271 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

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

Actually I agree with you. The long shot from the water with the slow music build up cut with quick shots of the car would not have had the same effect right after the gun barrel.

[jamie00007]

I have no problem with where the gunbarrel was, and it was probably most effective there. The movie starts with a bang straight into events immediately following the final scene of CR. And I think the sudden opening with the ominous zoom over Lake Garda straight into the chase was extremely effective. The gunbarrel kind of symbolizes a new adventure. Would the opening of QoS have been as effective if we had a gunbarrel scene before it, before throwing us into a Bond adventure thats mid-story? I dont think so personally. And as much as I love the gunbarrel (which better be there in the next film) the QoS opening is one of my favorites in the series and I wouldnt change it at all.

[killkenny kid]

The other thing I find annoying, is the wait for the next movie.

[jaguar007]

The other thing I find annoying, is the wait for the next movie.

I think we are all with you on that one.

[iBond]

I miss the classic formula that ended with Pierce Brosnan. Bond is a gentleman spy not a ruthless killer always in a bad mood.

[TheREAL008]

Just stop.

The Bronsan era isn't the be all and end all of James Bond. Debateable fact: Bronsan's Bond wasn't all that much of a gentleman spy, but could be more likened to a cardboard cutout spy. His Bond wasn't all that suave or charming and his one liners were atrocious. Bronsan's Bond had more tasteless cheese than Arnold's portrayal of Mr. Freeze back in '97.

Daniel's two films alone beat anything Pierce could do as Bond. I.E: Be believable.

I wish I could have another decade of Craig era films. Annoying? Never. Overrated? Certainly not. Never as overrated and overbloated as the Pierce Bronsan era.

Edited by TheREAL008, 18 March 2011 - 04:54 AM.

[00 Brosnan]

Just stop.

The Bronsan era isn't the be all and end all of James Bond. Debateable fact: Bronsan's Bond wasn't all that much of a gentleman spy, but could be more likened to a cardboard cutout spy. His Bond wasn't all that suave or charming and his one liners were atrocious.

I don't recall anyone saying the Brosnan era is the be all and end all of James Bond. People were referring to the classic era as Connery to Brosnan. If Brosnan's Bond isn't suave or charming than Timothy Dalton's Bond had about as much charisma and charm as dried paint.

Bronsan's Bond had more tasteless cheese than Arnold's portrayal of Mr. Freeze back in '97.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Roger Moore's films had more camp than anyone and he had plenty of horrible one-liners and how can anyone forget the cheese-fest known as DAF.

Daniel's two films alone beat anything Pierce could do as Bond. I.E: Be believable.

Craig's films are great, but all the previous actors had films that weren't believable. For some reason, you hold Brosnan to some higher standard.

[Capsule in Space]

I miss the classic formula that ended with Pierce Brosnan. Bond is a gentleman spy not a ruthless killer always in a bad mood.

Great stuff iBond.

[Capsule in Space]

This thread amazes me. I never thought I'd see a thread like this pop up at CommanderBond! I am pleasantly surprised.

Hopefully this is a sign that people are starting to wake up to the fact that Barbabra Broccoli's decision to cast Daniel Craig as James Bond was a mistake. It's the biggest casting blunder since 1956 when Howard Hughes cast John Wayne to play Genghis Khan!

Edited by Capsule in Space, 03 May 2011 - 12:48 AM.

[Jim]

This thread amazes me. I never thought I'd see a thread like this pop up at CommanderBond! I am pleasantly surprised.

?

[00 Brosnan]

Hopefully this is a sign that people are starting to wake up to the fact that Barbabra Broccoli's decision to cast Daniel Craig as James Bond was a mistake. It's the biggest casting blunder since 1956 when Howard Hughes cast John Wayne to play Genghis Khan!

I personally would have liked Brosnan to have done one more film, but I don't think casting Craig was mistake. I actually like this new style Bond, it's very modern and edgy. However, the current direction of the films risk becoming generic & too similar to several other modern action films if they don't reinsert more Bond-ish elements in Bond 23.

