming rate. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm growing up. But there is (was) an element of fantasy that I love about James Bond. I want to live in his world, walk in his footsteps, and, hence, rewatch the films again and again (and go to the next film for the same experience). So while I enjoy the Craig films a great deal and appreciate the "more realistic" approach...it's not really a world I want to live in (or revisit al that often). While I think they've achieved some kind of artistic "respectability", I really think they've lost some magic. But I'll still be there opening day for Bond 23.

[The Dove]

Do I think the Craig era has become annoying?? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! In fact I welcome the fresh approach it has taken from how stagnant the Brosnan era became, just as how the Dalton era was a fresh approach to the rediculousness the Roger Moore era became at the end. Mharkin, i really think you are taking the lack of Bond theme and Gunbarrel a bit too seriously (well when it comes to the video games..okay I do admit I missed it in the From Russia With Love game). I myself would be upset if we didn't have those in the films... and quite honestly less is more when it comes to using the Bond theme.. Arnold balanced it quite nicely in Tomorrow Never Dies, but for TWINE and DAD it just gets over blown.. ugh! the scene where Bond and Jinx are running to catch up with the plane and jump on board is just corny as hell when it comes to the use of the Bond theme.. As for the casual look of Bond... I like it..well sure it was fine in Casino Royale and I enjoy the fact that by Quantum of Solace, Bond is wearing more suits as he becomes more of the Bond we know.. so either way it's no problem for me.. Bottom line is that I'm glad the Craig films have taken a new approach to the Bond legacy..

[Single-O-Seven]

Well, I'll be honest, I think Craig is an amazing Bond and CR was a brilliant, brilliant film, but for whatever reason, my interest and enthusiasm for the film Bond has been diminishing at a mysterious and alarming rate. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm growing up. But there is (was) an element of fantasy that I love about James Bond. I want to live in his world, walk in his footsteps, and, hence, rewatch the films again and again (and go to the next film for the same experience). So while I enjoy the Craig films a great deal and appreciate the "more realistic" approach...it's not really a world I want to live in (or revisit al that often). While I think they've achieved some kind of artistic "respectability", I really think they've lost some magic. But I'll still be there opening day for Bond 23.

There is a way to blend the realism with the "I want to be Bond" fantasy world. It's been done before. Hell, Fleming did it from the start. Bond should fit in that mythical realm between fantasy and realism, never too over the top and never too real. I think they can pull it off well with Craig, and that he'd be quite good at it. After all, CR was just a notch below that in-between realm.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Do I think the Craig era has become annoying?? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! In fact I welcome the fresh approach it has taken from how stagnant the Brosnan era became, just as how the Dalton era was a fresh approach to the rediculousness the Roger Moore era became at the end. Mharkin, i really think you are taking the lack of Bond theme and Gunbarrel a bit too seriously (well when it comes to the video games..okay I do admit I missed it in the From Russia With Love game). I myself would be upset if we didn't have those in the films... and quite honestly less is more when it comes to using the Bond theme.. Arnold balanced it quite nicely in Tomorrow Never Dies, but for TWINE and DAD it just gets over blown.. ugh! the scene where Bond and Jinx are running to catch up with the plane and jump on board is just corny as hell when it comes to the use of the Bond theme.. As for the casual look of Bond... I like it..well sure it was fine in Casino Royale and I enjoy the fact that by Quantum of Solace, Bond is wearing more suits as he becomes more of the Bond we know.. so either way it's no problem for me.. Bottom line is that I'm glad the Craig films have taken a new approach to the Bond legacy..

couldn't of said it better myself I agree with Dove

[zencat]

There is a way to blend the realism with the "I want to be Bond" fantasy world. It's been done before. Hell, Fleming did it from the start. Bond should fit in that mythical realm between fantasy and realism, never too over the top and never too real. I think they can pull it off well with Craig, and that he'd be quite god at it. After all, CR was just a notch below that in-between realm.

Well said, Single-O-Seven. I think it can be done too. But with the current creative team...? That's the question.

