271 replies to this topic

[DR76]

First of all, I think everyone knows on here that I'm a massive Daniel Craig supporter, and Casino Royale was a blessing. BUT, I really do feel that the producers are becoming too un-connected with the classic Bond era. As much as I've enjoyed the Craig era, I really do think that it's becoming quite irritating.

I disagree. In fact, I have enjoyed the Bond franchise a great deal, since Craig took over the Bond role. And I have NO DESIRE for the franchise to return to the so-called "classic" Bond era. That era should remain in the past where it belongs. Allow the franchise to continue along the lines that best suits Craig . . . and no other Bond actor.

[KENDO NAGAZAKI]

I have NO DESIRE for the franchise to return to the so-called "classic" Bond era. That era should remain in the past where it belongs. Allow the franchise to continue along the lines that best suits Craig . . . and no other Bond actor.

I agree about not going back to the "classic" Bond, if that means me having to suffer yet another "car that does everything" and Bond being reduced to a lame punster while Arnold blasts the Bond theme out every five minutes.

In response to the thread title, it's not just the "Craig era" which annoys me, it's the whole Barbara Broccoli era; are the current team capable of anything other than merely ticking all of the tired old boxes or, when that goes too far, churning out a Bourne knock-off? Let's have Bond leading the pack again; no more CGI-assisted jumpy-jumpy superhuman rubbish, no more laughable attempts at "emotion", no more luvvie drama directors and no more by-the-numbers music scores. Get a proper thriller writer, a decent music composer and a proper thriller director on board, give Craig some acting to do (that's what he's best at) and let's get Bond back at the top.

[SecretAgentFan]

He is at the top.

[mttvolcano]

I have NO DESIRE for the franchise to return to the so-called "classic" Bond era. That era should remain in the past where it belongs. Allow the franchise to continue along the lines that best suits Craig . . . and no other Bond actor.

I agree about not going back to the "classic" Bond, if that means me having to suffer yet another "car that does everything" and Bond being reduced to a lame punster while Arnold blasts the Bond theme out every five minutes.

In response to the thread title, it's not just the "Craig era" which annoys me, it's the whole Barbara Broccoli era; are the current team capable of anything other than merely ticking all of the tired old boxes or, when that goes too far, churning out a Bourne knock-off? Let's have Bond leading the pack again; no more CGI-assisted jumpy-jumpy superhuman rubbish, no more laughable attempts at "emotion", no more luvvie drama directors and no more by-the-numbers music scores. Get a proper thriller writer, a decent music composer and a proper thriller director on board, give Craig some acting to do (that's what he's best at) and let's get Bond back at the top.

I completely agree!

[Goodnight]

The casual Bond look is getting tiresome as well. I don't understand why Criag's Bond feels the need to run around in jeans and a T-shirt. Yes we get a tux in Blood Stone, and a suit. But seriously, a green jersey? He looks like my grandad.

If you think of some the scenes from his two films e.g. the foot chase in the builiding site, if Bond had been wearing a suit he would look ridiculous as well as it being completely unsuitable, and he would of stood out like a sore thumb.

[Chief of SIS]

My answer to this topic...nope!


Although, I'll admit, some of the points raised are valid in their own right.

[Germanlady]

I think, the refreshing new elements brought in CR and QOS were needed, but now people are ready to get back to some more traditional issues - which is a good thing, because it shows, the boredom with all the trad. elements is over now.

[James Bond Jr]

If the Gun Barrel was lost, I wouldn't miss it. It is a nice touch, but it doesn't really help the old films any.

I think Craig's theme songs are pretty bad. Just regular rock songs with little references to old Bond lyrics.

I do miss the Bond theme and think it should never be abandoned. If anything, it needs a modern interpretation by someone like Brian Eno instead of some symphony trying to outplay the original.

I wouldn't miss James Bond saying "Bond, James Bond" or "Martini. Shaken not stirred". I do think he needs to be a humorous character. I think his morbid/sexual sense of humor is one of the things the cinematic Bond has over the literary Bond.

I enjoy the grueling action in Craig's films. Its the first time James Bond has actually seemed like a terrifying person to get a fight with. I miss the gadgets, as the state of technology has finally made it possible to believe Q can dream up amazing futuristic toys to save Bond from certain death.

