363 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

I would not say that, There is a HUGE difference between FRWL and MR. Many could say by looking at FRWL that MR is a warped version of Bond and if you are a fan of MR, it isn't James Bond you are a fan of. Bond has changed with the times, not just in the films, but Bond also changed in the decade that Fleming wrote the books. The newest incarnation of Bond is no less James Bond than Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan incarnations. Bond has always changed with each actor. I find CR to be much closer to the earlier films like FRWL, OHMSS than a film like MR or DAD.

Also I have been an avid Bond fan for well over 30 years, and I think CR is the best Bond movie since the 60s. I love it.

QFT

Couldn't agree more. And if memory serves MR provoked exactly the reaction you described at the time. As did DAD more recently.

[TCK]

Both. They are a diptych.

[Capsule in Space]

Some people just can never accept change. They like things one way and that's it. It's called being out of touch and stubborn. You spend a lot of time telling "kids" to get off your grass don't you?

Yes, and what's wrong with that? Those pesky kids are always running through my lawn!

No, that isn't me, you sound as if you think I'm in my eighties! I'm fine with change if it's a change in the right direction. I was fine when EON changed directions and hired Pierce Brosnan after Timothy Dalton's tenure. EON should have kept Brosnan and not have gone in the direction they've taken with the reboot, or Craig. That's been my argument all along.

I agree with dinovelvet. His comments (not only are they funny, but true) were in response to another post by ROGERJAMESMOORE who has done nothing but make bold remarks w/o elaborating (at all) on them. If he actually made valid points in his posts it would be a different story.

I agreed with the point that ROGERJAMESMOORE made, which was that is there hasn't been anything "great" regarding Bond since the 1980's. I think there have been "good" moments that have been enjoyable (Goldeneye for example), but nothing that I would consider "great".

Just because I agree with one point ROGERJAMESMOORE has made doesn't mean I personally endorse ever post they've written.

The same goes for you 00Brosnan. I don't agree with you in this thread, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with every post you've made. There are other threads where I have agreed with your posts, many of them word for word.

[Capsule in Space]

Im sure there are many new fans thanks to Daniel Craig. The few bits and pieces of older Bond movies I've seen just don't hold my interest. The Brosnan ones are okay. I think Brosnan himself is great in them, but some of his films are a little too fast-paced for me.

I'm going to watch The Living Daylignts and Live and Let Die (Jane Seymour fan here) next weekend when I have more time.

That's fine. I have no problem with you being a fan of Daniel Craig. I debate the notion that the Craig Era is in line with the traditional Bond films we saw from 1962-2002. The idea of implementing a reboot and casting someone so against type make it evident that Barbara Broccoli and crew had the goal of reinventing the character of James Bond, and they succeeded. We now have two characters in fictional cinema, both named James Bond, but they are very different from one another.

I hope you enjoy Live and Let Die and The Living Daylights, and I hope you get a chance to watch some of the Bond films prior to 2006. I'd be interested to see what you have to say about them.

[jaguar007]

I debate the notion that the Craig Era is in line with the traditional Bond films we saw from 1962-2002.

Going back to the question, what is a traditional BOnd film? To many people the traditional Bond film ended in 1969. RM in say MR, was totally against the type established by Sean Connery in 1962. There is much more in common in the way Bond is portrayed with Craig and a young Connery than there was with a young Connery and an older Roger Moore. The biggest difference with Craig as Bond compared to the other that came before him is that he is the first Bond to be too young to be an agent during the cold war. I think that may have been part of the desire to do a reboot. In 2006 they could not hire a Bond in his 30s and still pretend he was an agent during the cold war, Craig or somebody else, it just could not be done.

Yes, Craig is quite a bit different than Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore's James Bond, but they were quite a bit different than Sean Connery who was different than Timothy Dalton. Many of the James Bonds have been "against type" from who had played him before.