[JamesCraig]

Dear God... NO!

The only things that are missing so far from this new series are:

- Q
- Moneypenny
- Gunbarrel before the start
- Wodka Martini shaken, not stirred

Slight changes have been made during the whole 1962-2008 period. Or are DAD, FRWL & AVTAK 200% the same? No, and that's why it's still with us.

And since when isn't Bond allowed to dress "casually"? That's not criticism, but nitpicking.

[DCI_director]

I too am starting to lose interest in Bond completely. I did enjoy Casino Royale, but even with it and along with QOS, I feel that we are just watching a regular action movie with a man who has the name of James Bond and NOT an actual Bond movie. I have not seen or played Blood Stone or Goldeneye but I did fear that since the movies strayed away from the Gun barrel, Bond theme and other Bond elements, that the games would follow and do the same as well. To me the Bond films are no longer becoming Bond films. No theme, Moneypenny, Q, gun barrel at the beginning, the naked silhouette girls during the title sequence, Bond getting his mission in M's office, etc. There was always something magical about a Bond movie when you went to go see it for the first time, but now they seem to have lost that and I personally don't think they (the producers) will be going back. I'm not talking about the tongue and cheek humor of the Moore era. I'm talking about the things that made a Bond film a Bond film. They stood out from the rest of the action films. For example, when that gun barrel rolled out at the beginning. Thats something you just NEVER get in other films. So yes, I do find the Craig Era, not Craig himself, annoying. If they continue on the path of QOS, I don't think I personally, can keep watching. It's sad really. I never thought Bond would bore and annoy me. The supposed "Bond we know and love" that we were suppose to see at the end of Casino Royale or whenever the hell we were suppose to see him is long gone and I think the producers will shake things up for their own amusement when certain things were not broken in the first place.

[Matt_13]

No, I just think they need to relax on the reinvention a bit. Reverting back to what made Bond so great (the theme especially) is not a sign of creative weakness, as they seem inclined to believe. Daniel Craig is the best Bond we're going to have for a long time, I really want to see them put him in an adventure that he deserves.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Well, I'll be honest, I think Craig is an amazing Bond and CR was a brilliant, brilliant film, but for whatever reason, my interest and enthusiasm for the film Bond has been diminishing at a mysterious and alarming rate. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm growing up. But there is (was) an element of fantasy that I love about James Bond. I want to live in his world, walk in his footsteps, and, hence, rewatch the films again and again (and go to the next film for the same experience). So while I enjoy the Craig films a great deal and appreciate the "more realistic" approach...it's not really a world I want to live in (or revisit al that often). While I think they've achieved some kind of artistic "respectability", I really think they've lost some magic. But I'll still be there opening day for Bond 23.

There is a way to blend the realism with the "I want to be Bond" fantasy world. It's been done before. Hell, Fleming did it from the start. Bond should fit in that mythical realm between fantasy and realism, never too over the top and never too real. I think they can pull it off well with Craig, and that he'd be quite good at it. After all, CR was just a notch below that in-between realm.

This problem is not about the whole Craig era, it just started with QOS, when they forcefully tried to redo the Becoming Bond thing, that was already done at the last scene of CR with the appearance of the Bond that we all know and love (just like Martin Campbell intended).

[Bill]

Interesting thread.

Zencat, I completely agree with your earlier comment here.

I have been a Bond fan for thirty years now. The films are what grabbed me initially, but I have come to appreciate the books a great deal as well. I have come to know and befriend some of the people involved in the world of 007, and without wanting to name drop here, I am truly honored to be a character in one of Raymond's books. I was also thrilled to be asked to speak at the Hofstra conference a few years ago, and it was a terrific experience, and the opportunity, to meet my favorite Bond, and favorite actor on top of that, Roger Moore at the Player's Club, was literally one of the highlights of my life. I will be eternally grateful to Lee Pfeiffer.