I think Bond's clothing in the new films is excellent. He should wear some sophisticated outfits, but this Bond is prone to do nasty field work. The rugged black jeans and motorcycle jacket he wore in the climax of QOS was perfect. Like a modern action-oriented man's tuxedo.

I would like Moneypenny to return. I don't really want a new Q unless the casting is perfect. I think bringing back Jaws would be a great idea. It would add some link to the old films, but totally change the context as Craig's Bond would be a better match for such a horrific villain. Plus, Jaws deserves better closure than Moonraker offered.

Edited by James Bond Jr, 16 December 2010 - 06:39 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I think, the refreshing new elements brought in CR and QOS were needed, but now people are ready to get back to some more traditional issues - which is a good thing, because it shows, the boredom with all the trad. elements is over now.

I can see this. Even QoS was returning Bond to the old ways (I know some will most likely disagree, but this is how I feel). As for the Bond theme, I think it was used just the right amount in Quantum...witch one exception: Craig needs at least one action scene where we get the full theme in all it's glory, not just relegated to the end credits.

As for the gunbarrel, I'm ready for it to open the film again, seeing the one at the end of QoS shows us that Craig in a proper gunbarrel is just awesome. So yeah, come Bond 23 I'd like to see it back at the beginning of the film. As I've said elsewhere, despite my feelings for some of the Brosnan films as a whole, seeing the gunbarrel open up the film in cinema's on opening night always gave me goosebumps.

[mttvolcano]

I can see this. Even QoS was returning Bond to the old ways (I know some will most likely disagree, but this is how I feel).

I agree with you Jimmy Bond and everything else, but I don't see this part^ though. Can you elaborate?

Edited by mttvolcano, 17 December 2010 - 11:23 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Sure I can elaborate, I think...I'm not really sure what I confused you on.

[mttvolcano]

Sure I can elaborate, I think...I'm not really sure what I confused you on.

Well confused on how you think that QoS seems to be turning the franchise back in the classical direction. (if it is true I have no problem, i rather like the more classic ones)
Thanks

[JimmyBond]

Sure I can elaborate, I think...I'm not really sure what I confused you on.

Well confused on how you think that QoS seems to be turning the franchise back in the classical direction. (if it is true I have no problem, i rather like the more classic ones)
Thanks

Well one of the chief complaints Matt made in the beginning of this thread was how Craig still seems to be "earning" the Bond theme. I feel that is false, I felt that the Bond theme made several appearances in QoS, more so than it did in Casino Royale. Sure we didn't get the full blown version of it, but Barry never really relied on the Bond theme that much either. Sure he'd give us one full blown rendition of it but he usually developed his own themes for each film and relied on those. While keeping the Bond theme relegated to when Bond did something really Bondian. Because as we saw in the Brosnan films, too much of the Bond theme makes it lose it's magic.

[mttvolcano]

Ah, i see I suppose you're right. The bondian scenes did depict a form of a 'bond' theme not full blown, but it was definitely bondian like in the African Parkour scene of Casino royale.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

First of all, I think everyone knows on here that I'm a massive Daniel Craig supporter, and Casino Royale was a blessing. BUT, I really do feel that the producers are becoming too un-connected with the classic Bond era. As much as I've enjoyed the Craig era, I really do think that it's becoming quite irritating.

Why is Daniel Craig still earning the Bond theme? It's not even in Blood Stone. Why? Blood Stone has been marketed as a classic Bond adventure, and as much as I look forward to playing it, this is really bugging me. It was established at the end of Casino Royale that James became Bond, and we were rewarded with a Bond theme at the end of the movie. In Quantum of Solace, we still didn't get the Bond theme in it's full form until the end credits. I can kind of understand the reason why, but the thing is WHY is there no Bond theme in Blood Stone? Bond is over Vesper, Bond is Bond. There's not even a hint of the Bond theme in the score, as great as it sounds. You would've thought that Craigs Bond has earnt a massive Bond theme appearance by now during an action sequence?

So, we now move onto the gunbarrel. Why isn't this in Blood Stone either? I can understand why Quantum of Solace had it at the end, to show Bonds story arc is now completed Vesper wise, but no gunbarrel at the start of Blood Stone, why? It doesn't take much effort to slam it at the start and have it open up on the shot of Athens. Why is there no Gunbarrel in GoldenEye 2010, either? You would think they'd put one in that.

The casual Bond look is getting tiresome as well. I don't understand why Criag's Bond feels the need to run around in jeans and a T-shirt. Yes we get a tux in Blood Stone, and a suit. But seriously, a green jersey? He looks like my grandad.