I thought QoS was great. The women were absolutely gorgeous, the action was exciting and gritty, but the film didn't scream James Bond to me like all the previous Bond films, including Casino Royale do. There were just too many familiar elements missing. At least in CR there was plenty of witty dialogue, "Bond, James Bond," and the Bond theme is used.

In Bond 23 they need more of that witty dialogue, "Bond, James Bond," and more use of the Bond Theme. I'd also like to see Q Branch (not necessarily Q himself though), more gadgets besides a smartphone (lame), and in my opinion Moneypenny would work well (sorry, but I'm sick of M having so much screen time). Oh, and can Bond lighten up a little bit?

[SecretAgentFan]

However, the current direction of the films risk becoming generic & too similar to several other modern action films.

Hmm, isn´t that exactly what people are criticizing the Brosnan era for?

I thought QoS was great. The women were absolutely gorgeous, the action was exciting and gritty, but the film didn't scream James Bond to me like all the previous Bond films, including Casino Royale do. There were just too many familiar elements missing. At least in CR there was plenty of witty dialogue, "Bond, James Bond," and the Bond theme is used.

I would go out on a limb and say that the line "Bond, James Bond" is absolutely not witty.

Also, you want the next Bond films to be different - yet more like the early ones. Also, more use of the James Bond theme might not make a better film, not even one more like the early ones.

[00 Brosnan]

However, the current direction of the films risk becoming generic & too similar to several other modern action films.

Hmm, isn´t that exactly what people are criticizing the Brosnan era for?

Define "people." I don't believe they are too similar to other action films of the 90s. Maybe some of the action was, but the films themselves were distinctly James Bond. Q branch, one liners, lots of cool gadgets, Moneypenny, Bond theme...didn't see all that in too many other films...

But, if some people believe that, that's fine. People can have their own opinions.

I thought QoS was great. The women were absolutely gorgeous, the action was exciting and gritty, but the film didn't scream James Bond to me like all the previous Bond films, including Casino Royale do. There were just too many familiar elements missing. At least in CR there was plenty of witty dialogue, "Bond, James Bond," and the Bond theme is used.

I would go out on a limb and say that the line "Bond, James Bond" is absolutely not witty.

Also, you want the next Bond films to be different - yet more like the early ones. Also, more use of the James Bond theme might not make a better film, not even one more like the early ones.

I never said "Bond, James Bond" was witty. I was speaking of the dialogue between Bond and Le Chiffe and Bond and Vesper. I want the next Bond film to continue the direction the Craig era has been going....modern and gritty, but have more traditional Bond elements even if it's something as small or simple as more use of the Bond theme or Q branch being featured. I'm not saying they should throw all those traditional elements in at once in one film.

[Capsule in Space]

I would like to see EON get in the business of making Bond films again instead of these emo versions of the Jason Bourne series.

[Jim]

I would like to see EON get in the business of making Bond films again instead of these emo versions of the Jason Bourne series.

Not sure I follow that, although that may be because I'm not sure what "emo" means. Is it something to do with Rod Hull?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Hopefully this is a sign that people are starting to wake up to the fact that Barbabra Broccoli's decision to cast Daniel Craig as James Bond was a mistake. It's the biggest casting blunder since 1956 when Howard Hughes cast John Wayne to play Genghis Khan!

Somebody call the asylum; they've let one of their inmates loose at CB.n!

[jaguar007]

I would like to see EON get in the business of making Bond films again instead of these emo versions of the Jason Bourne series.

I can understand the Bourne comparison with the editing in QoS(part of that is one of the editors, Richard Pearson, also edited Bourne Supremacy) but there is absolutely nothing in CR that made me think it was influenced at all from Bourne.

[iBond]

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.