However, I have not had the, for want of a better term, sheer joy that I had in my admiration of all things Bond for several years now. My enthusiasm began to wane when the press started to report that Pierce would not be returning, back in 2004, which I thought was a big mistake, given how successful he was as Bond. Without wanting to go into my problems with the reboot, which I have discussed ad infinitum on this forum in the past, the fact is that my unconditional love for Bond has still not returned.

Zencat, perhaps you are right--maybe us older fans are growing up. And there have been times when the Bondian joy has resurfaced--the NYC tour back in 2005 when I met you, Zencat, the Hofstra conference and the Roger Moore night are the ones I think of immediately. Reading the first book in The Moneypenny Diaries and Charlie Higson's books have also brought some of the old feelings back. Still, I think it is telling that when I came out of QoS opening night I had a feeling of near disgust, and not the usual thrill I had from a Bond opening. Something is still not right.

Again, if EON scraps the reboot idea and just tells a basic Bond story, even keeping Craig (who I do like), with Judi Dench, John Cleese and most likely a recast Moneypenny, things could turn around for me. The old elements that you described, Zencat, could be restored. The hiatus that exists in production now may be the best thing for the fans that think as I do, although I am not sure how many there are like me!

Bill

[MarkA]

Well, I'll be honest, I think Craig is an amazing Bond and CR was a brilliant, brilliant film, but for whatever reason, my interest and enthusiasm for the film Bond has been diminishing at a mysterious and alarming rate. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm growing up. But there is (was) an element of fantasy that I love about James Bond. I want to live in his world, walk in his footsteps, and, hence, rewatch the films again and again (and go to the next film for the same experience). So while I enjoy the Craig films a great deal and appreciate the "more realistic" approach...it's not really a world I want to live in (or revisit al that often). While I think they've achieved some kind of artistic "respectability", I really think they've lost some magic. But I'll still be there opening day for Bond 23.

Zencat we don't often agree on things but this time I am with you. And you know for us older fans I think it was Quantum of Solace that did it. I was on such a high after seeing Casino Royale, I had waited 30 years to see another great Bond and I really think it is the OHMSS of this era but it needed to be one-of. With Quantum they really threw the baby out with the bath water. I have tried and tried to love that film but despite the obvious skill and talent involved I really can't sit through it now. I really hope with the next that we hang on to some of the gritty realism that Daniel Craig brought to Bond, but we go back to that wonderful Bondian fantasy that the great epic Bonds reached. That is what made Bond, Bond, not just another action franchise. Whoever makes it don't be embarrassed to embrace that.

[Napoleon Solo]

I think you need to separate Craig the actor from what has been going on at Eon most of the past 10 years.

It seems (and I will stress the word seems because few really *know*) as if Eon is chasing "respect" in Hollywood. Casino Royale got the best reviews in years for a Bond movie. So, for QOS, they decide to get a director of Very Important Movies (Forster who had done Monster's Ball), they retained a writer known for Very Important Movies (Haggis with Crash). The result was, well, Quantum of Solace. Some people like it, but a lot of fans objected at least in part. And it's not like QOS got anywhere near the "respect' that Casino Royale, either.

You can blame that on Haggis being hurried to get his script in before a writer's strike. But I'm not sure it would have had that much of a difference. For a lot of fans, other Bond movies made by "journeymen" (Young, Hamilton, Hunt, Gilbert, Maibaum, Mankiewicz, et. al) were more entertaining than QOS.

Plus, there are signs the drive for "respect" influenced Bond 23 before the MGM financial situation worsened. Eon hired Peter Morgan -- who has recently said he questioned the concept of Bond -- to do a script. He spent months but never got past the treatment stage. Apparently, Morgan pitched Eon an intriguing idea but never turned it into even a first draft of a script. Anthony Burgess once pitched an idea and didn't make it to a script but at least he liked Bond.

[Loomis]

Great post.

I also think Eon has been guilty of chasing respect of late. I wish they'd just chase entertainment.

[zencat]

I also think Eon has been guilty of chasing respect of late. I wish they'd just chase entertainment.

