86 replies to this topic

[Louis Armstrong]

I've enjoyed seeing them both in theatres, but they don't really hold a candle to some of the old ones.

As to the question posed by the topic, no, I'm not happy with it. When EON claimed they were doing a reboot, I figured it would be a return to making spy films. And a chance to start over. I mean, the whole point (or so I thought) was that they finally had another Ian Fleming novel to use - and I expected an overhaul in genre and tone. Not a mish-mash of 'grittiness', the aesthetics of the Connery films and the poor writing of the Brosnan films. Why the DB5 again? Why the tuxedo scene in CR (where it's implied that a tux is pretty much his costume)? Why the golden girl reference in QoS? His era so far seems like a wasted opportunity to me.

[batmatt92]

Bottom line: I have faith that I will see a quality Bond that meets my expectations and lets me walk out of the theater with a smile on my face and legitimate excitement. Problem is, I thought the same thing back in 2008.

Uh, do you mean that you thought the same thing back in 2006?

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I am happy with Craig. I can't say the same for his second outing, but, with the advent of Casino Royale, I have very HIGH expectations for him. After seeing everything that he did in Royale and Quantum (he did do his own stunts, the ones that I can actually see through the bad editing), I can't wait to see what his third outing has in store...

[JimmyBond]

Bottom line: I have faith that I will see a quality Bond that meets my expectations and lets me walk out of the theater with a smile on my face and legitimate excitement. Problem is, I thought the same thing back in 2008.

Uh, do you mean that you thought the same thing back in 2006?

No, I think he's correct. QoS did come out in 2008 after all.

[Stephen Spotswood]

No I'm not,

Craig is turning Bond into a generic action hero,

A genre where Bond led the way

He's now following.

They need to find an actor who looks like this guy, but imagine him with less slicked hair, a facial scar, and less costume jewelry:

http://www.findagrav...10304910936.jpg

[The Shark]

I'd rather an actor that looked like this, and funnily enough with already have that with Craig, minus long black brylcreemed hair.

And how is Craig's Bond any more generic than Bruckheimer action man/male model Brosnan?

Edited by The Shark, 18 December 2009 - 04:09 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I didn't like brosnan

He was hopelessly pallid and anemic after the more dynamic Timothy Dalton, but he was stuck with generic plots too.

[batmatt92]

No, I think he's correct. QoS did come out in 2008 after all.

Ah, okay. I thought he was trying to say that seeing CR (in 2006) might have immediately given him very high expectations for QoS, and so he doesn't want to be let down again with the next one.

Anyway, I suppose I should give my own opinion here instead of just nitpicking at other people's posts...

I am very very happy with Craig's films. They're really the best thing since 1987-1989 for the franchise. Casino Royale is now may favorite Bond film, and Quantum of Solace was pretty good too IMO. Craig is a damn good actor and I think he's even better than Dalton (who was my favorite up till CR). As another poster said, the fact that they chose Marc Forster to direct QoS shows that they're really serious about making quality films. I'm also glad they're done with the whole Vesper/Mr. White/renegade Bond/out for revenge storyline so that they can focus on new stories, new villains, etc. And so, I eagerly await the next installment!

[Stephen Spotswood]

I'd rather an actor that looked like this, and funnily enough with already have that with Craig, minus long black brylcreemed hair.

You consider that long hair?

Funny thing is unlike the rendering commissioned by Ian Fleming, Bond was described as someone who never put anything in his hair causing a long forelock to fall over his forehead (kind of like Superman).

With Craig's choppy looking grunt haircut, especially in CR, it doesn't look like anything could fall over.

And I always thought that rendering looked more like Hugh Fraser.

http://www.filmdope..../6062-14653.gif

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 21 December 2009 - 01:50 PM.

[DR76]

I'm more than happy with Craig's tenure. I only hope and pray that EON Productions doesn't stick him with a crap Bond story.

[Agent Leiter]

I'd say I am happy with the Craig era so far... although I would personally like to see a change of direction.

Let's see him have some fun with the role!

[Agent 76]

I'm really happy with this era so far. Because Daniel Craig is the most similar, to the idea of an actor portraying James Bond that I like: Timothy Dalton.

And Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are quite good entertainment!

I'm really eager to see Bond 23.

[Judo chop]

Yes, I'm happy with it. EON has taken on a new mindset, that being the old one of the 60's.

They are taking casting much more seriously. Gone are the flavor-of-the-month bimbos. Characters pop off the screen, as opposed to poop on the screen.

They are taking the action much more seriously. Bond is breaking records once again and our lead actor is taking on more stunts than should be expected.

