63 replies to this topic

[Armand Fancypants]

Film bears authorial mark of person making it.

What a world, what a world.

I'd argue that what the OP is classifying as "Bond" was more Cubby's Bond than it was Fleming's anyway.

[bonds_walther]

If BB and MGW had continued making Bond films along the lines of DAD, I seriously doubt we'd be celebrating the 50th anniversary with a new film. The franchise needed a kick up the backside and, with Craig as Bond, it got what it needed. Bond has continually reinvented himself on the screen and I've no doubt that in 6, 8 or 10 years time, the same thing will happen again.

I can understand that people will have varying opinions on Craig's Bond films, but I think that they are up there with the best of the series.

Edited by bonds_walther, 28 October 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[JCRendle]

Who cares what Daniel Craig is interested in?! He seems to have far too much input into Bond. If he isn't interested in playing Bond as Bond then replace him. He seems to be constantly trying to turn Bond into a different character. Then have him go play another character in another film in another franchise.

I care what Craig is interested in. He is a Bond fan, like you and me. His input is important because he loves and knows the Bond films and he loves and knows Ian Fleming's Bond books, the best of both worlds and he has used this knowledge to the advantage of the Bond films. He is the closest to playing Bond as Bond for years.

A flamboyant Bond is Bond is what we want.

We? If we all feel the same, then why are we even having a discussion?

These films take years to make and it irks me a great deal that we still have not got a proper James Bond movie.

Skyfall is a proper Bond movie.

This is not the cinematic Bond.

Yes it is.

You cannot go for forty years with an infallible suave Bond then suddenly for a decade force onto us a different type of Bond and claim as the producers do that this is the real James Bond. It simply is not. Craig's Bond is diametric opposite to who cinematic Bond is.

Connery's Bond different to Moore's Bond, Dalton's Bond is different to Brosnan's Bond. Each James Bond actor has had a different view on how to play Bond. Early Connery films were dramatic, Moore's films were comedic, Dalton's Bond was serious, Brosnan's Bond was 90s action. The closest to a previous actors Bond was Lazenby to Connery.

Trust me when i say quality will kill the franchise. Constantly trying to make it complex, smart, too clever, new and fresh and foregoing the formula will kill it. There new Bond model does not work.

I think ticket numbers for the previous Craig films have shown, and the ticket numbers for Skyfall should show, that you're view here is skewed.

Silva was just Alec Trevelyan except Silva just wanted to Kill M rather than steal money and send London into a financial meltdown. They are the same character except Silva takes place in an emotional, complex melodrama. Where as Trevelyan existed in a true Bond world with big show pieces.

They are similar characters - previous agents let down by the agency - I'll grant you that, but how an you say Silva didn't have big set pieces?! A deserted island, music blaring out of the speakers of an army helicopter?

Bond never did tell a story

...

By trying to respond to Bourne and give it the biggest praise by mimmicking it they have told a story and in effect created a weakness in the franchise where there was none before.

again, I think this only applies to QoS.

I absolutely agree than when Bond is too fantastical they return him to Earth

as they should

but I felt CR strayed a little too far from the character.

Have you read Casino Royale? The first James Bond novel by Ian Fleming?

That is why as fantastic as Dalton was ultimately he was not right for the character. Just as Craig is not.

Dalton and Craig are both Brilliant Bonds.

People say he is an incredible actor

rightly so.

(although one just has to cry and be all emotional) to be a fantastic actor these days.

really? I wish you could see my eyes rolling as I read that.

Back to the point would Craig really be that successful without Bond?!

No, but the same could be said for each of the Bond actors. Craig would be successful in his own right, before he was hired as Bond he had already been hired by Spielberg, had a successful television career and had several films to his cv

Look at Clive Owen he is all but forgotten as a leading man these days.

personally I find Owen very dull, monotoned and boring.

[SecretAgentFan]

He does bed a woman but it is not quite Brosnan.

I believe Pierce was away filming, so Berenice was second choice.

Best comment and IMO the one to close this thread with.

[JCRendle]

Craig's non-bond films often fall flat.