[Capsule in Space]

His comments are just as valid as your obnoxious, sarcastic response to said comments.

He makes a valid point regarding "anything Bond-related after 1989". There hasn't been a great Bond film since Cubby Broccoli died. That is despite having Pierce Brosnan, a great Bond, for four films until EON fired him via phone call.

ROGERMOORESUCKS (IP: Same as ROGERJAMESMOORE)

Cadet

Group:
Crew Joined:
Yesterday, 11:47 PM


CRAIG SUCKS THE BIG ONE

CRAIG IS NO JAMES BOND WITH THOSE BIG EARS CRAIG

"Valid".

Not sure that helps your cause. You might want to choose your allies more carefully next time.

This coming from the moderator who produced this:

"Poke him and he'll spray you with his impotent ejaculate, hoping some of it sticks!"

The rest of this long-winded, meandering commentary that is laden with obnoxiousness, which Jim undoubtedly mistakes for wit, can be found on page 10 of this thread: http://debrief.comma...g/page__st__270

As far as Jim's advice goes, I am not looking for allies, I am not looking for enemies, and I am most certainly not looking for Jim's advice. I don't consider anyone of you my enemy. If I have enemies because I don't like Daniel Craig and EON's direction then that is a problem of my "enemies".

Edited by Capsule in Space, 23 May 2011 - 10:20 PM.

[coco1997]

but what you are a fan of isn't James Bond.

Who are you to decide? You're a fan of Diamonds Are Forever!

Don't feed the troll, Matt.

And I should point out that while I'm no fan of "DAF" personally, being a fan of that film does not make one's opinions invalid.

[Capsule in Space]

I debate the notion that the Craig Era is in line with the traditional Bond films we saw from 1962-2002.

Going back to the question, what is a traditional BOnd film? To many people the traditional Bond film ended in 1969. RM in say MR, was totally against the type established by Sean Connery in 1962. There is much more in common in the way Bond is portrayed with Craig and a young Connery than there was with a young Connery and an older Roger Moore. The biggest difference with Craig as Bond compared to the other that came before him is that he is the first Bond to be too young to be an agent during the cold war. I think that may have been part of the desire to do a reboot. In 2006 they could not hire a Bond in his 30s and still pretend he was an agent during the cold war, Craig or somebody else, it just could not be done.

Yes, Craig is quite a bit different than Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore's James Bond, but they were quite a bit different than Sean Connery who was different than Timothy Dalton. Many of the James Bonds have been "against type" from who had played him before.

Hi Jaguar, I am going to try to address the points you made in your post prior to your latest one in this response.

The traditional James Bond comes from the formula developed by EON during the 1960's. This formula was developed during the productions of Dr. No and From Russia with Love and perfected in Goldfinger.

What separates Goldfinger from the first two is that it completely embraces the preposterous world of James Bond. It's preposterous to believe that one is able to keep a perfectly pressed tuxedo underneath a wetsuit. It's preposterous to think that criminal would try to invade Fort Knox. It's preposterous to think that you can throw a brick at someone's chest and have it not hurt them.

The whole idea of a Mi6 agent going around the world telling everybody his real name is just ridiculous. The entire concept of James Bond is completely ridiculous, yet it is very entertaining, and it is very fun.

Bond is at its best when it embraces the preposterous, when it embraces tongue-in-cheek, and when it embraces escapism. Get ready to be shocked. I would be willing to tolerate Daniel Craig, as much as I think he is wrong for the role, if EON had embraced these elements. However they are trying to inject realism into a character that is known for being so unrealistic. That's where I fault them.

Goldfinger is the blueprint that should be followed for each Bond. I am not looking for the same story every time, but I am looking for the elements that remind me that I am watching a Bond film.

