11 replies to this topic

[Bond Maniac]

Hello everybody...

For the past few months i have been reading a lot of opinions on other forums about the Craig Bond Era and i would really like to know more about your thoughts about it.
The James Bond series has always been regarded as a Thread Starter since the days of Dr. No. There has been a lot of imitations on the way but Bond always remained "the event". The one everybody had to see to know what crazy thing Broccoli would pull off.
Since Pierce and know Craig, things are quite different. Specially Craig Bond seems to follow a tendency of imitation. CR is regarded by pretty much everyone as a excellent Bond Movie and one of the best but QOS has divided the fans opinion.
I mean, this new Bond is very much like Jack Bauer, from "24" with the moves of Jason Bourne. Specially the way in which QOS was edited and filmed with the shaky can. The whole "rogue" agent against his company is pretty much a sum of all "24" seasons.
So, what are you thoughts on this?

Just would like to add that this is not my particular opinion but what i have been reading about the internet. Just wanted to make it clear and read your opinions.

Edited by Bond Maniac, 16 August 2010 - 04:20 PM.

[Aris007]

Look, I think that the whole Bourne-Bond comparison is not fair. And this is why these are two different types of films. The one(Bourne) is a thouroughbred action film, while the other (Bond) is a spy thriller. For this I believe that Craig's era shouldn't be taken as an imitation to Bourne, but as a return-to-base era, in which everybody returned to the basic Connery recipe.

Now about the shaky camera I don't think that this declares imitation to Greengrass's taste. For me that's up to the director and if we had a different director than Foster then we wouldn't have the shaky camera and to be honest we didn't have THAT many shaky camera moments as in Bourne.

So for me Craig's era can be described as Thread Continuer.

[jaguar007]

In the 1960s, the Bond films were fresh and started a new trend in film making. Ever since the 70s, the Bond films have usually followed the current trend in film making at the time, this is not new with the Craig Bond films. LALD lends to the blacksploitation films of the early 70s. TMWTGG is a salute to the Hong Kong Kung fu films of the 70s. Moonraker clearly owes much to Star Wars. I really don't see much similarity between the last two Bond films and the Bourne series apart from the quick cut editing in QoS. And that quick cut editing is hardly unique to the Bourne films as well. Almost every action film over the last 5 years uses that type of editing. It is the current trend in action films (as annoying as it is). Even Christopher Nolan used it in Batman.

[The Shark]

Look, I think that the whole Bourne-Bond comparison is not fair. And this is why these are two different types of films. The one(Bourne) is a thouroughbred action film, while the other (Bond) is a spy thriller.

Ideally perhaps. But it's fair to say, that ever since 1977, Bond films have been primarily action-adventure films with titanic set-pieces. In that sense, Bond and Bourne are both of the same genre, even if they stem from two diametrically opposed sensibilities.

For this I believe that Craig's era shouldn't be taken as an imitation to Bourne, but as a return-to-base era, in which everybody returned to the basic Connery recipe.

I think it's fair to say that while some elements of the Craig era are clearly Connery era pastiches, that is not the only sapling of inspiration. Bourne, Batman Begins, the Harry Palmer thrillers, various 70s paranoiac thrillers, Tony Scott's thrillers etc... Are all quite lucid afflatuses to the Craig Bond era.

I think it's fair to say that the Connery and even Dalton pictures never were so puritanically po-faced, portentous and lacking in wit and vigour. They all have much more colour and imagination left to them. Craig's era feels tired and unoriginal in comparison, like a more gritty and credible continuation of the Brosnan era.

As terrific an actor as Craig is, until certain stale Brosnan-era leftovers permanently leave the series (i.e. Arnold, Dench and Purvis and Waste), then I won't consider it much more than that. I'm afraid to say.

Now about the shaky camera I don't think that this declares imitation to Greengrass's taste. For me that's up to the director and if we had a different director than Foster then we wouldn't have the shaky camera and to be honest we didn't have THAT many shaky camera moments as in Bourne.

To be clear, there's very little hand-held camera action in the Craig films. Personally I wish there were much more. What the majority of whingers like myself seem to have issue with, is the rapid-cutting, and drab, desaturated cinematography, digital grading and lighting. That indecipherable current in QOS's action was now supposedly designed by Forster to represent Bond's neurotic states of mind, but comes off to viewer more like a pale imitation of Greengrass's Bourne films, and pseudo-Cinéma vérité style.

[Aris007]

I think it's fair to say that while some elements of the Craig era are clearly Connery era pastiches, that is not the only sapling of inspiration. Bourne, Batman Begins, the Harry Palmer thrillers, various 70s paranoiac thrillers, Tony Scott's thrillers etc... Are all quite lucid afflatuses to the Craig Bond era.

I think it's fair to say that the Connery and even Dalton pictures never were so puritanically po-faced, portentous and lacking in wit and vigour. They all have much more colour and imagination left to them. Craig's era feels tired and unoriginal in comparison, like a more gritty and credible continuation of the Brosnan era.

As terrific an actor as Craig is, until certain stale Brosnan-era leftovers permanently leave the series (i.e. Arnold, Dench and Purvis and Waste), then I won't consider it much more than that. I'm afraid to say.

Those Brosnan's era left-overs however didn't stop CR, which obviously for me has nothing to do with the pictures we had from 1971 to 2002. Less OTT action scenes, less plastic-characters, less useless cliches. So for me slowly, but solidly we're heading for the Bond 60s again. And I say slowly, cause we can't talk about for an original Connery era come-back with a female M and a soft score, which suits more to a comedic action movie rather than in a spy thriller.

