363 replies to this topic

[Capsule in Space]

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.

Right, I see where you are coming from. Some of us discussed this earlier in this very thread about the "literary Bond" and the "cinematic Bond". When I discuss "Bond elements" I am discussing the elements established by Cubby Broccoli, et al. The Spy Who Loved Me is my favorite Bond film because I think it incorporates the elements of the "cinematic Bond" perfectly. I think "Goldfinger" accomplishes this too. These two films are blueprints for anyone wanting to make a great "cinematic Bond" film.

Some of the "cinematic Bond" elements are not found in Fleming. His "literary Bond" is perhaps most easily found in Dalton's portrayal of Bond.

I don't see the literary Bond in Craig's portrayal. He doesn't match Fleming's physical description (Fleming wanted David Niven cast in the role). Craig's character doesn't have the intelligence of Fleming's Bond, nor the attention to details. Fleming's Bond would have most certainly cared how his drink was made, but Craig doesn't seem to in Casino Royale . This is why I argue that a new character has been made that is different from the "literary Bond", and the "cinematic Bond". What do you think?

[TCK]

Right, I see where you are coming from. Some of us discussed this earlier in this very thread about the "literary Bond" and the "cinematic Bond". When I discuss "Bond elements" I am discussing the elements established by Cubby Broccoli, et al. The Spy Who Loved Me is my favorite Bond film because I think it incorporates the elements of the "cinematic Bond" perfectly. I think "Goldfinger" accomplishes this too. These two films are blueprints for anyone wanting to make a great "cinematic Bond" film.

Here I agree, and that's perhaps why I don't enjoy both, but I include Goldeneye in the list. They are all entertaining but they don't correspond to my vision about Bond. I prefer From Russia with love, For your eyes only and The world is not enough.

Some of the "cinematic Bond" elements are not found in Fleming. His "literary Bond" is perhaps most easily found in Dalton's portrayal of Bond.

Dalton's Bond is just Craig's Bond twenty years earlier, with dark hair, more experience and less muscular.

I don't see the literary Bond in Craig's portrayal. He doesn't match Fleming's physical description (Fleming wanted David Niven cast in the role).

Daniel Craig's physical is off topic. We discuss about Bondian elements in a Bond movie, not about Craig's physical, don't we ? But if you want my opinion, I would have prefered Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman for Casino Royale, but Craig conviced me. And the talent comes first, the physical second. Also, a physical doesn't distort the character, but a nationality or a job change, yes. That's the problem with actors like Rupert Everett, Goran Visnjic or an American.

Craig's character doesn't have the intelligence of Fleming's Bond, nor the attention to details. Fleming's Bond would have most certainly cared how his drink was made, but Craig doesn't seem to in Casino Royale . This is why I argue that a new character has been made that is different from the "literary Bond", and the "cinematic Bond". What do you think?

But... You seem hate Casino and Quantum only because of Craig, don't you ? The attention about details is interesting but it's not (to me at least) the most important thing we should have in a Bond movie. The human-side of Bond, the relationship with the women the vilains and M, the sexuality of Bond and the vilains, a realistic plot, exoticism and thoughts about life, love... they are all things which form "Fleming's Bond and Fleming's atmosphere", even if they are not the only ones. Next, you can add Q and Moneypenny to have both a cinematic and a literary Bond, but I prefer add a great soundtrack, production and direction, and a dark atmosphere, nearly paranoiac. From Russia with love, The living daylights, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace have all those things. They are great James Bond movies.

I don't think Craig's Bond is a new character. Moore's was, but the change had begun with Diamonds are forever. Craig's Bond is just an updating of Fleming's and Dalton's character.

[BoogieBond]

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.

Connery's first 4(DN-TB), OHMSS and even CR pass a good resemblence to the Books IMO. Are these films "Bondian" enough ? in which case the appearence of Q, Moneypenny, the Bond theme etc in many of these films(excluding CR and Q in DN) wasn't too much of a cross to bear. For the sake of a few minutes screentime, I don't see these making a difference, and why omitting them somehow makes the film more worthy/progressive. I am all for taking the Bond character to new places, and placing a fresh slant on the films, but I don't see how taking these elements out achieves it. Bond is a derring-do adventurer after all.

Edited by BoogieBond, 01 June 2011 - 12:01 AM.