I agree with you about the change of Bond. *And yes, please down rate me for giving my honest opinion. Anyway, I would have to disagree with you about Craig. I feel that Craig has kind of changed the face of James Bond that we all know. He isn't suave unlike his predecessors and seems to be more of a bad-a** and someone who looks like he could knock you down without having the image of a gentleman. I mean, I'm glad Eon kept him British and have a suit at times, because if it wasn't for that, I feel like Bond would associate much more with Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. I know this is a very controversial statement, but it's my opinion and I just don't really feel the same essence of the James Bond films that I did with what came before. Now, this is not to say that I didn't enjoy Casio Royale and Quantum of Solace, but at the same time, it just feels really different than what came before. I know that is the strategy by Eon, but at the same time you should leave some things the same. For example, taking Moneypenny away from Royale was a disappointment mainly because of the fact that she was mentioned in the novel, although very briefly. I just hope they bring back the spirit of the James Bond films and still keep it modern.

[Jack Spang]

All they need to do is have realistic action scenes (as they do now) as in the Fleming novels with a villain living in a fairytale type sanctuary. He should also have a quirky feature about him too. Not hard. I love CR but QOS was just a generic action flick for me. It was pretty much just action, action , action and very little else. They need to flesh out the characters more and have a more dialogue driven film with some of the ingredients from the older films and the books - Bond scuba diving, having dinner with the villain and the girl. I know it happened in CR briefly with Vesper but it was too short. Let's listen to an actual interesting, proper conversation!

Craig needs to be more suave in Bond 23. He should have evolved now. The first two films focused on him developing into a sophisticated, suave, classy, professional secret agent. If he isn't this in Bond 23 then he probably never will be.

Oh, and remove the damn shakey camera shots!

Edited by Jack Spang, 06 May 2011 - 11:46 PM.

[univex]

All they need to do is have realistic action scenes (as they do now) as in the Fleming novels with a villain living in a fairytale type sanctuary. He should also have a quirky feature about him too. Not hard. I love CR but QOS was just a generic action flick for me. It was pretty much just action, action , action and very little else. They need to flesh out the characters more and have a more dialogue driven film with some of the ingredients from the older films and the books - Bond scuba diving, having dinner with the villain and the girl. I know it happened in CR briefly with Vesper but it was too short. Let's listen to an actual interesting, proper conversation!

Craig needs to be more suave in Bond 23. He should have evolved now. The first two films focused on him developing into a sophisticated, suave, classy, professional secret agent. If he isn't this in Bond 23 then he probably never will be.

Oh, and remove the damn shakey camera shots!

I Agree

[Mr_Wint]

(...) but there is absolutely nothing in CR that made me think it was influenced at all from Bourne.

This is a joke, right?

[jamie00007]

Why would it be a joke? How is Casino Royale influenced by Bourne in any way, aside from the fact that Bourne's success might have prompted Eon to return to a more grounded, thriller type of Bond film which is something that history has shown us was inevitable sooner or later anyway?

I cant see any similarities between Bourne and Casino Royale and could name about a hundred films that are more similar to CR than any of the Bourne films. I love the first Bourne film almost as much as most Bond films and have seen it just about as often, and I really dont see how it is anything like Casino Royale. The characters, story, locations, action scenes, everything. Totally different. There might be some similarity in both using real life fighting techniques instead of the usual Bond stage fighting but thats in vogue in action movies these days anyway.

[Mr_Wint]

I think it is a stretch to say that there is absolutely no influence when the main character in CR has more similiarites with Bourne than Bond.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[jaguar007]

I think it is a stretch to say that there is absolutely no influence when the main character in CR has more similiarites with Bourne than Bond.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

With the exception of both Craig and Damon having a similar color of hair and both being action heroes, there is very little in common with both characters. Bourne was virtually a humorless character who was unsure of his past trying to find the truth and was trying to always be in the background. Bond displayed some humor (at least until he was betrayed by Vesper) and was doing a mission and dedicated to the mission at hand. He was never trying to be in the background and with the exception of Madagascar (sorry but a Safari suit would just not have worked), was always well dressed (even his casual attire was always stylish).

[byline]

This thread amazes me. I never thought I'd see a thread like this pop up at CommanderBond! I am pleasantly surprised.

Hopefully this is a sign that people are starting to wake up to the fact that Barbabra Broccoli's decision to cast Daniel Craig as James Bond was a mistake. It's the biggest casting blunder since 1956 when Howard Hughes cast John Wayne to play Genghis Khan!