Finally, I agree with you that From Russia with Love and Moonraker have very little in common. That is because From Russia with Love was made when EON was still developing the formula for the cinematic Bond. I'd argue that Goldfinger and Moonraker have a lot in common. They both follow the same formula. They first embrace the preposterous nature of Bond. Then they include the elements that are associated with Bond: gun barrel opening, over-the-top plots, almost unconquerable henchmen (that Bond can only defeat by outwitting), very colorful arch-villains set on massive destruction, etc., etc.

Looking forward to your response. Now, off to the "The Saint" thread where you and I have found common ground. I'll see what is going on there.

[Capsule in Space]

but what you are a fan of isn't James Bond.

Who are you to decide? You're a fan of Diamonds Are Forever!

Don't feed the troll, Matt.

And I should point out that while I'm no fan of "DAF" personally, being a fan of that film does not make one's opinions invalid.

I am not accusing anyone of having invalid opinions.

Now, as for your "troll" accusation, that is completely unfounded. Go check out my profile, and after you have marveled at my -112 rating you can look at where I have been most active. I've been most active in the Roger Moore threads where I have posted very positive comments. I spend most of my time on this forum discussing the virtues of Connery, Moore, and Brosnan.

[jaguar007]

Don't feed the troll, Matt.

While Capsule has very strong feelings regarding his distaste about the Craig films, I would not go as far as calling him "a troll" as he has at least said "why" he does not like Craig (as opposed to some who just say "he sucks") and has made decent posts in other threads.

[jaguar007]

Bond is at its best when it embraces the preposterous, when it embraces tongue-in-cheek, and when it embraces escapism. Get ready to be shocked. I would be willing to tolerate Daniel Craig, as much as I think he is wrong for the role, if EON had embraced these elements. However they are trying to inject realism into a character that is known for being so unrealistic. That's where I fault them.

Goldfinger is the blueprint that should be followed for each Bond. I am not looking for the same story every time, but I am looking for the elements that remind me that I am watching a Bond film.

You should state "in my opinion Bond is at its best when it embraces the preposterous"

Many of us like the less preposterous films like FRWL, OHMSS. FYEO, TLD CR etc as opposed to the more preposterous. All Bond films have a bit of preposterousness to them including CR and QoS. On the flip side many of the films have gone overboard with preposterousness like MR and DAD. That is the cycle of the BOnd films, go overboard trying to overdo GF and then reel it back in like FRWL. Remember Bond started with the novels from Ian Fleming and it is not at all un-Bond like to try to get back to a more Fleming like story, whatever that is. Fleming's books even ranged from the more simple realistic to the somewhat preposterous, no reason the films can't do the same.

Obviously I prefer the less preposterous films like FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR (along with GF make my top 5), but I also really like films like DN, TB, TSWLM etc. Actually I also enjoy the far fetched ones as well.

[coco1997]

but what you are a fan of isn't James Bond.

Who are you to decide? You're a fan of Diamonds Are Forever!

Don't feed the troll, Matt.

And I should point out that while I'm no fan of "DAF" personally, being a fan of that film does not make one's opinions invalid.

I am not accusing anyone of having invalid opinions.

Now, as for your "troll" accusation, that is completely unfounded. Go check out my profile, and after you have marveled at my -112 rating you can look at where I have been most active. I've been most active in the Roger Moore threads where I have posted very positive comments. I spend most of my time on this forum discussing the virtues of Connery, Moore, and Brosnan.

I apologize for calling you a troll. I admit I hadn't read the entire thread when I saw your quote to which Mr. Blofeld was replying. Your later statements clarify what you meant. Now, I disagree with part of what you're saying but agree with part, as well--Ian Fleming created the true blueprint for 007, and this is the Bond we see in "FRWL", "LTK", "CR", etc. However, I completely understand your opinion that the more fun, out of this world Bond films that began with "GF" are almost in their own genre and are what the general public most associate with 007. Personally, I enjoy both equally, so long as the "outlandish" films don't grow too outlandish for their own good ("DAD").

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm sorry; I shouldn't have gone on an ad hominem attack. I'll try to combat the points themselves, next time...