[TCK]

Connery's first 4(DN-TB), OHMSS and even CR pass a good resemblence to the Books IMO. Are these films "Bondian" enough ? in which case the appearence of Q, Moneypenny, the Bond theme etc in many of these films(excluding CR and Q in DN) wasn't too much of a cross to bear. For the sake of a few minutes screentime, I don't see these making a difference, and why omitting them somehow makes the film more worthy/progressive. I am all for taking the Bond character to new places, and placing a fresh slant on the films, but I don't see how taking these elements out achieves it. Bond is a derring-do adventurer after all.

I agree for Dr No, From Russia with love, Thunderball, On her Majesty's secret service and Casino Royale, but I withdraw Goldfinger (it's the first gap with the books to me) and I add For your eyes only, both Dalton, The world is not enough and Quantum of Solace. Those ten films are my favourite and to me they are the closest ones to Fleming.

I think the problem is taken by the wrong way. Q is an armourer, not a silly-gadgets-maker, and Moneypenny is M's personal secretary. They don't characterize James Bond, he's characterized by a behaviour, feelings, his life... I'm not against a return of Moneypenny (even though I would prefered Loelia Ponsonby) but Q -as the Q we had during 17 movies (Goldfinger-Die another day)- no. That's not good at all with Craig's Bond. If the new Q is the Q of Dr No or From Russia with love, why not, but that's all.

I enjoy Desmond's Q, but he distorts James Bond. Now, when a man has a gadget, one says "he's James Bond !", but James Bond is not only a man with gadgets. That's the problem with Q. There was too much mistakes made, I don't want their return.

http://starsmedia.ig...537468_640w.jpg

If the new Q looks like this character, that suits me !

[Capsule in Space]

Here I agree, and that's perhaps why I don't enjoy both, but I include Goldeneye in the list. They are all entertaining but they don't correspond to my vision about Bond. I prefer From Russia with love, For your eyes only and The world is not enough.

I actually really like For Your Eyes Only, and The World is Not Enough is my favorite Brosnan outing. It seems like we are in a minority here because I see a lot of people trashing The World is Not Enough.

Dalton's Bond is just Craig's Bond twenty years earlier, with dark hair, more experience and less muscular.

My opinion is that Dalton was for more sophisticated and charming in the role than Craig.

Daniel Craig's physical is off topic. We discuss about Bondian elements in a Bond movie, not about Craig's physical, don't we ? But if you want my opinion, I would have prefered Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman for Casino Royale, but Craig conviced me. And the talent comes first, the physical second. Also, a physical doesn't distort the character, but a nationality or a job change, yes. That's the problem with actors like Rupert Everett, Goran Visnjic or an American.

Yes, I always want people's opinions because I am very interested in what people have to say!

I agree with your opinion regarding Owen and Jackman. I would have actually preferred Brosnan for one more outing that served as his swan song, but I do think Owen or Jackman would have been excellent choices.

Now, you don't put much emphasis on the physical element, and you say let's focus on the Bondian elements. However, isn't the "Bond look" a major "Bondian element"?

But... You seem hate Casino and Quantum only because of Craig, don't you ?

I've stated before that even though I think Craig is wrong for the role, I could tolerate him if EON was producing "cinematic" Bond films. It's not just the actor for me, but the content as well.

The attention about details is interesting but it's not (to me at least) the most important thing we should have in a Bond movie. The human-side of Bond, the relationship with the women the vilains and M, the sexuality of Bond and the vilains, a realistic plot, exoticism and thoughts about life, love... they are all things which form "Fleming's Bond and Fleming's atmosphere", even if they are not the only ones. Next, you can add Q and Moneypenny to have both a cinematic and a literary Bond, but I prefer add a great soundtrack, production and direction, and a dark atmosphere, nearly paranoiac. From Russia with love, The living daylights, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace have all those things. They are great James Bond movies.

I am fine with some of those elements, but in a toned down form. For Your Eyes Only and The World is Not Enough are probably good examples. I think the Craig era has been laying on the "realistic" aspects, if you will, way to heavily.

[Cornbread17]

Here is an idea, when 2012 rolls around, Wilson and Broccoli need to edit CR and QoS together for one giant megafilm, such as The Godfather Saga you know?

[TCK]

I actually really like For Your Eyes Only, and The World is Not Enough is my favorite Brosnan outing. It seems like we are in a minority here because I see a lot of people trashing The World is Not Enough.