Brosnan had a few clankers too. Craig's also had some pretty decent films, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for example

To be honest have as much melodrama and emotional back story as you want but let Bond react in a Bond way.

Which is why you have Skyfall, Bond reacting in a Bondian way.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Craig's non-bond films often fall flat.

Brosnan had a few clankers too. Craig's also had some pretty decent films, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for example

Definitely. Road To Perdition, Layer Cake, Munich and Defiance are all fine films as well, and I rather enjoyed Flashbacks of a Fool.

[JCRendle]

Craig's non-bond films often fall flat.

Brosnan had a few clankers too. Craig's also had some pretty decent films, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for example

Definitely. Road To Perdition, Layer Cake, Munich and Defiance are all fine films as well, and I rather enjoyed Flashbacks of a Fool.

Exactly. I did have those in mind, but I used Dragon as an example of a film he made whilst Bond. Defiance could have been used too

[univex]

We´re all flaming to answer DogWalker, but really, why bother, we should be dismissive to comments like those. We don´t have to justify ourselves anymore. Craig has won, Bond has won, rightfully so I might ad. So really, why not close this thread and dismiss another troll. If he wants to bash just for the sake of it, then, by all means, why doesn´t he move to Craignotbond.com, I´m sure they´ll be happy to oblige and be entertained. He reminds me of old Moomoo, he knew how to punch the right cords and leave us to flame. The thing is, we don´t have to do that anymore. War´s over, if there was even once one.

Univex out.

He does bed a woman but it is not quite Brosnan.

I believe Pierce was away filming, so Berenice was second choice.

Best comment and IMO the one to close this thread with.

Hear, hear!

[JCRendle]

I don't want to someone who thinks that someone who has vastly different views to my own as a troll. They may very well be trolls but they could just feel very different and have a contrasting opinion.

[univex]

I don't want to someone who thinks that someone who has vastly different views to my own as a troll. They may very well be trolls but they could just feel very different and have a contrasting opinion.

I actually don´t think DogWalker is a troll, but he does know how to push a couple of red gear knob buttons around here He doesn´t like Craig as Bond? Fine. He feels we should go back to AtoB formula? Fine. He thinks Bond is now BB´s (the she-devil) son? Fine. He likes DADs and MRs? Fine. There will always be someone who is against something. I for one am glad they gave us this enormous gift that is SF. It´s fan-oriented, blatantly. I´ve been wating for this for at least 17 odd years. So it´s only natural that I feel like pushing a red button myself, while he is in the passenger´s seat.

Hey, no harm done DogWalker. You knew you´d have strong words from many of us Oh, and for your eyes only: Dalton rules, always have, always will!

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Craig has won, Bond has won, rightfully so I might add.

Amen! And lest we now forget Ian Fleming!

[univex]

Craig has won, Bond has won, rightfully so I might add.

Amen! And lest we now forget Ian Fleming!

True, and there´s more that can be done in the future. Fleming is not entirely worn out, as SF proved. YOLT had other ideas that are yet to be used (Shatterhand´s plot), and the same goes for the other novels. That brilliant "crashdive" moment in Paris comes to mind. The squid in Dr. No. Much, much more.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

In my opinion Skyfall was a Ian Fleming-Bond adventure Fleming never wrote.

[univex]

In my opinion Skyfall was a Ian Fleming-Bond adventure Fleming never wrote.

Let´s hope there´s more to come.

[col_007]

So you want Die Another Day again, basically?

That won't kill the franchise at all. No, sir.

I think some people need to realise that era of bond films is over

Edited by col_007, 29 October 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[univex]

So you want Die Another Day again, basically?

That won't kill the franchise at all. No, sir.

I think some people need to realise that era of bond films is over

Thank God for that.

[DogWalker]

Well I have been rather alarmed by the response of many of the members of CBN. I offered a different opinion which I backed up with a thoughtful argument. Hopefully Bond will return to flamboyance and at the top of his game.

I actually enjoy Craig as Bond and am a supporter. Simply their intention so far has not been to make the perfect Bond rather a fallible one. They are creatives and that is fine. The character is far more interesting when you look at how he became Bond. Now though I hope Craig will play Bond as we have seen him in the past. Flawless.