[The Shark]

I think it's fair to say that while some elements of the Craig era are clearly Connery era pastiches, that is not the only sapling of inspiration. Bourne, Batman Begins, the Harry Palmer thrillers, various 70s paranoiac thrillers, Tony Scott's thrillers etc... Are all quite lucid afflatuses to the Craig Bond era.

I think it's fair to say that the Connery and even Dalton pictures never were so puritanically po-faced, portentous and lacking in wit and vigour. They all have much more colour and imagination left to them. Craig's era feels tired and unoriginal in comparison, like a more gritty and credible continuation of the Brosnan era.

As terrific an actor as Craig is, until certain stale Brosnan-era leftovers permanently leave the series (i.e. Arnold, Dench and Purvis and Waste), then I won't consider it much more than that. I'm afraid to say.

Those Brosnan's era left-overs however didn't stop CR, which obviously for me has nothing to do with the pictures we had from 1971 to 2002. Less OTT action scenes, less plastic-characters, less useless cliches. So for me slowly, but solidly we're heading for the Bond 60s again. And I say slowly, cause we can't talk about for an original Connery era come-back with a female M and a soft score, which suits more to a comedic action movie rather than in a spy thriller.

For me there were still plenty of plastic characters dotted around CR. Obanno, Mollaka, Villiers, Dimitrios, Carlos, Kratt, Valenka, Gettler etc... All ciphers. Plot or exposition devices with no life, character, or any good lines. They were all fairly clichéd and glossy too, even the much over-appraised Mads Mickelson interpretation of Le Chiffre. They could have made him an ugly, obese oaf of a man with heart problems, but they decided to cast a wooden Danish pretty boy instead, and make the character (and his henchman) another charisma-free copy of Renard.

There were still needless Brosnan throwback OTT action sequences too - Construction site chase, Miami airport and the sinking house.

Somewhat of an improvement, but still very much in the vein of TWINE and GE.

[Bond Maniac]

I think it's fair to say that while some elements of the Craig era are clearly Connery era pastiches, that is not the only sapling of inspiration. Bourne, Batman Begins, the Harry Palmer thrillers, various 70s paranoiac thrillers, Tony Scott's thrillers etc... Are all quite lucid afflatuses to the Craig Bond era.

I think it's fair to say that the Connery and even Dalton pictures never were so puritanically po-faced, portentous and lacking in wit and vigour. They all have much more colour and imagination left to them. Craig's era feels tired and unoriginal in comparison, like a more gritty and credible continuation of the Brosnan era.

As terrific an actor as Craig is, until certain stale Brosnan-era leftovers permanently leave the series (i.e. Arnold, Dench and Purvis and Waste), then I won't consider it much more than that. I'm afraid to say.

Those Brosnan's era left-overs however didn't stop CR, which obviously for me has nothing to do with the pictures we had from 1971 to 2002. Less OTT action scenes, less plastic-characters, less useless cliches. So for me slowly, but solidly we're heading for the Bond 60s again. And I say slowly, cause we can't talk about for an original Connery era come-back with a female M and a soft score, which suits more to a comedic action movie rather than in a spy thriller.

I actually think that the score is nice, not as good as the Connery ones but good. Now, i don´t have nothing against Dench but her character should have been scrapped from the start in favor of a male M. I´m not against womens in power but it do not fits the purpose of the series that it was a fresh start. I mean, she was Brosnans boss for god sake.

[The Shark]

There's a few nice moments in the score here and there (such as the last 30 seconds or so of Blunt Instrument and Dinner Jackets), but the rest is standard, sterile, computerised filler from Mr. Arnold.

Bring back Éric Serra or Bill Conti.

[Ambler]

For me there were still plenty of plastic characters dotted around CR. Obanno, Mollaka, Villiers, Dimitrios, Carlos, Kratt, Valenka, Gettler etc...

Because James Bond and many of the plot elements are outlandish, it's vital that such characters are well realised. Tom Mankiewicz knew that, which is why Diamonds Are Forever has more memorable characters than the rest of the films put together. Alas, Purvis and Wade cannot write convincing adults or clever, witty dialogue.

The writers are the main problem with today's Bond, not the casting. For instance, Ivana Miličević is completely forgettable in Casino Royale yet pivotal in the final episode of House S4. No point blaming her. It's all in the writing, folks...

[Aris007]

It's all in the writing, folks...

No, I disagree on that. For me a big role plays the cast. No matter if you have the best screenwriters out there, if the cast is weak you don't go anywhere.

[Bond Maniac]

It's all in the writing, folks...

No, I disagree on that. For me a big role plays the cast. No matter if you have the best screenwriters out there, if the cast is weak you don't go anywhere.

Yes i agree with both of you. It has to have a good cast and good writers. I also believe that it is time to change these writers, put some new blood on the franchise. Since Craig wants to depart from the whole Quantum angle, this is the perfect opportunity to do that.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I'd like to see things we've never seen of Bond before, like him in a Naval uniform overlooking security on some important sea mission (although it might be seen as a rip-off of Hunt for Red October).

I'd like to see Bond in New Orleans, and often thought Live and Let die should have been set there instead of Harlem. I can't remember if they had any scenes later in the story though, although I remember that awful red-necked sheriff who seemed to be anticipating Jackie Gleason in the Cannonball Run movies.

Or even how about James Bond in Hollywood, his cover? Gigolo for a aging Hollywood actress.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 30 August 2010 - 05:43 PM.