They are taking the writing much more seriously. The humor is adult again, and the fantastic and dramatic elements are controlled.

They are showing maturity and a committment to the series with forethought and a sense of continuity within the adventures.

I think anyone who isn't generally pleased with how Bond is going is being deliberately grumpy. Either that or they haven't seen a Bond film since THUNDERBALL.

[dodge]

Yes, I'm happy with it. EON has taken on a new mindset, that being the old one of the 60's.

They are taking casting much more seriously. Gone are the flavor-of-the-month bimbos. Characters pop off the screen, as opposed to poop on the screen.

They are taking the action much more seriously. Bond is breaking records once again and our lead actor is taking on more stunts than should be expected.

They are taking the writing much more seriously. The humor is adult again, and the fantastic and dramatic elements are controlled.

They are showing maturity and a committment to the series with forethought and a sense of continuity within the adventures.

I think anyone who isn't generally pleased with how Bond is going is being deliberately grumpy. Either that or they haven't seen a Bond film since THUNDERBALL.

Sorry, old friend. But I've seen allllll the films before and after TB...and I'm not happy at all. I will allow that it's too soon to cast in stone Craig's final contribution. The third film should tell the tale. Right now, though, he's a real mixed bag for me: brilliant work in CR...substandard work in QoS, probably thanks to Marc Forster. May his third Bond lighten up a little, have some decently directed/shot action--and a script that hasn't been messed with till it looks and smells like Alpo.

[Judo chop]

I think anyone who isn't generally pleased with how Bond is going is being deliberately grumpy. Either that or they haven't seen a Bond film since THUNDERBALL.

Sorry, old friend. But I've seen allllll the films before and after TB...and I'm not happy at all.

I understand that QOS wasn't your cup o' tea, dodge, but are you saying you would honestly take the situation of 1973, or 1985, or 1995, or 1999 over the situation now?

I said 'generally' pleased. Perhaps you think QOS was a wreck, but as you said, that may have been all one man's doing. Regardless of what the outcome was in 2008, the mindset from up on high has certainly not looked this good in a long long time.

[sharpshooter]

Regardless of what the outcome was in 2008, the mindset from up on high has certainly not looked this good in a long long time.

I agree. For me, this is the best era since, well, Connery. If Quantum of Solace is as bad as things get with Craig, colour me excited.

[dodge]

I think anyone who isn't generally pleased with how Bond is going is being deliberately grumpy. Either that or they haven't seen a Bond film since THUNDERBALL.

Sorry, old friend. But I've seen allllll the films before and after TB...and I'm not happy at all.

I understand that QOS wasn't your cup o' tea, dodge, but are you saying you would honestly take the situation of 1973, or 1985, or 1995, or 1999 over the situation now?

I said 'generally' pleased. Perhaps you think QOS was a wreck, but as you said, that may have been all one man's doing. Regardless of what the outcome was in 2008, the mindset from up on high has certainly not looked this good in a long long time.

Well, we'll see. I've tried to temper my sourness over QoS with the awareness that, in the fullness of time, Craig's era may be recalled as second only to Connery's. And I'm happily willing to wait till his third before making pronouncements. It's hard for me to assess the 'situation' now when it will take three films at least to make a proper era, imo. I'll wait, keep my fingers crossed and hope that, once again, under a proper Bond director, Daniel Craig soars to the heavens.

[Publius]

Incredibly so. They're two of my four or five favorite.

Now, the big question is, where do they go from here? An actor's third Bond film says a lot about what more is to come and what his legacy will be. Goldfinger is great and a mix between spy thriller and camp, TSWLM is mostly kitchen sink camp with a few brilliant divergences (think the submarine control room infiltration scenes), Dalton's third was sadly aborted but GE was born of the process, and TWINE basically summed up how schizophrenic Brosnan's era was (bad attempts at serious introspection alternating with bland but bombastic action).

I love that QOS actually moved even further away from so many elements of the formula than CR did, and I hope they don't feel compelled to lump them back in.

And they better continue the Quantum storyline. Vesper's chapter is over, but the one on this nefarious new enemy has only just begun.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Great post, Pub; it's well-stated, and I agree with you on every point (minus TSWLM, as I think the "murdered lover" subplot is one of the best in the series).

Bring on 2011!

[The Shark]

(minus TSWLM, as I think the "murdered lover" subplot is one of the best in the series).

It's an interesting conception, but poorly executed. Sir Roger's good as always, especially when it comes to the more dramatic scenes, but Barbara Bach has got to be one of the worst Bond girls of all time, at least the most vacuous or wooden.