[JCRendle]

Hopefully Bond will return to flamboyance

Hopefully not.

I actually enjoy Craig as Bond and am a supporter

good to hear

Simply their intention so far has not been to make the perfect Bond

I disagree

rather a fallible one

he can be both

They are creatives and that is fine.

exactly. Bond can be Bond without being an invincible superhero. Bond is better when he can actually bleed, he was never invincible.

[univex]

...Bond as we have seen him in the past. Flawless.

I´m curious. Have you read the Ian Fleming novels? If so, did you like them? If so, in which novel was Bond flawless?

On another note. Have you see 60´s Bond films? If so, did you like them? If so, in which film was Bond flawless?

[TheManwiththeWaltherPPK]

From Russia With Love ends with Bond almost dying twice because he made careless human mistakes. 1) Trusts Nash despite his own misgivings and even give him his gun. 2) After pining Klebb with the chair gets cocky and is stabbed by Klebb with her secret shoe knife.

Thunderball begins with a bored, out of shape Bond who is spending too much time drinking, smoking and eating. He is sent to Shrublands to get in shape as a result.

You Only Live Twice is about a quasi-suicidal Bond who has suffered a nervous breakdown after losing Tracy.

DogWalker, you say Fleming's Bond is fantasy and flawless? Yeah, right. Fleming's Bond was supposed to be an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happen. That is why he gave the character the boring name of a bird expert. As John Logan so aptly put it at the premiere, Fleming's formula was to write solid espionage thrillers featuring a proxy for the reader with FANTASTICAL FLOURISHES. You say Skyfall doesn't make you want to be Bond because Bond is flawed in it and the Bond franchise is doomed as a result. Well, the majority of the world feels very differently. Who is the most popular superhero in the world right now? Batman! Why? Because people like heroes to whom they can relate. My excitement for Man of Steel aside, most people this day and age criticize Superman for being too perfect. Bringing Bond back in line with Fleming's original vision of him as a flawed hero has and will continue to ensure his continued relevance.

[marktmurphy]

There is no doubt the Craig era has increased the IQ level of Bond. The quality of the films has increased. This does not make a better Bond film.

You've lost me already, I'm afraid.

[Simon]

Someone close this thread...

[JimmyBond]

Don't worry, I'm keeping a close eye on this thread, so far it's sparking some interesting debate. I see no reason to shut it down at the moment.

[DogWalker]

For god's sake guys whether Bond is flawed or not in Fleming is to some degree beside the point. For the past forty years as cinema Bond he has been afflicted by very little and it is perfectly reasonable that some of the fans including myself would like to see Bond back to his cinematic form again.

You all do yourself very little credit to try to send me down in flames when in reality all I am doing is offering a contrasting opinion to your own.

[SecretAgentFan]

Contrasting opinions are fine and welcome. But if you get other opinions contrasting your own you have to live with this.

And you must have been aware that SKYFALL is riding on a huge wave of excitement. People enjoy this film so much for a reason - and that is having James Bond perfectly protrayed, IMO.

Maybe Bond will some day return to that kind of Bond he was during the first 20 films. Right now, he is not a "perfect" man anymore, not a super hero, and his missions will reflect that.

You don´t have to like that. But that´s the way it is.

Also, making a thread titled "Barbara Broccoli´s and Sony´s James Bond" invites criticism, you must have known that.

IMO, it is not Sony´s Bond but EON´s Bond. Barbara Broccoli is often used as a scapegoat for people who don´t like the Craig era (or even the Brosnan era in some regards) but in the end she mostly gets criticized for being a woman. This is a shameful attitude, not only because it is sexist in a not-Bondian way (see what I´m doing here?) but because it implies that the daughter of one of Bond´s cinematic godfathers actually does not know what Bond should be like.

C´mon, Barbara Broccoli, together with Michael Wilson (that fact that he is a man seems to get him out of harm´s way in those "arguments"), have grown up and lived through centuries of bringing 007 to the screen. They have protected this legend again and again. If anybody knows how to do it right, then they do, of course.