I'm all up for the producers shaking up the formula, and it was brilliant for Casino Royale and most of Quantum of Solace. I just get the impression now that they're messing it up just for the hell of it. It's like the Craig era is just against the idea of the Bond theme and the gunbarrel, even though it's a Bond film...

There's no need for Blood Stone or GoldenEye not to have a gunbarrel, or the Bond theme. It's as if they thought "Oh look, it's the Craig era, no one wants it anymore."


I love Craig. I love Bond. I'm just really getting worried that this era just won't be Bond anymore. They're changing too much.

Spot on, spot on!!! Agre with you 100%

[smudge76]

First of all, I think everyone knows on here that I'm a massive Daniel Craig supporter, and Casino Royale was a blessing. BUT, I really do feel that the producers are becoming too un-connected with the classic Bond era. As much as I've enjoyed the Craig era, I really do think that it's becoming quite irritating.

I disagree. In fact, I have enjoyed the Bond franchise a great deal, since Craig took over the Bond role. And I have NO DESIRE for the franchise to return to the so-called "classic" Bond era. That era should remain in the past where it belongs. Allow the franchise to continue along the lines that best suits Craig . . . and no other Bond actor.

Bang on the button there. Craig is a great Bond, and he is'nt going anywhere.

[Kreivi von Glödä]

My personal opinion is that we´re experiencing another golden age of Bond - the first one was from 1962 to 1969 and the new one from 2006 onwards. I´ve been a Bond fan since 1987, the age of 8 and GoldenEye was the first one I saw in theatres but I´ve never been so excited about the upcoming Bond film or the franchise in general since I became a fan and saw the early films. I loved both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace and seeing CR for the first time was like meeting an old and dear friend again after a long, long time because DAD nearly extinguished my love for Bond.
So no, the Craig era hasn´t annoyed me a bit yet, and I hope DC will stay on board for a few more films. I am in no rush to give up the Quantum storyline either, I´d hate it to end in Bond 23 because I feel it has so much potential. Maybe we could find out who the leader is in Bond 23 but it´s too early to put a cap on it yet.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I like the Craig era. He's a great Bond, but I'd like to take him on a more traditional sorrounding. I had enough of this "James becames 007" story type. That worked for Casino Royale, and that film is for me the only exception in which you can justify the use of the gunbarrel before the titles, the lack of the James Bond Theme throughout the films, and the lack of Q and Moneypenny.
Quantum of Solace was trying to repeat the "Casino Royale formula" without a reason. There is no sense of putting the barrel at the end (that "the story of Vesper ends" is the flamliest excuse to me), just leaving some notes of the JBT, etc.

I don't want stupid gadgets (I.e. Invisible cars) but I think we should have some. I haven't played BLOOD STONE but judging from the videos I've seen the car chases without gadgets seemed pretty dull. How hard could be a Moneypenny appaerance in Bond 23? You can leave Q behind us since Desmond Llewelyn is no longer with us and John Cleese isn't as memorable as Desmond.

Is too difficult to leave M in her desk at Vauxhall instead of going round the world just to please his favourite 00?

Can't we have a really sadistic villain you really wish him to die because he's evil, mad, brute, and reckless? Le Chiffre was Le Chiffre, and he was a middleman since Fleming created him in 1953, but Greene... well, he was charming, but just remember Sánchez (he wouldn't blink an eye before killing an enemy/traitor), or Zorin (a true psycopath), or geniuses like Goldfinger or Stromberg (who were weak, but had an army of deadly men against Bond). I want a strong villain figure, not just a minnow of Mr White or Quantum, or someone who works for a "bigger and powerful man bla bla blah".

Can't we have a fight in the style of Bond vs Bouvar (Thunderball) or Bond vs Che Che (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service), where EVERY furniture us broken and both guys want to kill each other?

[jaguar007]

. How hard could be a Moneypenny appaerance in Bond 23? You can leave Q behind us since Desmond Llewelyn is no longer with us and John Cleese isn't as memorable as Desmond.

I feel the same way about Moneypenny. I think MP became popular because of Lois Maxwell and I never warmed to either Caroline Bliss or Samantha Bond.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Well, anyway, Lois Maxwell was Moneypenny for Sean, George and Roger, so I didn't mind Caroline Bliss for Tim or Samantha Bond for Pierce... or even a new actress for Daniel.
Q is a different thing, because Desmond Llewelyn was Q for Sean, George, Roger, Tim and Pierce. He's been for DECADES. He's a lot harder to substitute.