[George88]

As far as Jim's advice goes, I am not looking for allies, I am not looking for enemies, and I am most certainly not looking for Jim's advice. I don't consider anyone of you my enemy. If I have enemies because I don't like Daniel Craig and EON's direction then that is a problem of my "enemies".

Bit rich, Bond77.

Just in case folks didn't know, the CraignotBond forum clings onto life - I am a member, more for the anthropological amusement than anything else, and this member Capsule in Space a.k.a. Bond77 is a vocal participant. Motive is, let's say, questionable.

Bond77 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:02 am
CommanderPravda.net cannot keep up with their shilling and misinforming for the EON regime.

Bond77 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:53 pm
CommanderPravda.net is working overtime to no avail.

Bond77 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:03 am
I went on to CommanderPravda.net to see your recent comments on the Danielle Craig PSA. I thought your comments were great, but apparently many on CommanderPravda did not. I grew tired of the Craigski's gaining up on you, so for the first time I joined CommanderPravda.net. I've already posted a few times, and in doing so I offered opinions that differ greatly from the manufactured message. We will see what happens.

Bond 77 Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:24 am
Thus far I have posted a few times and already one of the Craigskis has taken issue with my comments. My name is not Bond77 on the CommanderPravda because that name apparently has been taken, but I am sure you won't have a hard time guessing which one is me.

Bond77 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:06 am

katied wrote: LOL are you Capsule In Space?Those posts are brilliant.

Well dear katiedpenny, if I were this "Capsule in Space", then it wouldn't be wise to answer this question. After all, we are dealing with CommanderPravda.net, and there may be Craigskis and EONites monitor this very forum!

Bond77 » Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:22 am
That brings me to this "Capsule in Space" character. That maniac hasn't stopped posting, and I am here to report that after three days he's managed to earn a reputation of -43 at CommanderPravda.net. It all started with this first post of Cap's commenting on the Danielle Craig PSA fiasco: "This PSA shows a sanctimonious actor desperate for praise and attention at the next Hamptons cocktail party. I don't see how that helps women or the Bond franchise. I guess nothing helps women more than having the pawn of Barbara Broccoli (multi-millionaire, film franchise heiress) wearing a dress and looking like Ann Coulter."

Since then there has been a uproar. Of course BJ has been pounced on, and Captain Flandry as well. Now Capsule in Space is in a heated discussion about the poor numbers that QOS produced, and of course this has all the EONites and Craigskis in a tizzy. Capsule in Space is doing his best Mazer R. imitation to take on these detractors, but come on, there is only one Mazer R.! It appears that for the time being that Capsule in Space will continue to support his fellow DCinBers in other forums. That's the report from the enemy front.

Methinks the laddie doth protest too much.

[Jim]

All noted but over the passage of time its motive may have changed to a more benevolent one, which is fair enough.

CommanderPravda?

[Dustin]

Well, as a CraignotBonder Capsule is in a different league than the gent who has just recently found the exit. I also believe Capsule hasn't denied being a CraignotBonder, so I'm not at all surprised - who would be? Capsule at least delivers something more than just his bare hate of Craig and Eon. He's able to put a sentence together and even offers a train of thought, however biased the direction of that - at times derailed - train may happen to be. Not a small feat these days, methinks. His motives may have been initially questionable, but he's hardly working undercover, so nobody will be taken by surprise there. The general thrust of his argument is fairly obvious after all.

It only gets somewhat trite when Craig/QOS/Eon/Ms Broccoli/addfavouritehatfigurehere is denounced for the umpteenth time as a massive failure and doom imminent within the week/month/whatever. That is getting a tiny little bit draining, I've only just learnt to deal with the delay of Saturday's End-of-the-World [just for this season, see you all next autumn], so I'm beginning to have certain doubts about such predictions.

[00 Brosnan]

Some people need to just let it go at this point. Craig isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Things evolve through time, that's how they stay relevant.