The world is not enough is also my favorite Brosnan, the ambiance of which is one of the most Bondian to me.

My opinion is that Dalton was for more sophisticated and charming in the role than Craig.

Dalton was the closest to Fleming and the perfect actor to portray James Bond, so he's certainly for more sophisticated and charming than Craig... But Craig is an excellent actor, probably the most talented with Connery and Dalton, and even if I find him a bit too muscular in Casino Royale, in Quantum of Solace he's perfect, with his destroyed black tie, his spiky hair, and his eye of the tiger (in particular in the "RUN" scene, Field's death).

I agree with your opinion regarding Owen and Jackman. I would have actually preferred Brosnan for one more outing that served as his swan song, but I do think Owen or Jackman would have been excellent choices.

Now, you don't put much emphasis on the physical element, and you say let's focus on the Bondian elements. However, isn't the "Bond look" a major "Bondian element"?

It's a major element, but not the only one. Bond is not only a man who wears a black tie and has dark hair, it's a set of things to be 007. If you don't appreciate Daniel Craig's physical, I can't change your opinion. It will be an endless debate. But as I wrote before, even if I really enjoy both Casino and Quantum, the fact remains that I find Craig too muscular in Casino.

I've stated before that even though I think Craig is wrong for the role, I could tolerate him if EON was producing "cinematic" Bond films. It's not just the actor for me, but the content as well.

Same response here. Everybody has a different approach of James Bond and what he should be. I can't change your opinion and this endless debate will be useless if it continues. To you James Bond needs to be cinematic (if I have well understood) but to me he has to be faithful to the books. I respect your point of view but I don't share it. The ambiance of the two last films is very faithful to Fleming's books, and to me it's the more important. The hair colour is a detail, albeit it's surprising at the beginning.

[mttvolcano]

The world is not enough is also my favorite Brosnan, the ambiance of which is one of the most Bondian to me.

I am glad I am not alone!

Anyway, Casino was a masterpiece, while it went slow to establish a firm setting, it was great! Now Quantum was the opposite for me, as I watch more and more I do like it better, but I still believe it went too fast and didn't establish the characters enough. One has to watch both films to understand the plot of Quantum at least.

[BoogieBond]

I agree for Dr No, From Russia with love, Thunderball, On her Majesty's secret service and Casino Royale, but I withdraw Goldfinger (it's the first gap with the books to me) and I add For your eyes only, both Dalton, The world is not enough and Quantum of Solace. Those ten films are my favourite and to me they are the closest ones to Fleming.

If the new Q is the Q of Dr No or From Russia with love, why not, but that's all.

http://starsmedia.ig...537468_640w.jpg

If the new Q looks like this character, that suits me !

I can find common ground with you. The Q and Moneypenny of From Russia with Love would be fine in terms of screen time and realism of the gadgets. Craig's Bond does not fit into the OTT scenes in some of the other films. I also agree with the additions of For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights as resembling their short story counterparts. In both of these films I did not find the classic cinematic Bond elements OTT, but had a bit more of the fun factor. Some people would appreciate that. Agreed also the "Q" in CR, low profile that he is, fits with the Craig era. I think I could enjoy my more stripped down "Bondian" elements and you would feel they still resembled the Novel Bond universe. So we are all happy.
I think thats more or less been done with CR, just ramp up the Bondian level slightly(To a FRWL or TLD level) and I would be happy.

[TCK]

Anyway, Casino was a masterpiece, while it went slow to establish a firm setting, it was great! Now Quantum was the opposite for me, as I watch more and more I do like it better, but I still believe it went too fast and didn't establish the characters enough. One has to watch both films to understand the plot of Quantum at least.

You're perfectly right. And if Quantum of Solace is so different of Casino Royale, it's because the Bond of Casino Royale is very different of the Bond of Quantum of Solace, because of Vesper's death. And both movies are concentrated on Bond, that's why there is a fast production, for Bond is lost and destroyed.