[DR76]

Let Craig continue to portray Bond the way he has done so in the past two movies. It fits his style. Once he is replaced, then EON can go back to the cartoonish crap from the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras. I'll probably watch it, but I won't hold them in the same high regard as I do Craig's movies.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

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!

We're not rubbishing the Daniel Craig era. We just think that a great Bond like Craig deserves what a classic Bond needs: a gunbarrel in its right place, the full James Bond Theme, etc.

Me, at least me... well, I love Craig's Bond. Being a Pierce supporter as I am, I could have joined the CraigNotBobd team and start bashing Craig. But I wouldn't because I liked his acting. I also said "What the " when I learnt that there's gonna be a reboot in Casino Royale, and the teaser would be in B&W with the Barrel at the end of it. Then, I liked it because it made sense for a Bond reboot.

Quantum of Solace and BLOOD STONE is a different thing. Bond is now 007. There's no "reboot". We can use the full James Bond Theme and the barrel in the beginning.

George Lazenby had to carry a bigger weigh on his shoulders: He was a newcomer and had to replace a star like Sean Connery. Just imagine if the producers/director/scriptwriter of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service would have decided to put the barrel at the end (or cropping it put), and taking out the JBT until the end. The people for sure would have abandoned James Bond.

And for those who will undeniable take ne points in the Reputation System... These are just my toughts. No hard feelings towards anyone

[BoogieBond]

I think that normal service will be resumed for Bond 23 in the case of the Bond theme and gunbarrel sequence. But we'll see.
I also think Q/Moneypenny or both will make an appearence, I think that these 2 characters may not appear in every Bond film from here, but one or the other will be in B23.
The case with the personnel such as Mendes etc, I think its good we are getting quality directors and screenwriters(Haggis and Logan). Its always been the case with the technical staff with Cubby and Harry got a very complimentary team going very early on(with Ken Adam, John Barry etc) The case in point about taking the films from a more serious dramatic tone and going back to a more Adventure/Thriller with a splash more of humour will also also happen in B23 I think. I think these few tweaks will inadvertantly make B23 feel more Bondian.
In terms of Craig himself, I am glad he is 007, and hope to see him in at least 2 more Bond films(B23 and B24), he was a great find.

[Bryce (003)]

To answer the question posed by this thread:

No.










....Really.

[SecretAgentFan]

Agreed.

And by the way, the only people who care about the position of the gun barrel are on internet message boards.

AND... CR and QOS always were parts of the same story. It´s perfectly logical that the barrel was not at the beginning of QOS but at the end of that origin story. What´s so hard to understand about that?

[JimmyBond]

. There is no sense of putting the barrel at the end (that "the story of Vesper ends" is the flamliest excuse to me), just leaving some notes of the JBT, etc.

I'm one of those people that understands why it was done that way, and I quite enjoyed it. So I'm curious why you think the reason (reason, not excuse) it was put at the end was in any way flimsy?

[Safari Suit]

They should have just cut the bloody (arf!) thing altogether. Do we really need a gunbarrel to tell us whether or not he has "become" Bond? It felt silly and jarring; would have been far better to let the pointed ending stand on its own.

[Diabolik]

No.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

. There is no sense of putting the barrel at the end (that "the story of Vesper ends" is the flamliest excuse to me), just leaving some notes of the JBT, etc.

I'm one of those people that understands why it was done that way, and I quite enjoyed it. So I'm curious why you think the reason (reason, not excuse) it was put at the end was in any way flimsy?

I think the reason was "Marc Forster saw Casino Royale and discovered the Barrel is after the PTS. He couldn't put it at that place so ge brought it at the end to stay with the tradition 'Bond hasn't yet begun' when we all tought Bond 'began' at the end of Casino Royale.

[Iroquois]

Bond has begun by QOS, didn't Forster say that he put it at the end for fun?

I imagine the wonderfully tense opening to QOS would have suffered with the gunbarrel at the beginning, in my humble opinion.

Nevertheless it was there, and interestingly enough seeing it blend with the credits sort of reminded me of Dr No which was cool.

Edited by Iroquois, 12 February 2011 - 10:46 PM.