The style is a little bit different, but it's still Bond and I'm sure EON will start introducing more and more of the classic Bond elements in terms of gadgets (maybe not quite as outlandish though) and Q (branch) and/or Moneypenny.

Just like Brosnan, Craig's films are successful and have re-energized the series. It's fine to not like something, but to continuously complain & harp on the same points over and over is lame and obviously isn't going to change anything.

This is coming from someone who was not happy to find out Brosnan was not doing a fifth film even though early on all signs and statements pointed to it.

[jaguar007]

Some people need to just let it go at this point. Craig isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Things evolve through time, that's how they stay relevant.

The style is a little bit different, but it's still Bond and I'm sure EON will start introducing more and more of the classic Bond elements in terms of gadgets (maybe not quite as outlandish though) and Q (branch) and/or Moneypenny.

Just like Brosnan, Craig's films are successful and have re-energized the series. It's fine to not like something, but to continuously complain & harp on the same points over and over is lame and obviously isn't going to change anything.

This is coming from someone who was not happy to find out Brosnan was not doing a fifth film even though early on all signs and statements pointed to it.

Well said. It is no different than the people who could not get used to Roger Moore in the 70s.

[Capsule in Space]

You should state "in my opinion Bond is at its best when it embraces the preposterous"

Yes, the statements I've made in this thread are my subjective views.

Many of us like the less preposterous films like FRWL, OHMSS. FYEO, TLD CR etc as opposed to the more preposterous. All Bond films have a bit of preposterousness to them including CR and QoS. On the flip side many of the films have gone overboard with preposterousness like MR and DAD. That is the cycle of the BOnd films, go overboard trying to overdo GF and then reel it back in like FRWL. Remember Bond started with the novels from Ian Fleming and it is not at all un-Bond like to try to get back to a more Fleming like story, whatever that is. Fleming's books even ranged from the more simple realistic to the somewhat preposterous, no reason the films can't do the same.

Obviously I prefer the less preposterous films like FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR (along with GF make my top 5), but I also really like films like DN, TB, TSWLM etc. Actually I also enjoy the far fetched ones as well.

I get what you are saying, Jaguar. I like some of the more serious films too such as OHMSS and FYEO. Those two films followed very preposterous outings which I consider my some of my favorites. I'm fine with the cyclical nature that the Bond series has taken in the past. My argument that I have made before is that the Craig Era was an overcompensation for the preposterous DAD. I would have liked it if Brosnan would have be given the chance to do a FYEO film (it sounds like Brosnan would have liked that too). I think a film like that would have been a great follow-up to DAD, and would have made a great (perhaps final) outing for Brosnan.

Like I state earlier, despite my feelings about Craig, CR would have been far more tolerable (in my opinion, of course) if EON had kept the traditional elements that many on this forum seem to like very much.

Now, as for the question "Favorite (or "Favourite") Craig film", I did vote in the poll. Given no third choice of "neither" I forced myself to make a choice and chose Casino Royale. At least it has a coherent beginning, middle, and end. I really liked some of the production values. There is some beautiful scenery and some lovely set pieces. I liked some of the musical score, and I think the Mads Mikkelson had some good moments.

[Dustin]

The crux of the matter is, whenever we are talking about Bond - film Bond, lit Bond, graphic Bond, youtube Bond - it's not a fixed set of laws of nature we are talking about. Bond as a cultural phenomenon is in constant evolution, just as our culture is. Every once in a while the steps of this evolution, ordinarily small enough to be ignored by most, seem to break the usual pattern and extent. This naturally leads to all kinds of concerned reactions, right down to utter hysterics at times. But the fact remains there is no scientific definition that says THIS IS BOND AND THIS IS NOT BOND. It's entirely subjective and entirely a question of everybody's personal tastes. A postulate such as "This is not Bond!" is quite beside the point, as all the raving diatribe is not going to change anything about Bond being in a constant state of flux.

