271 replies to this topic

[ROGERJAMESMOORE]

It's been annoying from day one Craig has jinxed the Bond series hope 23 would be his last ever.

[KMiller007]

Craig's Bond is like nothing we have ever seen prior to 2002. This is for many reasons, but mainly because he is completely devoid of charm.

I don't think Craig is devoid of charm. It's just a more subtle...more refined charm than what was in the pre-Craig films. It's not that "playboy" charm that Brosnan and Moore had. They were both good at it, it was natural to them and it worked well.

I think the scene on the train in CR where Bond meets Vesper is a good example of Craig's charm. Little bit of humor, sarcasm, teasing, and compliments all rolled into what is called "charm." Well played by Craig and Vesper seemed to agree.

Yes! I completely agree here. I thought Craig was very charming during that scene and I thought Vesper was just as charming. They played off eachother nicely.

[The Shark]

"...and he (Craig) has little to do with what Fleming established in his novels and stories."

I don't believe that. There are many aspects of the literary Bond's personality that are mirrored in Craig's Bond. Craig's impulsiveness and lack of discipline however is heightened however. If you read Pearson's biography of Bond you'll see greater similarities in terms of this though when Bond was younger, as in, in his twenties.

That's understandable, but in his late 30s/turning 40?

You know they say 40 is the new 20.

Seriously, 30s, 40s or 50s, the cinematic Bond has always ha moments of impulsiveness and lack of discipline.

Moments yes, but it never defined him.

[Major Tallon]

It's been annoying from day one Craig has jinxed the Bond series hope 23 would be his last ever.

Let's see: strong box office, good reviews, positive fan reaction. Yep, he's been a real jinx, all right.

To be honest, "Quantum of Solace" has been the most polarizing Bond film in quite a while, with many highly-regarded fans disliking it. The majority of fans, however, have reacted positively, and I think it's a very good film. Still, I appreciate the reasons why it gets criticized. I am, however, completely unable to understand your reaction to "Casino Royale," which is the finest Bond film of our generation. It's a movie that wonderfully translates Fleming's story to the modern setting, with a lead performance that captures the essence of the character Ian Fleming wrote.

It's clear that you don't like the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond, but it would help if you'd set out your specific objections (blonde hair, absence of puns, whatever), rather than just posting insult after insult. We really do value discussion and a well-phrased argument around here, so why not give it a try?

[jamie00007]

Once again I have to disagree with you. It seems that you view of Craig is based solely on QoS and you are forgetting much of CR.

Yes, Casino Royale amnesia is a common ailment in Craig's detractors. He was no more serious or "emo" as some people put it in CR than he was in any other Bond film (in fact he was considerably lighter and more devil-may-care than he was in LTK or most of the Brosnan movies) and as for charm, well, if he has none than I really have to wonder why Craig has had such a big effect on the female population. Half the women I know are in love with him and he is never far from the top of most desirable men lists in womens magazine polls. I dont remember Pierce having the same effect despite his obvious better looks, so I would have to say Craig has managed to charm them. Personally, I thought he emitted far more charm than any Bond since Moore. And it was that masculine alpha male Connery-esque charm as opposed to the smooth talking pick up line kind of charm we saw from Moore and Brosnan.

[Jim]

It's been annoying from day one Craig has jinxed the Bond series hope 23 would be his last ever.

What happens then?

[The Shark]

It's been annoying from day one Craig has jinxed the Bond series hope 23 would be his last ever.

What happens then?

It is written... in the Mayan Calender.

[Jim]

It's been annoying from day one Craig has jinxed the Bond series hope 23 would be his last ever.

What happens then?

It is written... in the Mayan Calender.

Could be worse; could be Harold Camping.

[George88]

Looks like the stone marked CraigNotBond has been suddenly kicked away and the lice are a-scuttlin'.

[ROGERJAMESMOORE]

To be honest, "Quantum of Solace" has been the most polarizing Bond film in quite a while, with many highly-regarded fans disliking it. The majority of fans, however, have reacted positively, and I think it's a very good film. Still, I appreciate the reasons why it gets criticized. I am, however, completely unable to understand your reaction to "Casino Royale," which is the finest Bond film of our generation. It's a movie that wonderfully translates Fleming's story to the modern setting, with a lead performance that captures the essence of the character Ian Fleming wrote.