Edited by The Shark, 26 December 2009 - 10:52 PM.

[jamie00007]

Immensely happy. Prior to 2006, I never had much hope to ever see a Bond film I liked as much the old films, now I couldnt be more excited at the prospect of the next Bond film. Casino Royale is my second favorite Bond film, and I rate QoS highly too. imo, Craig's Bond is the first true successor to the character established in the early Connery movies.

I do think they are running a fine line though. I think QoS was a great film and Im definitely open to the occasional Bond film with a difference, but I think they need to give an occasional "traditional" Bond film just to keep things in perspective, and I hope thats what they do with the next film rather than continue along the QoS path. In the next film, I want to see an angst-free Bond sent on a mission that has no personal ties, doesnt have issues with M, and has some fun.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Barbara Bach has got to be one of the worst Bond girls of all time, at least the most vacuous or wooden.

I dunno; I think Lois Chiles gives her a run for her money...

[Stephen Spotswood]

Barbara Bach has got to be one of the worst Bond girls of all time, at least the most vacuous or wooden.

I dunno; I think Lois Chiles gives her a run for her money...

What about Tanya Roberts?

Although I have to admit I liked her talent in That 70's Show

Both of them.

[The Shark]

Barbara Bach has got to be one of the worst Bond girls of all time, at least the most vacuous or wooden.

I dunno; I think Lois Chiles gives her a run for her money...

What about Tanya Roberts?

Tanya Roberts isn't as bad. Yes she's bland, but she's isn't necessarily wooden, and manages to give her lines a sense of conviction.

Definitely one of the best screamers in the series. More than what can be said about Barbara Bach.

Edited by The Shark, 28 December 2009 - 05:28 AM.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Barbara Bach has got to be one of the worst Bond girls of all time, at least the most vacuous or wooden.

I dunno; I think Lois Chiles gives her a run for her money...

What about Tanya Roberts?

Tanya Roberts isn't as bad. Yes she's bland, but she's isn't necessarily wooden, and manages to give her lines a sense of conviction.

Definitely one of the best screamers in the series. More than what can be said about Barbara Bach.

I like Tanya Roberts' looks, without any doubt, but her screaming "JAAAMMMEESSS!!!" was really too much for me at a certain point.

[Bondesque]

I have enjoyed Craigs era thus far. I loved CR as it was a throwback to the early Connery years (I would have cut some of the actions sequences back). QOS was not as good. It felt rushed, and wasnt allowed the time to mature as a story. Even so, I would give it a nod over the best of Broz, Moore or Dalton. I really appreciate Craigs acting chops and the depth he brings to the role. The writing/Directing in CR was superb. Hopefully 2011 will bring a suspenseful story with well developed characters.

[Publius]

I like Tanya Roberts' looks, without any doubt, but her screaming "JAAAMMMEESSS!!!" was really too much for me at a certain point.

Had Bond actually left her in the elevator shaft, A View to a Kill would be my favorite Bond movie of all time.

[blueman]

Immensely happy. Prior to 2006, I never had much hope to ever see a Bond film I liked as much the old films, now I couldnt be more excited at the prospect of the next Bond film. Casino Royale is my second favorite Bond film, and I rate QoS highly too. imo, Craig's Bond is the first true successor to the character established in the early Connery movies.

I do think they are running a fine line though. I think QoS was a great film and Im definitely open to the occasional Bond film with a difference, but I think they need to give an occasional "traditional" Bond film just to keep things in perspective, and I hope thats what they do with the next film rather than continue along the QoS path. In the next film, I want to see an angst-free Bond sent on a mission that has no personal ties, doesnt have issues with M, and has some fun.

^ This.

I nudge QOS over CR, but both rate very high on my Bond list. Agree with the last bit too, a good old GF-style caper film would be very welcome about now, thought I kinda think we won't be getting such a beast. Pins and needles, pins and needles.

[ChrissBond007]

I'm happy that EON wanted to continue this way and especially that they're using Fleming titles. Altrough I must admit, that I'm not a big fan of QOS. The idea of it sounded pretty good, but the result was dissapointing. It's quick editing just ruins the plot in my opinion. I enjoy it as a movie, but as a Bondmovie it's not really my preference. Casino Royale on the other hand was brilliant and one of the best in the series.

What I just hope for the future of this era is that they are going to bring characters like Moneypenny and Q back at some point.

Edited by ChrissBond007, 01 January 2010 - 10:31 PM.

[elizabeth]

while i do think he's doing a great job, i don't think bond films will ever be the same as they used to be.