271 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

But there WAS a gunbarrel moment in both Craig's films, no?

How sad that this is all still people discuss two years down the line...

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t get that either. Well, I guess with BOND 23 the gun barrel will return to the beginning of the film. But, of course, the Sony/Paramount/whoever-logo will certainly give plenty to hate then.

[Mr_Wint]

At least they've woken up to the fact that starting and ending the film with James Bond almost exactly the same makes for a hellishly boring experience.

This is another view that started with TWINE, and I am honestly sick and tired of it. How much did Bond change in FRWL, GF, TB or TSWLM...? Would anyone consider these films to be hellishly boring? Seeing Bond do what he does best is more than enough for me.

[Lachesis]

If this thread is soley about where or even if we have a gun barrel shot, or where or if the James Bond theme is used then I think we all have to concede they are really insignificant elements in the overall scope of what the film is doing. However for myself they are changes for changes sake manifestations of a lack of confidence or respect in what has gone before and fuel for a much larger and more inherent problem, a pretentious and indulgent agenda that is atypical and imo unworthy of the Bond creation or his legacy.

There is nothing new about Bond being reinvented or remained.....the only differences with CR is the anal need to explain the process....or rather, it seems to me, to excuse the character. Greengrass' attack on the validity and integrity of Bond seems to be the new template as the aim moves to demystify and normalize Bond. A unique approach to the whole genre.....so unique it is virtually a genre all itself has been lost or Mia for two films, I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet, but if that self conscious denial remains into the next film I will be tremendously disappointed as my ability to enjoy Bond does depend on it not being weighted down with pretentious illusions or agendas.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

This thread is really, really sad.

From the title I was hoping for a critical discussion about the current state of James Bond films and I was greeted with someone whining the latest game doesn't have a gunbarrel sequence.

[Zorin Industries]

manifestations of a lack of confidence or respect in what has gone before and fuel for a much larger and more inherent problem, a pretentious and indulgent agenda that is atypical and imo unworthy of the Bond creation or his legacy.

Rubbish. Sorry, but it is.

[SecretAgentFan]

Let´s break it down to clear the air.

There are two conflicting opinions here:

1. EON does not care about the traditional Bond anymore (with all its elements in their original place) and wants to deconstruct everything in order to gain respectability.

2. EON does care about the traditional Bond and wants to rethink everything in order to render it consistently relevant, something they did through all of the almost 50 years of production. That does not mean they would not use the elements again in BOND 23.

Needless to say (so I´ll say it anyway), I would go with No.2. However I do sympathize with those who are hoping for a more relaxed, "revenge-less" mission next time. But I never thought that EON would want to continue portraying Bond as haunted and conflicted. CR and QOS are indeed one big story and that has ended now. QUANTUM, the organization, will resurface - but the Vesper connection is done with now, only a faint thought in the back of Bond´s head.

[DamnCoffee]

This thread is really, really sad.

From the title I was hoping for a critical discussion about the current state of James Bond films and I was greeted with someone whining the latest game doesn't have a gunbarrel sequence.

Um. I clearly stated in my post that I was afraid that the producers are straying too far away from the Bond series. As good as BloodStone is it doesn't really feel much like a Bond game, simply because of the fact that the soundtrack is just action music. Not one hint of the Bond theme. It's a great Bond game, no doubt about it. It just doesn't feel Bondain. In some places it does, but most of it does not. I am not whining, either. This is a ing forum. I have a right to an opinion.

Put it this way. I love Casino Royale and most of Quantum. The Bond in Blood Stone captures the essence of the two films. It just isn't the Bond Craig should be now. He's evolved. He deserves the Bond theme, I can see him beginning to evolve into the Bond we know and love. He's been evolving ever since the end of Casino Royale, I think it's time for him to be the James Bond. I'm not knocking his performance or anything, it's just that I want him to have a proper adventure, with the gunbarrel and the Bond theme. Blood Stone capures this in a way, but the Bond theme would just make it SO much better.

[Germanlady]

This is old, but we have heard this a number of times from him. Just thought to bring it up again.

Craig rules out Quantum sequel

DANIEL CRAIG has revealed that Moneypenny and Q could be returning in the next Bond movie.

And he insisted it won't be a sequel to Quantum of Solace.

"No ing way. I'm done with that story," said the 007 star.

"I want to lie on a beach for the first half an hour of the next movie drinking a cocktail.