I can find common ground with you. The Q and Moneypenny of From Russia with Love would be fine in terms of screen time and realism of the gadgets. Craig's Bond does not fit into the OTT scenes in some of the other films. I also agree with the additions of For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights as resembling their short story counterparts. In both of these films I did not find the classic cinematic Bond elements OTT, but had a bit more of the fun factor. Some people would appreciate that. Agreed also the "Q" in CR, low profile that he is, fits with the Craig era. I think I could enjoy my more stripped down "Bondian" elements and you would feel they still resembled the Novel Bond universe. So we are all happy.
I think thats more or less been done with CR, just ramp up the Bondian level slightly(To a FRWL or TLD level) and I would be happy.

Absolutely, they struck a balance in this movie.

[BJMDDS]

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.

Stocks, or Makeshift Python, or whatever other name you go by now from the year 1988, if you want ANTHROPOLOGICAL AMUSEMENT just look at the cranial structure of the current actor portraying Bond now.

[BJMDDS]

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)

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule.

[Jim]

OK, squabbles or personal grudges brought in from other websites, we can live without. Please don't do this. Thanks.

[Capsule in Space]

Dalton was the closest to Fleming and the perfect actor to portray James Bond, so he's certainly for more sophisticated and charming than Craig... But Craig is an excellent actor, probably the most talented with Connery and Dalton, and even if I find him a bit too muscular in Casino Royale, in Quantum of Solace he's perfect, with his destroyed black tie, his spiky hair, and his eye of the tiger (in particular in the "RUN" scene, Field's death).

Well one thing we can agree on is that it was a good thing that Craig laid off the creatine for QOS. He was too ripped for the role of a secret agent. It looked very silly.

Same response here. Everybody has a different approach of James Bond and what he should be. I can't change your opinion and this endless debate will be useless if it continues. To you James Bond needs to be cinematic (if I have well understood) but to me he has to be faithful to the books. I respect your point of view but I don't share it. The ambiance of the two last films is very faithful to Fleming's books, and to me it's the more important. The hair colour is a detail, albeit it's surprising at the beginning.

I guess my final argument is that I don't think the new films are as faithful to the books as some believe. The appearance is just one aspect they get wrong, and I think Fleming would have been upset with Craig, considering he found Connery to be "too uncouth".

I don't see Craig's parkour or running through walls being Flemingesque, nor playing Texas Hold'em. That is a game for those wearing sunglasses and hooded sweatshirts on ESPN, or frat boys at college campuses throughout the United States. Having them play that game instead of Chemin de Fer doesn't fit well with a high roller, dinner jacket only setting in the French Riviera. I think that would have made the snobbish Fleming pretty upset as well.

I've already discussed other reasons why these new films don't capture the literary Bond. So let describe what I believe to be the "new" character. We have a character that mixes the anti-hero Steve McQueen type that was popular in the late 1960's - early 1970's, with the modern day action heroes you see portrayed in Matt Damon and Jason Statham films. I'm sure many here will disagree, but that to me is a new James Bond. He plays the role brooding and with a pout instead of with "a wink and a smile". I think the "cinematic Bond" incorporates the "wink and a smile" approach (obviously), and the "literary Bond" incorporates both the brooding and the smiling.

To summarize:

The "cinematic Bond" enjoys life and embraces being 007.

The literary Bond finds pleasure in life, but struggles with with some of the issues and heartache that goes along with the profession.

Craig's Bond doesn't enjoy life; he tolerates it.

The world is not enough is also my favorite Brosnan, the ambiance of which is one of the most Bondian to me.

Before I go into this I'd like to state that I don't find these discussions useless in the sense that we are debating a subject that we are fond of, and it gives something else for us to think about. It makes it all the more enjoyable that you discuss these things in a cordial manner. I very much appreciate that, and I have enjoyed our conversations.

Now, on to something that I am happy to see we agree upon. I just watched The World is Not Enough again recently, and I would enjoy discuss it with you and mttvolcano, and anyone else who is a fan. There is already a thread for it in the Pierce Brosnan section that I plan on posting in pretty soon.

I hope to see you folks there.

[Capsule in Space]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule.

Hi BJMDDS! It's good to see you here.

BJ, as you can see above I tried to reach out to George88, but he has yet to respond. Maybe he will surface in another forum to say "hello", but it seems unlikely because I don't think he likes me.

[TCK]

I guess my final argument is that I don't think the new films are as faithful to the books as some believe. The appearance is just one aspect they get wrong, and I think Fleming would have been upset with Craig, considering he found Connery to be "too uncouth".