Now that is some funny stuff.....................Ok yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhh

[00 Brosnan]

Craig has had such a big effect on the female population. Half the women I know are in love with him and he is never far from the top of most desirable men lists in womens magazine polls. I dont remember Pierce having the same effect despite his obvious better looks, so I would have to say Craig has managed to charm them.

As I've noted in earlier posts, Craig certainly does display charm in his Bond films. It's just not the "playboy" type charm Moore and Brosnan were so good at. It's more subtle and refined in my opinion, but it isn't necessarily better, just different.

As far as "women you know," well obviously that is completely subjective. I'm sure there are plenty of women you don't know who would say the same thing about Brosnan as he has been known for his good looks for a long time. He was People's "Sexiest Man Alive" in 2001 at age 48 for crying out loud.

Now that is some funny stuff.....................Ok yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhh

Well folks it looks like we have a troll on our hands. I've never seen someone register and get so much negative feedback as quick as this user. Every post is a bold generalization, complaint, or other bold statements with absolutely no elaboration or critiquing at all.

It's okay to have different opinions, but when you constantly just say things and don't explain them it isn't appreciated. It's really very sad when someone has nothing better to do then troll internet forums.

[TheREAL008]

Roger,

You lost before you even began. You're missing out on a great era because of your narrowminded point of view. Let go of the hate or spite and just enjoy the ride for what it is and nothing more.

P.S. You're making a mockery, and a heavy insult to your Bond image and to your username. In the future, don't be such a tard.

Edited by TheREAL008, 22 May 2011 - 03:40 PM.

[byline]

Because the film makers were afraid of foreshadowing Vesper's death (or didn't know how) - it feels rushed, awkward, and arbitrary.

Before we go too far on this tangent, bear in mind that I'm only guessing that was the case; I don't know. We'd have to ask the filmmakers why they made the choices they did. However, I see it as a plausible explanation for why Eva Green acted out those scenes in the way that she did, and so she doesn't necessarily carry the blame the way you were directing it at her.

Also, for what it's worth, I do see a fair bit of foreshadowing (Vesper's betrayal, her death, etc.) in "Casino Royale"; I just didn't know to be looking for it in advance. I knew when Bond decided to retire for her that she was doomed; on first viewing, I just didn't realize the true reason for why she was doomed. To me, it feels right. Different strokes, and all.

[Major Tallon]

To be honest, "Quantum of Solace" has been the most polarizing Bond film in quite a while, with many highly-regarded fans disliking it. The majority of fans, however, have reacted positively, and I think it's a very good film. Still, I appreciate the reasons why it gets criticized. I am, however, completely unable to understand your reaction to "Casino Royale," which is the finest Bond film of our generation. It's a movie that wonderfully translates Fleming's story to the modern setting, with a lead performance that captures the essence of the character Ian Fleming wrote.

Now that is some funny stuff.....................Ok yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhh

Obviously an Aristotelian.

[The Shark]

Before we go too far on this tangent, bear in mind that I'm only guessing that was the case; I don't know. We'd have to ask the filmmakers why they made the choices they did. However, I see it as a plausible explanation for why Eva Green acted out those scenes in the way that she did, and so she doesn't necessarily carry the blame the way you were directing it at her.

You're right, Eva's only partly to blame. But even then, I didn't find her attempts at showing vulnerability very convincing. She's too dominant and independent to play a woman who's psychological decline results in suicide.

Also, for what it's worth, I do see a fair bit of foreshadowing (Vesper's betrayal, her death, etc.) in "Casino Royale"; I just didn't know to be looking for it in advance. I knew when Bond decided to retire for her that she was doomed; on first viewing, I just didn't realize the true reason for why she was doomed. To me, it feels right. Different strokes, and all.

It should have been earlier. Ideally, the audience would be introduced to Vesper before the meeting on the train. That was the perfect time to show her inner turmoil.

[Athena007]

The TROLL has been eliminated. Sorry about that guys. If this happens again feel free to report posts from trolls and let us as the mod the know what's up. We're not always on top of it all without your help.