"We've finished this story as far as I'm concerned. We've got a great set of bad guys. There is an organisation that we can use whenever we want to. The relationship between Bond and M is secure and Felix is secure.

"Let's try and find where Moneypenny came from and where Q comes from. Let's do all that and have some fun with it."


http://www.thesun.co...l#ixzz14TgnLfSB

Edited by Germanlady, 06 November 2010 - 02:28 PM.

[darthbond]

I'm listening to the soundtrack to TLD, and I do notice, even subtly within the music, that quite a bit was lost in the translation into CR. I originally accepted this as collateral damage in order to make a great movie. Now that it seems the games are following the pattern of the Craig Movies. I had sincerely hoped that, if Carig's film won't come out for a while, that the Bond games would establish him as a "classic" Bond. The only negative review I've ever heard of Casino Royale was based on one fact. It was too different from the previous films. But I didn't care at the time. I loved CR. As I know many others did as well. I had wondered that if we had gotten a few more movies like CR or QoS, would it condition us so that we couldn't stand to watch the amazing previous 20 years. I found this to be quite the contrary. I enjoy the previous films a lot more. I'm puting my vote up to see Craig in a more classic Bond film. Bring back Q, Moneypenny, Martinis, and especially, the Bond Theme.

darthbond

[Iroquois]

Did no one read my previous post? These new games feature nearly all the traditional bond elements down to Q Branch and martinis. The gunbarrel is in Blood stone as an unlockable and the bond theme plays constantly throughout Goldeneye. Goldeneye also ends with bond dismissing m's phone call to get it on with Natalya. Bond is completely back to normal, for crying out loud.

Edited by Iroquois, 06 November 2010 - 03:30 PM.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

This thread is really, really sad.

From the title I was hoping for a critical discussion about the current state of James Bond films and I was greeted with someone whining the latest game doesn't have a gunbarrel sequence.

Um. I clearly stated in my post that I was afraid that the producers are straying too far away from the Bond series. As good as BloodStone is it doesn't really feel much like a Bond game, simply because of the fact that the soundtrack is just action music. Not one hint of the Bond theme. It's a great Bond game, no doubt about it. It just doesn't feel Bondain. In some places it does, but most of it does not. I am not whining, either. This is a ing forum. I have a right to an opinion.

Put it this way. I love Casino Royale and most of Quantum. The Bond in Blood Stone captures the essence of the two films. It just isn't the Bond Craig should be now. He's evolved. He deserves the Bond theme, I can see him beginning to evolve into the Bond we know and love. He's been evolving ever since the end of Casino Royale, I think it's time for him to be the James Bond. I'm not knocking his performance or anything, it's just that I want him to have a proper adventure, with the gunbarrel and the Bond theme. Blood Stone capures this in a way, but the Bond theme would just make it SO much better.

Yeah I saw the thread post. You are unhappy about the lack of an overused guitar riff and meaningless, yet iconic gunbarrel motive in the latest game.

You have every right to express your opinion as do I: this thread is really, really sad.

[Iroquois]

This thread is more worrying than anything, CR and QOS were all one origin story, so they were allowed to mess around with them a bit. Now that's over, Bond is renewed, and has moved on. The only reason some elements were missing from the games is because they are saving them for the next film, it would be very strange to be first introduced to the new Q and Moneypenny in a video game, same with the gunbarrel's placement. The fact that Q-Branch is mentioned in blood stone shows that they are planning on re-introducing Q. You may say that they are only games, but Blood Stone and Goldeneye are the best references as to where the series is headed now.

It's like people are REALLY scraping about for problems.

[Lachesis]

manifestations of a lack of confidence or respect in what has gone before and fuel for a much larger and more inherent problem, a pretentious and indulgent agenda that is atypical and imo unworthy of the Bond creation or his legacy.

Rubbish. Sorry, but it is.

Maybe so, indeed I hope so, but there is an impression and effect I personally perceive (independent of where the gunbarrel appears or what outfit Bond wears) and my long term interest and enjoyment of pretty much all other aspects of the franchise make me wish to understand it.

[Cabainus]

This thread is really, really sad.

From the title I was hoping for a critical discussion about the current state of James Bond films and I was greeted with someone whining the latest game doesn't have a gunbarrel sequence.

Um. I clearly stated in my post that I was afraid that the producers are straying too far away from the Bond series. As good as BloodStone is it doesn't really feel much like a Bond game, simply because of the fact that the soundtrack is just action music. Not one hint of the Bond theme. It's a great Bond game, no doubt about it. It just doesn't feel Bondain. In some places it does, but most of it does not. I am not whining, either. This is a ing forum. I have a right to an opinion.