I don't see Craig's parkour or running through walls being Flemingesque, nor playing Texas Hold'em. That is a game for those wearing sunglasses and hooded sweatshirts on ESPN, or frat boys at college campuses throughout the United States. Having them play that game instead of Chemin de Fer doesn't fit well with a high roller, dinner jacket only setting in the French Riviera. I think that would have made the snobbish Fleming pretty upset as well.

I've already discussed other reasons why these new films don't capture the literary Bond. So let describe what I believe to be the "new" character. We have a character that mixes the anti-hero Steve McQueen type that was popular in the late 1960's - early 1970's, with the modern day action heroes you see portrayed in Matt Damon and Jason Statham films. I'm sure many here will disagree, but that to me is a new James Bond. He plays the role brooding and with a pout instead of with "a wink and a smile". I think the "cinematic Bond" incorporates the "wink and a smile" approach (obviously), and the "literary Bond" incorporates both the brooding and the smiling.

To summarize:

The "cinematic Bond" enjoys life and embraces being 007.

The literary Bond finds pleasure in life, but struggles with with some of the issues and heartache that goes along with the profession.

Craig's Bond doesn't enjoy life; he tolerates it.

I agree about the poker, and even if it's a game I enjoy playing, for James, I prefer baccarat or blackjack for instance. And I also agree about the smashing wall dressed with an Hawaiian shirt. But doesn't this scene show a Bond with an extreme courage ? That's what I remember when I see this pursuit. And, don't forget to take Bond's learning and beginning into account. Indeed. It's an important fact of the two films, and it's a thing Fleming never wrote anything about.

Before I go into this I'd like to state that I don't find these discussions useless in the sense that we are debating a subject that we are fond of, and it gives something else for us to think about. It makes it all the more enjoyable that you discuss these things in a cordial manner. I very much appreciate that, and I have enjoyed our conversations.

Now, on to something that I am happy to see we agree upon. I just watched The World is Not Enough again recently, and I would enjoy discuss it with you and mttvolcano, and anyone else who is a fan. There is already a thread for it in the Pierce Brosnan section that I plan on posting in pretty soon.

I hope to see you folks there.

I'll look at it. I do a Bond marathon until Bond23 (mainly watching films and reading Fleming) and I'm to Dr No. I watched it this week and I'll probably put my review on the appropriate topic tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. I won't put a review of The world is not enough on its topic (I'll do it when I watch), but I'll surely have a look and give my opinion about some things of this movie. Perhaps we'll find common ground.

[Capsule in Space]

I guess my final argument is that I don't think the new films are as faithful to the books as some believe. The appearance is just one aspect they get wrong, and I think Fleming would have been upset with Craig, considering he found Connery to be "too uncouth".

I don't see Craig's parkour or running through walls being Flemingesque, nor playing Texas Hold'em. That is a game for those wearing sunglasses and hooded sweatshirts on ESPN, or frat boys at college campuses throughout the United States. Having them play that game instead of Chemin de Fer doesn't fit well with a high roller, dinner jacket only setting in the French Riviera. I think that would have made the snobbish Fleming pretty upset as well.

I've already discussed other reasons why these new films don't capture the literary Bond. So let describe what I believe to be the "new" character. We have a character that mixes the anti-hero Steve McQueen type that was popular in the late 1960's - early 1970's, with the modern day action heroes you see portrayed in Matt Damon and Jason Statham films. I'm sure many here will disagree, but that to me is a new James Bond. He plays the role brooding and with a pout instead of with "a wink and a smile". I think the "cinematic Bond" incorporates the "wink and a smile" approach (obviously), and the "literary Bond" incorporates both the brooding and the smiling.

To summarize:

The "cinematic Bond" enjoys life and embraces being 007.

The literary Bond finds pleasure in life, but struggles with with some of the issues and heartache that goes along with the profession.

Craig's Bond doesn't enjoy life; he tolerates it.

I agree about the poker, and even if it's a game I enjoy playing, for James, I prefer baccarat or blackjack for instance. And I also agree about the smashing wall dressed with an Hawaiian shirt. But doesn't this scene show a Bond with an extreme courage ? That's what I remember when I see this pursuit. And, don't forget to take Bond's learning and beginning into account. Indeed. It's an important fact of the two films, and it's a thing Fleming never wrote anything about.