Amen brother.

[00Kevin]

good point u bring up, the tone of the films is not annoying to me but i have been very dissapointed in the lack of bond staples in quantum and the more recent video games such as no gun barrel, no bond james bond and of course the classic MI6 allies

it would be interesting if after craig is done EoN pulls a 360 and gives us roger moore II, but not sure i can see it going that far

this is the best thread i've read in a long time, glad to know they're are people out there like me! long live classic bond!

Edited by 00Kevin, 04 November 2010 - 11:19 PM.

[jaguar007]

I am annoyed at the lack of a third film in the Craig era

I also get a little annoyed at the lack of the gunbarrel and Bond theme in QoS. I think one of the problem QoS has is the lack of any really great scenes. You get away from us Bond geeks, most of the public refer to Bond films as "the one with...(the girl painted gold...the ski jump...the boat chase...the one where Bond comes out of the water etc) QoS does not have any really memorable scenes for the public in mass to really identify or remember it by.

[Mr_Wint]

QOS killed my interest in Bond a little bit. They should definitely move in another direction with Bond 23. And I think they will. Messing around with Bond-trademarks like music and gunbarrel cannot hide the lack of originality twice.

[sharpshooter]

I posted this is another thread, and this is my stance:

Look, the way I see it, a film has precedence over a video game. CR and QoS do not feature the gun barrel at the start. Like it or not, they do not. That was their right, and I think the films should set the agenda for any other licensed ventures. Don’t confuse the brand. Right now, this is where things are at. Therefore, I believe that stance should be respected and followed for the time being. And that has taken place with all the video games since. Once Craig storms across to open Bond 23, fine – open slather. Go for it.

[Lachesis]

I would also echo the sentiments of this thread, but as some have noted its not down to Daniel Craig, nor is it just QoS - the ethos behind the films atm is different and for myself at least contrary to what I expect and uniquely look for from Bond. Primarily its the sense of adventure that is missing, there is a heady pretention in its place, an anal desire to demystify or even excuse the character, and in doing so what we end up with is altogether more 'ordinary' and less distinct from every other action film out there. I always found Bond to be more than just another cinematic actioner but with CR and then QoS the additional elements that really endeared the whole series to me upto that point are increasing conspicuous by their absence (the former definitely lays the sseds and the latter is unfairly blamed imo).

When the Books were published they set themselves apart from comparable spy fiction by their approach to the subject matter, by Flemings unabashed desire to entertain, the films for most of their lives have done likewise and its that unique flavour that imo has kept the series alive and I would wish to see it return in the next picture.

[Royal Dalton]

Eon haven't made a single Bond film that I've liked since the series was relaunched in 1995. I pretty much just stick to the classic films now. But I do hope they'll make one that will tick all the boxes for me at some point in the future.

[Genrewriter]

I also think Eon has been guilty of chasing respect of late. I wish they'd just chase entertainment.

Amen brother.

Agreed. I like what they've done, but sometimes I just want something to take me for a ride. I don't need respectability with everything I see.

[tdalton]

I feel exactly the opposite. Now that they've started to take away the tired old staples of the series, I'm feeling much more energized regarding the films. Getting rid of some of the old staples such as the gun barrel (something I've been in favor of for a while now), the theme song, and "the line" (amongst many, many others) has made the films feel less like the checklists that they had become, especially in the 1990s. Add to that the fact that Craig is a brilliant Bond and both his films have been top-notch, I've never been more excited for the future of the film franchise.

[The Shark]

The Craig still has kept far too many 'tired old staples' from the Brosnan era. Dench, Arnold, Purvis & Wade, and ludicrous action sequences - need to go.

[elizabeth]

I completely agree. Even the Brosnan era paid some tribute to the classic Bond films. The Craig era doesn't do them any homage by keeping the classic elements and it is sad.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree with tdalton. The series hasn´t had this kind of momentum since... well, the Connery era. EON wanted to reboot and they really achieved it.