[Capsule in Space]

I apologize for calling you a troll. I admit I hadn't read the entire thread when I saw your quote to which Mr. Blofeld was replying. Your later statements clarify what you meant.

Thank you coco.

Now, I disagree with part of what you're saying but agree with part, as well--Ian Fleming created the true blueprint for 007, and this is the Bond we see in "FRWL", "LTK", "CR", etc.

I cede that point from the beginning. There is a difference between the "literary" Bond and the "cinematic" Bond. The blueprint for the cinematic Bond was perfected with Goldfinger. I am confused as to what Fleming's blueprint was meant to be. When reading his books I imagined someone tougher looking than David Niven as 007, but it's Niven who Fleming wanted for the role.

However, I completely understand your opinion that the more fun, out of this world Bond films that began with "GF" are almost in their own genre and are what the general public most associate with 007. Personally, I enjoy both equally, so long as the "outlandish" films don't grow too outlandish for their own good ("DAD")

I am the exact opposite because I rather have too outlandish than too serious. I think the series does well when it panders to the general public, but I know this upsets fans who like more of the "FRWL" or "LTK" type of Bond films.

[Capsule in Space]

Some people need to just let it go at this point. Craig isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Things evolve through time, that's how they stay relevant.

The style is a little bit different, but it's still Bond and I'm sure EON will start introducing more and more of the classic Bond elements in terms of gadgets (maybe not quite as outlandish though) and Q (branch) and/or Moneypenny.

Just like Brosnan, Craig's films are successful and have re-energized the series. It's fine to not like something, but to continuously complain & harp on the same points over and over is lame and obviously isn't going to change anything.

This is coming from someone who was not happy to find out Brosnan was not doing a fifth film even though early on all signs and statements pointed to it.

Well said. It is no different than the people who could not get used to Roger Moore in the 70s.

This response is for Jag and 00.

I understand that Daniel Craig is not going anywhere. I post these views of mine as kind of like "letters to the editor". I don't have Barbara Broccoli's phone number so I can't really tell her how I feel. I am a fan of the series and I don't like the direction EON has taken it, and I am hoping that after the Craig era they will give audiences what I refer to as "traditional Bond" films.

Maybe EON will change course after the disastrous QOS. I hope they got the message from the drop off they experienced at the box office, the lackluster DVD sales, the negative critical reception, and the criticism they receive from the Internet boards.

Yes we have Craig for at least one more film, but hopefully that film will have the gunbarrel, Moneypenny, Q, the James Bond theme, some tongue-in-cheek humor, and other Bond elements.

[Capsule in Space]

I'm sorry; I shouldn't have gone on an ad hominem attack. I'll try to combat the points themselves, next time...

Mr. Blofeld, apology accepted.

[Capsule in Space]

George88,

Yes, I am Bond77. It's no secret, and was never meant to be a secret.. I tried to be Bond77 here and it was taken, or something (whatever the case CB.net's program didn't allow me to enter it).

I am Bond77 in other forums as well. I am also "Bond Arrives in Rio" in another forum. I think I am on like four or five different forums. That's probably the case for many of the members here.

I chose my names from the names of songs I like from the Bond soundtracks. "Bond 77" is on the The Spy Who Loved Me soundtrack. "Bond Arrives in Rio" is on the Moonraker soundtrack. "Capsule in Space" is the ominous musical piece from You Only Live Twice.

Like I said it's no secret. The only thing I am slightly embarrassed about is now that I have explained that I chose the name "Bond77" because I like the song, I have at the same time admitted that I am a fan of disco

Anyway George88 what's your name(s) on other forums? If you let me know than I can say "hi" the next time I see you.