Before I go into this I'd like to state that I don't find these discussions useless in the sense that we are debating a subject that we are fond of, and it gives something else for us to think about. It makes it all the more enjoyable that you discuss these things in a cordial manner. I very much appreciate that, and I have enjoyed our conversations.

Now, on to something that I am happy to see we agree upon. I just watched The World is Not Enough again recently, and I would enjoy discuss it with you and mttvolcano, and anyone else who is a fan. There is already a thread for it in the Pierce Brosnan section that I plan on posting in pretty soon.

I hope to see you folks there.

I'll look at it. I do a Bond marathon until Bond23 (mainly watching films and reading Fleming) and I'm to Dr No. I watched it this week and I'll probably put my review on the appropriate topic tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. I won't put a review of The world is not enough on its topic (I'll do it when I watch), but I'll surely have a look and give my opinion about some things of this movie. Perhaps we'll find common ground.

It looks like we were able to find some common ground here too.

I will probably get to my TWINE comments either today or tomorrow.

I will also be on the lookout for your Dr. No commentary. It's not one of my favorite Bond films, but I have a soft spot for any Bond film plot that involves space.

I am interested in what you have to say about this first Bond outing. I bet you have an affinity for the film and I want see your perspective. Are you going to post your commentary in the Connery thread?

I'll be on the lookout for your future film commentaries as well.

Hope you have fun with Dr. No!

[TCK]

I bet you have an affinity for the film and I want see your perspective. Are you going to post your commentary in the Connery thread?

Of course I do ! It's one of my favourite, perhaps even in the top five. Anyway, my second favourite Connery/Bond movie behind From Russia with love.

I'll post it in the CBn reviews Dr No thread.

[BJMDDS]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule.

Hi BJMDDS! It's good to see you here.

BJ, as you can see above I tried to reach out to George88, but he has yet to respond. Maybe he will surface in another forum to say "hello", but it seems unlikely because I don't think he likes me.

George 88 logged on yesterday, changed his birthdate to unkown, and disappeared. The film studies student Stocks must have hit the road.

Edited by BJMDDS, 06 June 2011 - 11:16 PM.

[Capsule in Space]

I bet you have an affinity for the film and I want see your perspective. Are you going to post your commentary in the Connery thread?

Of course I do ! It's one of my favourite, perhaps even in the top five. Anyway, my second favourite Connery/Bond movie behind From Russia with love.

I'll post it in the CBn reviews Dr No thread.

Excellent I will look for it there

Edited by Capsule in Space, 07 June 2011 - 02:38 AM.

[Capsule in Space]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule.

Hi BJMDDS! It's good to see you here.

BJ, as you can see above I tried to reach out to George88, but he has yet to respond. Maybe he will surface in another forum to say "hello", but it seems unlikely because I don't think he likes me.

George 88 logged on yesterday, changed his birthdate to unkown, and disappeared. The film studies student Stocks must have hit the road.

Hmm...well I've reached out to George88, or stocks, or whoever he his, and he has failed to reply to my post. I've listed the forums I frequent and the names I use to post, so he knows where to find me if he wants either a friendly discussion and/or a friendly debate. I am always open for both.

I don't know what his problem is except that I figure he doesn't like me for some reason, and was only interested in disparaging me then moving along.

I find this entire "George88" episode to be extremely odd.

[George88]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule

No, I'm neither of those people.

Capsule - don't dislike you; don't you you sufficiently well to dislike you. What I do dislike is your attempt to ingratiate yourself when it's pretty clear from the quoted post above that your reasons for signing up to this board - Commander Pravda no less - were not in good faith; additionally, the reference to this as "the enemy camp".

However, it may well be that the more positive approach of CBn has mellowed your perspective and that's all to the good I guess. To respect Jim's wishes, I won't raise the point again.

[Capsule in Space]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule

No, I'm neither of those people.

Capsule - don't dislike you; don't you you sufficiently well to dislike you. What I do dislike is your attempt to ingratiate yourself when it's pretty clear from the quoted post above that your reasons for signing up to this board - Commander Pravda no less - were not in good faith; additionally, the reference to this as "the enemy camp".

However, it may well be that the more positive approach of CBn has mellowed your perspective and that's all to the good I guess. To respect Jim's wishes, I won't raise the point again.

Hello George88. It's good to see you finally show up.

You won't tell me who you are in other forums, so I cannot be sure if you are those people or not. Why you won't tell me who you are I guess is your own business.