And the whole "messing with the gun barel"-bitching... c´mon, guys, be reasonable. CR had the genesis of it in the pre-title-sequence. And QOS had it at the right place: at the end when Bond actually stopped looking back and decided to proceed. All of this was not EON´s way of dispatching with well-liked elements. It was due to narrative choices how to deal with these elements.

This also applies to Q and Moneypenny. Not using both characters was essential in the new approach to the Bond character. At the beginning he has no friends or allies. He has to form a relationship with M. After this he can settle into his job. Now he can start a flirting relationship with M´s secretary. And he will be part of a team which also comprises an expert of weaponry.

Did EON want more respect for Bond? Absolutely. And rightfully so. The Bond films had lost their good reputation and become a signifier for childish and pointless entertainment. The Craig era turned this around. Now Bond is legendary again, with a lead actor that is well respected. With stories that attract major writing and directing talent.

Should EON have continued to use only workman-like directors? I´m convinced people (and fans on this board) would have complained about that "cheap" approach instead of going for more interesting directors and writers.

By the way, EON is not the only production company using A directors for genre fare. This trend has already been going on for years now. And IMO it is a good one, opening up genre limits and making films more interesting.

[jamie00007]

Well said SecretAgentFan. I'm loving the Craig era so far, in almost twenty years of being a Bond fan Ive never been more excited to see where its going. The Craig era effectively got rid of everything I'd grown to dislike about modern Bond films while keeping everything I loved, and at the same time gave us not just good Bond films, but great films in general. CR especially. It was pretty much the exact film I'd been waiting years for.

That said I kind of agree with a couple of the OP's points. The vast majority of decisions and changes to the formula I've been more than happy with. But theres a difference between being fresh and making those decisions based on whats best for the film as opposed to what fits a formula and changes and omissions just for the sake of it. I think they've crossed the line a couple of times there that they could just as easily have not changed things and it would have been no detriment to the films or the direction they are trying to take.

Take Villiers for example. Why create a new character to fill the Moneypenny role? It would just have been as easy to give M a female assistant named Moneypenny without changing the film one bit. They didnt need to make a traditional Moneypenny/Bond flirtation scene, and Im glad they arent shoehorning characters like Moneypenny or Q in if they arent needed in the film, but the traditional Moneypenny role of M's right hand man/woman was still needed in the film, so I dont see the need for going out of their way to exclude her. And she was in the novel, so it would just have been a further link to that anyway. Same with QoS, which then had Tanner filling the Moneypenny role.

Like I said, Im more than happy with the direction of the new films. But if theres a traditional element that fits the film, be it Moneypenny and Q or the Bond theme or the line or whatever I'd prefer that they use it rather than just exclude it for the sake of change.

[sharpshooter]

I feel exactly the opposite. Now that they've started to take away the tired old staples of the series, I'm feeling much more energized regarding the films. Getting rid of some of the old staples such as the gun barrel (something I've been in favor of for a while now), the theme song, and "the line" (amongst many, many others) has made the films feel less like the checklists that they had become, especially in the 1990s. Add to that the fact that Craig is a brilliant Bond and both his films have been top-notch, I've never been more excited for the future of the film franchise.

Agreed. I find it very daring and exhilarating. As if anything can happen. Eg. the gun barrel at the end of QoS. That hadn’t been done before. Everything in the series has basically already been covered. So the Craig era is going in the other direction. Scaling certain things back, and customizing others. We’ve gone from full on Bond Theme bloat – to the point of being obnoxious, to minimization. And that’s probably why people are yearning for it.

[The Shark]

By the way, EON is not the only production company using A directors for genre fare. This trend has already been going on for years now. And IMO it is a good one, opening up genre limits and making films more interesting.

Hiring smug, luvvie directors with little experience in the genre or affinity for Bond, is something to be proud of?

[jamie00007]

A good director is a good director. I completely disagree with this notion some people have that movie directors are devided into little groups; this one does action, this one does comedy, this one does horror etc.