Put it this way. I love Casino Royale and most of Quantum. The Bond in Blood Stone captures the essence of the two films. It just isn't the Bond Craig should be now. He's evolved. He deserves the Bond theme, I can see him beginning to evolve into the Bond we know and love. He's been evolving ever since the end of Casino Royale, I think it's time for him to be the James Bond. I'm not knocking his performance or anything, it's just that I want him to have a proper adventure, with the gunbarrel and the Bond theme. Blood Stone capures this in a way, but the Bond theme would just make it SO much better.

Yeah I saw the thread post. You are unhappy about the lack of an overused guitar riff and meaningless, yet iconic gunbarrel motive in the latest game.

You have every right to express your opinion as do I: this thread is really, really sad.

It always fascinates me how those that deem a thread to be unworthy, are those that will post the most replies.

Anyways, good initial post and I agree with most of your comments. Origins story has been achieved by way of the last two films, and now looking forward to seeing Craig in a more familiar Bond. As for the staples such as the Bond theme, gun barrel, tux etc that some deem boring/outdated, I see no reason why these should not instead be ‘embraced’. To have such a heritage with so many iconic references spanning 50 years, is a magnificent feat.

[Zorin Industries]

But BLOOD STONE is a computer game with all the strict structure of gameplay. It is a game not a movie. Of course it is going to have action music.

This has raised some interesting debate and discussion in a drought period, but surely the main argument here is like saying "I am worried that Cameron will screw up AVATAR II - a film he hasn't even made yet - because the levels on the XBox game merchandising tie-in are not right and employs a different composer to the film".

[Major Tallon]

A lot of us have a nostalgic fondness for the Moneypenny and Q scenes, but there are reasons for letting these much-beloved characters rest.

A major problem with having Q and Moneypenny scenes is that they take up time that could be better used developing the story and the characters. With Moneypenny, they've had casual exchanges, breezy exchanges, concerned exchanges, and suggestive (even smutty) exchanges, and at the end of DAD had the character embarrass herself. They've pretty well exhausted the possibilities of new things to do with Moneypenny unless they send her into the field, as in the (quite wonderful) Moneypenny Diaries novels. But Moneypenny was the central character of those books, and to do that in the movies would change the nature of the series, making them "Bond and Penny" films, something I venture to say EON doesn't want to do. So they've pretty well reached the end of things to do with Moneypenny. I've no real objection to having scenes with her, but writing her in at this point serves no real purpose.

The problem is worse with Q. To include him, they've got to take story time having Bond visit Q's lab and having Bond make quips while an exasperated Q tries to brief him. The real problem with Q is that this gadget business then drives the structure of the film, because Bond has to make some use of the gadgets he's given, and we all sit there, waiting for Bond to use the ray gun in his shoelace that's going to save the day. For me, it's much more effective when we watch Bond, using his wits, his nerve, and his gun, forced to work out his own solutions to the dangers he'll confront.

I've enjoyed the Q and Moneypenny scenes, but I'm at a point where I think it's more boring to have them than it is to let them go.

[DamnCoffee]

"I am worried that Cameron will screw up AVATAR II - a film he hasn't even made yet - because the levels on the XBox game merchandising tie-in are not right and employs a different composer to the film".

I'm expecting him to screw up Avatar 2 anyway. The first one was AWFUL.

[Germanlady]

A lot of us have a nostalgic fondness for the Moneypenny and Q scenes, but there are reasons for letting these much-beloved characters rest.

A major problem with having Q and Moneypenny scenes is that they take up time that could be better used developing the story and the characters. With Moneypenny, they've had casual exchanges, breezy exchanges, concerned exchanges, and suggestive (even smutty) exchanges, and at the end of DAD had the character embarrass herself. They've pretty well exhausted the possibilities of new things to do with Moneypenny unless they send her into the field, as in the (quite wonderful) Moneypenny Diaries novels. But Moneypenny was the central character of those books, and to do that in the movies would change the nature of the series, making them "Bond and Penny" films, something I venture to say EON doesn't want to do. So they've pretty well reached the end of things to do with Moneypenny. I've no real objection to having scenes with her, but writing her in at this point serves no real purpose.