I am not sure if I understand your intention in all of this, but I can explain where I am coming from.

The reason for joining this forum was to discuss what I like and dislike about the James Bond series. I also joined to give support to the few members who are open about not liking the Craig era, and whom I felt were being unfairly singled out for disparagement, discouragement, and ridicule. These reasons have not changed, and the short time I have been here this forum has accumulated dozens of posts made by me that reflect those original intentions.

So what haven't I done in good faith?

Furthermore, I am just as strident with my opinions as I was when I first joined the forum. So, I don't understand your comments about me being "mellowed". I certainly haven't been changed, one way or the other, by what you deem to be the "positive approach to CBn". In fact I have yet to even witness this "positive approach". I have actually experienced quite the opposite of that from several members in this forum, hence it feeling as if I am in an "enemy camp". I just haven't allowed that to deter me from sharing my point of view.

Perhaps you've been mistreated in other forums I frequent and that motivated you to raise this point in the first place. If that is the case then show me where you have experienced a similar type of vitriol that I experience on a weekly basis in this forum, and we will see what can be done about it.

Now that I have the good fortune of meeting you, I sincerely hope that I will be seeing you again. In this forum and other forums as well.

In the meantime, since you have already inserted yourself in this conversation by displaying your proficiency with cutting and pasting forum comments, why don't you share with us your "favourite Daniel Craig film"? I forced myself to make a choice and chose Casino Royale. What's your favorite?

[George88]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule

No, I'm neither of those people.

Capsule - don't dislike you; don't you you sufficiently well to dislike you. What I do dislike is your attempt to ingratiate yourself when it's pretty clear from the quoted post above that your reasons for signing up to this board - Commander Pravda no less - were not in good faith; additionally, the reference to this as "the enemy camp".

However, it may well be that the more positive approach of CBn has mellowed your perspective and that's all to the good I guess. To respect Jim's wishes, I won't raise the point again.

Hello George88. It's good to see you finally show up.

You won't tell me who you are in other forums, so I cannot be sure if you are those people or not. Why you won't tell me who you are I guess is your own business.

I am not sure if I understand your intention in all of this, but I can explain where I am coming from.

The reason for joining this forum was to discuss what I like and dislike about the James Bond series. I also joined to give support to the few members who are open about not liking the Craig era, and whom I felt were being unfairly singled out for disparagement, discouragement, and ridicule. These reasons have not changed, and the short time I have been here this forum has accumulated dozens of posts made by me that reflect those original intentions.

So what haven't I done in good faith?

Furthermore, I am just as strident with my opinions as I was when I first joined the forum. So, I don't understand your comments about me being "mellowed". I certainly haven't been changed, one way or the other, by what you deem to be the "positive approach to CBn". In fact I have yet to even witness this "positive approach". I have actually experienced quite the opposite of that from several members in this forum, hence it feeling as if I am in an "enemy camp". I just haven't allowed that to deter me from sharing my point of view.

Perhaps you've been mistreated in other forums I frequent and that motivated you to raise this point in the first place. If that is the case then show me where you have experienced a similar type of vitriol that I experience on a weekly basis in this forum, and we will see what can be done about it.

Now that I have the good fortune of meeting you, I sincerely hope that I will be seeing you again. In this forum and other forums as well.

In the meantime, since you have already inserted yourself in this conversation by displaying your proficiency with cutting and pasting forum comments, why don't you share with us your "favourite Daniel Craig film"? I forced myself to make a choice and chose Casino Royale. What's your favorite?

I think I voted in the poll for Casino Royale, but it was a couple of years ago now.

[BJMDDS]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule

No, I'm neither of those people.

Capsule - don't dislike you; don't you you sufficiently well to dislike you. What I do dislike is your attempt to ingratiate yourself when it's pretty clear from the quoted post above that your reasons for signing up to this board - Commander Pravda no less - were not in good faith; additionally, the reference to this as "the enemy camp".

However, it may well be that the more positive approach of CBn has mellowed your perspective and that's all to the good I guess. To respect Jim's wishes, I won't raise the point again.

Neither one of them? Nice try. You know they are one and the same. Keep up the charade though.

[Capsule in Space]

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule

No, I'm neither of those people.