It´s a ridiculous conspiracy theory to make others believe that Barbara acting alone or in unison with Sony´s Amy Pascal actually set out to destroy everything Bond was about (for some people). Especially if one looks at the facts: exploding blockbusting business for every Bond since GE.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 30 October 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Right now, he is not a "perfect" man anymore, not a super hero, and his missions will reflect that.

And he never was such in Flemings novels. Many fans, myself included, want Bond to be true to his creators characterisation and with Craig and his films we have it.

[Messervy]

I have been a huge bond fan all my life. I have followed the production of many Bonds throughout the years. I have these observations and criticisms to make.

This is clearly Barbara's James Bond now. She evidently had no interest in working with Brosnan and he was afforded little to no input. Now of course she has her model for which she can frame as she likes in Daniel Craig. In addition American's seem to be increasing in numbers where the power and decisions behind Bond.

There is no doubt the Craig era has increased the IQ level of Bond. The quality of the films has increased. This does not make a better Bond film.

I personally am starting to lose faith in the Bond films. Perhaps I am becoming more of an adult and have less time to sacrafice on a fictional character. Allow me to get to the point: In many of the Craig films I do no longer want to be James Bond. He is weighed down. I find it an illegitimate argument from the producers that they are making Bond more into Fleming's Bond. In the books Bond is fantastical. In addition after forty years of Bond in film that is for many who Bond is. Not the "Fleming" Bond they insist upon making him.

Craig is a fine actor and I see a lot of Bond in him in "Layer Cake" but for me he is not James Bond.

The worry is that by increasing the quality and altering the make-up of a Bond film they are turning a timeless character and franchise into a finite resource. Whilst I wanted Bond to be Bond I accepted Casino Royale because it established at the end Bond was Bond. Then of course it was deceptive, he wasn't actually Bond in Quantum of Solace. He was becoming Bond again. Then again in SkyFall the script may weirdly have him as an experienced Bond but it doesn't play like that. They only establish him at the end as Bond. Though after another minimum of two years wait for Bond 24 will he actually be Bond?! Or will they insist on giving him more trauma.

The Bourne comparisons are too numerous in SkyFall. From the running on the beach and drinking beer to the being shot on a bridge. What I found most alarming in SkyFall is that Bond repairs himself from his apparent death by drinking rather than using the charm and suaveness which of course is his shield. He does bed a woman but it is not quite Brosnan.

They refuse to use the Bond theme as they had done for the first forty years. They change the gunbarrel. Why are they so afraid of letting Bond be Bond.

I fear they have changed too much. Worse they have lost sight. You can kill something with too much thought.

I quite agree with pretty much all you said.
I want my Bond back, and I'm not entirely sure I got it with SF. Too much in-depth look at his inner traumas, too much mother/son relationship, too much personal psychology, too much M. All in all, too little Bond.

[Hockey Mask]

I haven't seen SF yet but one fan base has FRWL, OHMSS, CR (and SF?) and the other base has everything else. Those who want a return to the cinematic Super-Bond should be a bit patient.

[Messervy]

I haven't seen SF yet but one fan base has FRWL, OHMSS, CR (and SF?) and the other base has everything else. Those who want a return to the cinematic Super-Bond should be a bit patient.

I don't necessarily want a "Super-Bond". I just a Bond who enjoys what he does, who's the best at what he does, and who does it with style.
Eversince DAD we've seen a Bond who makes his superiors doubt him and/or not trust him. I think it's time now to end this trend and get our Bond back.

[Hockey Mask]

I haven't seen SF yet but one fan base has FRWL, OHMSS, CR (and SF?) and the other base has everything else. Those who want a return to the cinematic Super-Bond should be a bit patient.

I don't necessarily want a "Super-Bond". I just a Bond who enjoys what he does, who's the best at what he does, and who does it with style.
Eversince DAD we've seen a Bond who makes his superiors doubt him and/or not trust him. I think it's time now to end this trend and get our Bond back.

Sounds good to me.