The problem is worse with Q. To include him, they've got to take story time having Bond visit Q's lab and having Bond make quips while an exasperated Q tries to brief him. The real problem with Q is that this gadget business then drives the structure of the film, because Bond has to make some use of the gadgets he's given, and we all sit there, waiting for Bond to use the ray gun in his shoelace that's going to save the day. For me, it's much more effective when we watch Bond, using his wits, his nerve, and his gun, forced to work out his own solutions to the dangers he'll confront.

I've enjoyed the Q and Moneypenny scenes, but I'm at a point where I think it's more boring to have them than it is to let them go.

For me, those Q and Moneyp. situations always gave the films their light touch and I am ready now to have those again.
But I agree, when it comes to revolve the plot around the gadgets. Give him one or two not over the top ones and it will work out fine though.

[Zorin Industries]

"I am worried that Cameron will screw up AVATAR II - a film he hasn't even made yet - because the levels on the XBox game merchandising tie-in are not right and employs a different composer to the film".

I'm expecting him to screw up Avatar 2 anyway. The first one was AWFUL.

There we will agree.

[TheREAL008]

The real blame goes to Jason Bourne.

The reason being is that with the success of those three movies, and EON copying the format for Bond has alienated the Bond fanbase of sorts. I honestly saw no reason for the originator to start copying the imitator. But when CR was released I was taken aback and pleasantly delighted because EON outclassed Bourne by using it's own formula against them. Not very original but I felt that Royale left a powerful message that Bond could be adaptable and yet still be original about it at the same time.

QOS on the other hand, while being a good movie - isn't much of a Bond film but more of a 'paint by numbers' Borune film disguised as Bond. I've already voiced my opinions about Quantum (Good, but not great) so I won't bore anyone with my thoughgts again.

Why Dame Judi Dench is still around is anyone's guess. (since the current head of MI6 is a male) And along with Purvis and Wade still along, it tends to spoil the feel of the new era a bit since they realistically should have been gone after DAD.

In closing I do have hope that 23 will be better than QoS and that things will pick up from there. We all just need to be paitent and see whatever may come to pass.

[SecretAgentFan]

BOURNE did nothing Bond did not already do before.

The hand-held shots, the fast editing during action sequences? That´s what the Bond films revolutionized action films with during the 60´s. Greengrass only cranked up the volume, went for even faster cutting. Suddenly, the press tries to milk this and put down Bond for being outdated.

Rubbish.

And look closely, QOS may be featuring fight scenes coordinated by the BOURNE stunt coordinator. But the editing is vastly different. It accelerates, then slows down again - while Greengrass only went for faster, harder, tighter. QOS is elegant and deliberate. BOURNE is just going full throttle.

[TheREAL008]

Perhaps.

[dodge]

Well, I'll be honest, I think Craig is an amazing Bond and CR was a brilliant, brilliant film, but for whatever reason, my interest and enthusiasm for the film Bond has been diminishing at a mysterious and alarming rate. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm growing up. But there is (was) an element of fantasy that I love about James Bond. I want to live in his world, walk in his footsteps, and, hence, rewatch the films again and again (and go to the next film for the same experience). So while I enjoy the Craig films a great deal and appreciate the "more realistic" approach...it's not really a world I want to live in (or revisit al that often). While I think they've achieved some kind of artistic "respectability", I really think they've lost some magic. But I'll still be there opening day for Bond 23.

Brother, you have nailed it. I too will be there for Bond 23...but, for the first time, with real trepidation: will it be the final stake through a great hero's heart? Many of the previous films had their flaws, but QoS was unique for me in that it was the first Bond film where not only did I not want to be like Bond...I didn't want to spend another minute with him, especially after his throwing poor Mathis in a dumpster.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Many of the previous films had their flaws, but QoS was unique for me in that it was the first Bond film where not only did I not want to be like Bond...I didn't want to spend another minute with him, especially after his throwing poor Mathis in a dumpster.

Would you shut up about that? It's one scene; Bond's done worse to allies before, and without even the film ruminating on them. This is a vast improvement, and you're rubbishing it!

If you and others like you (Lachesis, Shark, etc.) keep going on like that, we may not care to spend another minute with you and your rubbishing the Daniel Craig era!

[TheREAL008]

Ok, let's all calm down alright? After all, they're just movies.

[The Shark]

Many of the previous films had their flaws, but QoS was unique for me in that it was the first Bond film where not only did I not want to be like Bond...I didn't want to spend another minute with him, especially after his throwing poor Mathis in a dumpster.