Capsule - don't dislike you; don't you you sufficiently well to dislike you. What I do dislike is your attempt to ingratiate yourself when it's pretty clear from the quoted post above that your reasons for signing up to this board - Commander Pravda no less - were not in good faith; additionally, the reference to this as "the enemy camp".

However, it may well be that the more positive approach of CBn has mellowed your perspective and that's all to the good I guess. To respect Jim's wishes, I won't raise the point again.

Hello George88. It's good to see you finally show up.

You won't tell me who you are in other forums, so I cannot be sure if you are those people or not. Why you won't tell me who you are I guess is your own business.

I am not sure if I understand your intention in all of this, but I can explain where I am coming from.

The reason for joining this forum was to discuss what I like and dislike about the James Bond series. I also joined to give support to the few members who are open about not liking the Craig era, and whom I felt were being unfairly singled out for disparagement, discouragement, and ridicule. These reasons have not changed, and the short time I have been here this forum has accumulated dozens of posts made by me that reflect those original intentions.

So what haven't I done in good faith?

Furthermore, I am just as strident with my opinions as I was when I first joined the forum. So, I don't understand your comments about me being "mellowed". I certainly haven't been changed, one way or the other, by what you deem to be the "positive approach to CBn". In fact I have yet to even witness this "positive approach". I have actually experienced quite the opposite of that from several members in this forum, hence it feeling as if I am in an "enemy camp". I just haven't allowed that to deter me from sharing my point of view.

Perhaps you've been mistreated in other forums I frequent and that motivated you to raise this point in the first place. If that is the case then show me where you have experienced a similar type of vitriol that I experience on a weekly basis in this forum, and we will see what can be done about it.

Now that I have the good fortune of meeting you, I sincerely hope that I will be seeing you again. In this forum and other forums as well.

In the meantime, since you have already inserted yourself in this conversation by displaying your proficiency with cutting and pasting forum comments, why don't you share with us your "favourite Daniel Craig film"? I forced myself to make a choice and chose Casino Royale. What's your favorite?

I think I voted in the poll for Casino Royale, but it was a couple of years ago now.

Your response still leaves us with more questions than answers.

Makeshift Python at the now defunct MI6 forum and Stocks at DCINB are his other names he goes by Capsule

No, I'm neither of those people.

Capsule - don't dislike you; don't you you sufficiently well to dislike you. What I do dislike is your attempt to ingratiate yourself when it's pretty clear from the quoted post above that your reasons for signing up to this board - Commander Pravda no less - were not in good faith; additionally, the reference to this as "the enemy camp".

However, it may well be that the more positive approach of CBn has mellowed your perspective and that's all to the good I guess. To respect Jim's wishes, I won't raise the point again.

Neither one of them? Nice try. You know they are one and the same. Keep up the charade though.

Why did George88 start all of this just to go shrink away back into the Fan Fiction section? Very puzzling.

[BJMDDS]

Because that is where prior film studies majors in college like to spend most of their time.

[Jim]

Alternatively, he or she accepted the request to desist.

[00 Brosnan]

The cinematic Bond and the literary Bond have always been quite different. I suppose Dalton was the closest to the literary Bond though.

I find it odd that so many people (not just here) praise Craig's Bond for bringing the character "back to his roots" and/or being very close to Fleming's Bond...when he really isn't. In reality, he's really the most "out-there" Bond of all the official actors. I do like Craig as Bond, but more traditional elements need to be involved in a modern way instead of just leaving them out for the sake of it.

[Capsule in Space]

Because that is where prior film studies majors in college like to spend most of their time.

Hopefully not too much time. I hope he is taking the time to study things like f-stops and the 180 degree rule as well.

Anyway, I have reached out to him in other forums. We will have to wait and see if he responds.

The cinematic Bond and the literary Bond have always been quite different. I suppose Dalton was the closest to the literary Bond though.

I find it odd that so many people (not just here) praise Craig's Bond for bringing the character "back to his roots" and/or being very close to Fleming's Bond...when he really isn't. In reality, he's really the most "out-there" Bond of all the official actors. I do like Craig as Bond, but more traditional elements need to be involved in a modern way instead of just leaving them out for the sake of it.

I couldn't agree more with your comments. It's fine that people like Craig, but recognize that he is, as you put it, an "out-there" Bond. His Bond is a different character that isn't that comparable to the "literary" and "cinematic" Bonds.