Yours Truly,

Bond 77
a.k.a. Capsule in Space
a.k.a. (other names depending on the forum)

[jaguar007]

I cede that point from the beginning. There is a difference between the "literary" Bond and the "cinematic" Bond. The blueprint for the cinematic Bond was perfected with Goldfinger. I am confused as to what Fleming's blueprint was meant to be. When reading his books I imagined someone tougher looking than David Niven as 007, but it's Niven who Fleming wanted for the role.

I am with you on Niven. I picture Bond looking much tougher than Niven. The only reason I can think why Fleming said he wanted him is because he bears a slight physical resemblance to Fleming himself.

[BoogieBond]

Yes we have Craig for at least one more film, but hopefully that film will have the gunbarrel, Moneypenny, Q, the James Bond theme, some tongue-in-cheek humor, and other Bond elements.

I think we may have him for 2 more films, hopefully.
But I think, that all bar the tongue-in-cheek humour have a very good chance of making it to Bond 23. I don't see why a 25 second gunbarrel, chucking the Bond theme in, and having Bond visiting Q-Branch and saying hello to Moneypenny(would take about 2 minutes of screentime tops) is going to drastically affect the film one way or the other. A more realistic gadget not unlike some of those in Casino Royale and like the briefcase in FRWL would not detract from the story at all(I don't agree with the shoe-horning of gadget sequences, but they managed to put in the Car defibrillator in CR which wasn't too hard), and not signify a surrender to formula, you can keep developing the more gritty feel of the Craig era. Also, I do agree that a bit more of Bond's laconic humour, like that in CR, would not go amiss in Bond 23. A splash of colour and epic spectacle, also would not go amiss.
Casino Royale is my favourite Craig film, I liked QOS, but I agree with bringing the fun element back for B23.
Film blueprint or Novel Blueprint(Novels like GF,TB and OHMSS), For me, both contain opposite ends, outrageous villains, diabolical plots, gadgets, beautiful women, exotic locales, death defying action sequences, Q-Branch, Moneypenny and even the Bond, James Bond line, CR (and QOS) for the most part had that, I am hoping B23 ramps it up a bit.

Edited by BoogieBond, 24 May 2011 - 07:11 PM.

[00 Brosnan]

I would have liked it if Brosnan would have be given the chance to do a FYEO film (it sounds like Brosnan would have liked that too). I think a film like that would have been a great follow-up to DAD, and would have made a great (perhaps final) outing for Brosnan.

I admit as a Brosnan fan I would have rather Brosnan gotten a more down-to-earth 5th and final film and then moved on to Craig. I was very disappointed when after a year of back and forth it was made official Brosnan wasn't coming back. He stated a few times during his tenure he thought 5 films was a good number. I really believe had Cubby Broccoli still been around Brosnan would have had a 5th film...he wanted Brosnan (who still looked great as Bond in DAD) & rode Moore past his prime.

I was skeptical of Craig (as I was mad about Brosnan being let go & Craig's non-traditional look for Bond), but decisions were made and there's nothing that can change that now. That said, I love CR and QoS. I love the gritty, dirty style, but do wish there were more cool gadgets and more use of the Bond theme (I think some of that will change come Bond 23 based on previous statements from Craig).

Maybe EON will change course after the disastrous QOS. I hope they got the message from the drop off they experienced at the box office, the lackluster DVD sales, the negative critical reception, and the criticism they receive from the Internet boards.

Yes we have Craig for at least one more film, but hopefully that film will have the gunbarrel, Moneypenny, Q, the James Bond theme, some tongue-in-cheek humor, and other Bond elements.

QoS was not a disaster. It didn't do as well as CR critically or commercially, but it was far..far from a disaster. Personally, I think it's a very exciting film, it could have been a little more balanced and coherent though. At least it was stylish, cool, & sexy and not full of cheese like some Bond films.

Craig is signed for at least Bond 24 as far as I know and I suspect as long as MGM/EON stick to the recently announced "2-year plan" for films he'll be doing Bond 25 as well. Plus as I said, based on previous statements from Craig (& what he wants to happen) I really believe more traditional elements will return for Bond 23.