Would you shut up about that? It's one scene; Bond's done worse to allies before, and without even the film ruminating on them. This is a vast improvement, and you're rubbishing it!

If you and others like you (Lachesis, Shark, etc.) keep going on like that, we may not care to spend another minute with you and your rubbishing the Daniel Craig era!

Finished?

[Guy Haines]

Well, I'll be honest, I think Craig is an amazing Bond and CR was a brilliant, brilliant film, but for whatever reason, my interest and enthusiasm for the film Bond has been diminishing at a mysterious and alarming rate. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm growing up. But there is (was) an element of fantasy that I love about James Bond. I want to live in his world, walk in his footsteps, and, hence, rewatch the films again and again (and go to the next film for the same experience). So while I enjoy the Craig films a great deal and appreciate the "more realistic" approach...it's not really a world I want to live in (or revisit al that often). While I think they've achieved some kind of artistic "respectability", I really think they've lost some magic. But I'll still be there opening day for Bond 23.

Brother, you have nailed it. I too will be there for Bond 23...but, for the first time, with real trepidation: will it be the final stake through a great hero's heart? Many of the previous films had their flaws, but QoS was unique for me in that it was the first Bond film where not only did I not want to be like Bond...I didn't want to spend another minute with him, especially after his throwing poor Mathis in a dumpster.

I too will be in the queue for 23 with some trepidation, but for a different reason; if there is an attempt, on the back of the criticism of QoS to send Bond back to the light hearted good old days of too-cheesy quips and daft sight gags. For one thing it wouldn't work with this actor as Bond, imo. Bringing back the fantasy element is one thing, but a complete reversal of style would be something else.

[Skudor]

I do love the depth of character that Craig brings to the films, he’s been served well with this two installments and has delivered accordingly. There was plenty of glamour in terms of locations in both CR and QOS, and their plots were suitably outlandish. The sillier gadgets are gone, which I welcome, but there are still gadgets there. What is gone, though, is this self referential need to self-mock. Humour and one liners are more than welcome, but there’s no need for OTT gags for the sake of it. Doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be any humour, just more selective humour.

My main problem with the Craig era is that, to me, DC just isn’t Bond. He lacks that certain something that both Connery and Moore had. Even Brosnan had it to some degree (Lazenby and Dalton not so much). I don’t enjoy watching Craig for the sake of watching him like I do with Connery and Moore – the charisma isn’t there. This may very well be because of age, I’m not growing up with Craig – he’s not that much older than me and all that. Clearly DC is still doing very well as Bond, but the problem for me isn’t that I don’t want to be in his world, it’s that I don’t want to be his Bond.

[byline]

My main problem with the Craig era is that, to me, DC just isn’t Bond. He lacks that certain something that both Connery and Moore had. Even Brosnan had it to some degree (Lazenby and Dalton not so much). I don’t enjoy watching Craig for the sake of watching him like I do with Connery and Moore – the charisma isn’t there. This may very well be because of age, I’m not growing up with Craig – he’s not that much older than me and all that. Clearly DC is still doing very well as Bond, but the problem for me isn’t that I don’t want to be in his world, it’s that I don’t want to be his Bond.

Interesting. I love Craig (and also loved Dalton) precisely because they bring a spark of charisma -- an energy, signs of something moving behind the eyes -- to the role that I do enjoy. Granted, it's different from the Moore/Brosnan "shove and wink" line delivery, which I found to be increasingly tedious; it also marred the latter half of Connery's run as Bond, which is why I have very mixed feelings about him. His first four films were outstanding, and of course he was the original cinematic Bond. But then he started phoning in his performances with what came across to me as a sluggish, barely-there presence. I think of "Dr. No" or "From Russia With Love" and smile; then I think of "Diamonds Are Forever" and shrug.

Craig is the first Bond actor, after Connery and Lazenby, whom I find physically convincing in the role. When he goes into action during that "Quantum of Solace" knife fight, I'm right there with him, and am completely convinced that Bond is fighting for his life right before my eyes. I can't think of a single instance where I found Moore or Brosnan that believable . . . and even Dalton, whom I adore, wasn't as convincing in the physical stunts. As my husband -- the longtime Bond fan in our family -- put it (after seeing "Casino Royale"), "Finally, they have a Bond who really looks like he can kill someone!" I think he had felt that was not the case since Connery. And since that's supposed to be part of Bond's job, he believed it important enough to take notice.