In your opinion. Some share your opinion, others do not. I'm in the latter crowd. Both hubby and I consider Craig and Dalton to be our favorite Bond actors. The Brosnan era, overall, felt like a regression to us . . . and not in a good way.

[Jack Spang]

This thread amazes me. I never thought I'd see a thread like this pop up at CommanderBond! I am pleasantly surprised.

Hopefully this is a sign that people are starting to wake up to the fact that Barbabra Broccoli's decision to cast Daniel Craig as James Bond was a mistake. It's the biggest casting blunder since 1956 when Howard Hughes cast John Wayne to play Genghis Khan!

In your opinion. Some share your opinion, others do not. I'm in the latter crowd. Both hubby and I consider Craig and Dalton to be our favorite Bond actors. The Brosnan era, overall, felt like a regression to us . . . and not in a good way.

I always supported Craig in being selected and I'm still glad he is there. I was happy with the way he played Bond in CR and QOS as he was an impulsive rookie but it is now the time for him to evolve into someone a bit more professional and suave. If the writers/directors decide to make him more refined and less reckless then Craig would have no trouble being like this. He is a good enough actor to portray any style. People shouldn't look at Craig but the film makers. Unless of course some are not happy with his physical attributes.


Apart from realistic action (which I am very pleased to have) and Craig having blonde hair, I don't think CR is similar to Bourne. QOS is in terms of cinematography - the handheld/steadycam shots.

I wonder if the film makers will go over board with the humour in Bond 23 seeing QOS was criticised for having too little. The Craig Bond films shouldn't have any more humour than in CR. Nor should there be cheesy one liners in the middle or just after action scenes. This belongs to another Moore era if there is to ever be one as his films revolve around comedy. I was happy with the amount of humour in QOS and how it stemmed naturally from conversation. This is how it should be in darker Bond films like in the Craig era.

Edited by Jack Spang, 07 May 2011 - 10:53 PM.

[jamie00007]

I think it is a stretch to say that there is absolutely no influence when the main character in CR has more similiarites with Bourne than Bond.

How? Can you explain that or give examples? I would say that Bond in Casino Royale is the polar opposite to Bourne in every way. Bond in Casino Royale is cocky, somewhat arrogant and reckless, has no moral qualms about violence or using women to get the job done and has a devil-may-care attitude to life. Not particularly unlike Connery's Bond in the earlier films. This is essentially the exact opposite to Bourne in every way. The ONLY similarities I can see between the two characters is that they both use realistic fighting styles in action scenes and get by using their wits and training instead of gadgets. And have similar colored hair. Thats it.

[iBond]

I find Casino Royale nothing like Bourne; but you're right, except the action scenes. However, with Quantum, I find a much more close connection with Bourne mainly due to some of the crew brought over from that series.

I always supported Craig in being selected and I'm still glad he is there. I was happy with the way he played Bond in CR and QOS as he was an impulsive rookie but it is now the time for him to evolve into someone a bit more professional and suave...

...Apart from realistic action (which I am very pleased to have) and Craig having blonde hair, I don't think CR is similar to Bourne. QOS is in terms of cinematography - the handheld/steadycam shots.

Yes! Exactly! I agree that it's about time for Craig to be suave and they need to get rid of the handheld/steady cam shots!

Edited by iBond, 09 May 2011 - 04:04 PM.

[Capsule in Space]

Yes! Exactly! I agree that it's about time for Craig to be suave and they need to get rid of the handheld/steady cam shots!

Bond needs to be suave and sophisticated again, but the problem is that suave and sophisticated are not in Craig's repertoire. At least I have yet to see evidence that it does exist.

Not sure I follow that, although that may be because I'm not sure what "emo" means. Is it something to do with Rod Hull?

I'm not an ornithologist like the real James Bond, but I'm sure he would classify Rod Hull as being an "emu". Emus are birds that can not fly, and Craig's Bond doesn't fly either

[Jim]

Oh, right.

I see.