[Capsule in Space]

I cede that point from the beginning. There is a difference between the "literary" Bond and the "cinematic" Bond. The blueprint for the cinematic Bond was perfected with Goldfinger. I am confused as to what Fleming's blueprint was meant to be. When reading his books I imagined someone tougher looking than David Niven as 007, but it's Niven who Fleming wanted for the role.

I am with you on Niven. I picture Bond looking much tougher than Niven. The only reason I can think why Fleming said he wanted him is because he bears a slight physical resemblance to Fleming himself.

There is kind of a resemblance. That probably had something to do with it, and probably why he was upset when Connery was cast.

Edited by Capsule in Space, 31 May 2011 - 08:33 PM.

[Capsule in Space]

I would have liked it if Brosnan would have be given the chance to do a FYEO film (it sounds like Brosnan would have liked that too). I think a film like that would have been a great follow-up to DAD, and would have made a great (perhaps final) outing for Brosnan.

I admit as a Brosnan fan I would have rather Brosnan gotten a more down-to-earth 5th and final film and then moved on to Craig. I was very disappointed when after a year of back and forth it was made official Brosnan wasn't coming back. He stated a few times during his tenure he thought 5 films was a good number. I really believe had Cubby Broccoli still been around Brosnan would have had a 5th film...he wanted Brosnan (who still looked great as Bond in DAD) & rode Moore past his prime.

I was skeptical of Craig (as I was mad about Brosnan being let go & Craig's non-traditional look for Bond), but decisions were made and there's nothing that can change that now. That said, I love CR and QoS. I love the gritty, dirty style, but do wish there were more cool gadgets and more use of the Bond theme (I think some of that will change come Bond 23 based on previous statements from Craig).

Maybe EON will change course after the disastrous QOS. I hope they got the message from the drop off they experienced at the box office, the lackluster DVD sales, the negative critical reception, and the criticism they receive from the Internet boards.

Yes we have Craig for at least one more film, but hopefully that film will have the gunbarrel, Moneypenny, Q, the James Bond theme, some tongue-in-cheek humor, and other Bond elements.

QoS was not a disaster. It didn't do as well as CR critically or commercially, but it was far..far from a disaster. Personally, I think it's a very exciting film, it could have been a little more balanced and coherent though. At least it was stylish, cool, & sexy and not full of cheese like some Bond films.

Craig is signed for at least Bond 24 as far as I know and I suspect as long as MGM/EON stick to the recently announced "2-year plan" for films he'll be doing Bond 25 as well. Plus as I said, based on previous statements from Craig (& what he wants to happen) I really believe more traditional elements will return for Bond 23.

Both you and Boogiebond discuss the possibility of Bond 23 having more "Bond elements". I hope that is the case. It's fine that you liked QOS, but it didn't feel like James Bond at all to me. We can't agree on Craig, but it looks like you and a lot of people on this thread agree that there needs to be more Bond elements, and I am glad to see that.

[TCK]

Both you and Boogiebond discuss the possibility of Bond 23 having more "Bond elements". I hope that is the case. It's fine that you liked QOS, but it didn't feel like James Bond at all to me. We can't agree on Craig, but it looks like you and a lot of people on this thread agree that there needs to be more Bond elements, and I am glad to see that.

What's a Bond element ? Is something findable in Fleming, or is something which the movies "created", just like dialogues with Moneypenny, or Q and his silly gadgets for instance ? For... you know Fleming and many movies of the saga are completely different, and you seem mix up both.

Same question for the next underlined point. You didn't feel Quantum of Solace as a Bond movie, but, you know, it is probably more Bondian (according to the true Bond, Fleming's) than The spy who loved me, which is your favorite (according to your profile, at least).

There are movies which are Bondian according to the books, and others which are Bondian according to trivial details, but my definition of Bondian only includes the first point, and I find the second very... superficial.