[byline]

Before we go too far on this tangent, bear in mind that I'm only guessing that was the case; I don't know. We'd have to ask the filmmakers why they made the choices they did. However, I see it as a plausible explanation for why Eva Green acted out those scenes in the way that she did, and so she doesn't necessarily carry the blame the way you were directing it at her.

You're right, Eva's only partly to blame. But even then, I didn't find her attempts at showing vulnerability very convincing. She's too dominant and independent to play a woman who's psychological decline results in suicide.

I found her reactions during the stairwell and shower scenes to be quite convincing, a glimpse into her inner world that she allowed few to see. It was only temporary, as her vulnerability was exposed by her inexperience with violent death.

Also, I think that the cinematic Vesper's motivations were somewhat different from those of the literary Vesper. The latter character did go into an obvious psychological decline. The film Vesper was, I felt, fiercely motivated by love, first to Yusef (whom she didn't realize had betrayed her) and then to Bond. I interpreted her decision to kill herself to be less the result of depression and more about her acknowledgement that she had run out of options . . . and also that, as long as she was alive, Bond would try to protect her, thus endangering himself. Vesper decided that, rather than die by the hands of Mr. White's organization -- putting Bond at risk, as well, until that happened -- she would take control of the situation as best she could and kill herself, on her own terms. Going by that interpretation, Eva's portrayal fits, but it means you've got to interpret the character's motivations differently from how they are presented in the book.

[Dustin]

Spot on with film Vesper's motivation. Her suicide was in no way premeditated, she just acted on impulse, perhaps also because she couldn't have endured Bond's love to her dying. Vesper in the book was probably thinking about suicide for some time, only pushing the inevitable away for the few days with Bond.

Edited by Dustin, 22 May 2011 - 09:17 PM.

[byline]

Spot on with film Vesper's motivation. Her suicide was in no way premeditated, she just acted on impulse, perhaps also because she couldn't have endured Bond's love to her dying. Vesper in the book was probably thinking about suicide for some time, only pushing the inevitable away for the few days with Bond.

I agree with you, as well, and should have noted in my post that I don't believe the film Vesper was planning her suicide well in advance the way the book Vesper did. The opportunity presented itself in the Venice house sinking, and given the bleak, largely hopeless situation she was in, Vesper decided that this was the "best" option available to her. As M noted, Vesper must have known she was going to her death, so she sacrificed herself, giving her some measure of control over her own death while protecting Bond from his desire to save her.

[Capsule in Space]

I've never seen someone register and get so much negative feedback as quick as this user.

You must not be familiar with my time on this forum

[double o ego]

It's been annoying from day one Craig has jinxed the Bond series hope 23 would be his last ever.

What happens then?

we get...

[Jack Spang]

"...and he (Craig) has little to do with what Fleming established in his novels and stories."

I don't believe that. There are many aspects of the literary Bond's personality that are mirrored in Craig's Bond. Craig's impulsiveness and lack of discipline however is heightened however. If you read Pearson's biography of Bond you'll see greater similarities in terms of this though when Bond was younger, as in, in his twenties.

That's understandable, but in his late 30s/turning 40?

You know they say 40 is the new 20.

Seriously, 30s, 40s or 50s, the cinematic Bond has always ha moments of impulsiveness and lack of discipline.

Yeah, I do think the film makers went too far with the impulsiveness - a 40 year old Bond running around killing most people. There are other facets of the Craig/Bond personality that reflect that of the literary Bond's. We have the slight dependency on alcohol, the brooding nature, the less used wit, his loner personality, the serious demeanour...

Edited by Jack Spang, 06 June 2011 - 10:53 PM.

[Dustin]

Regarding this Bond just running around and killing people in QOS I wonder. Is there an adversary Bond doesn't kill in self-defence? As far as I can remember all of the guys joining the ranks of Bond's Legion of the Dead end up there because they tried to help Bond to a place in that club. Of course, from time to time Bond and the SIS would like to get some more information and help from the odd sub-villain. But off the top of my head I can only think of the bodyguard on top the opera building who could have met with a different fate, had Bond not been a bit peeved by the previous shoot-out. But technically that guy was still alive when he and Bond parted ways, so I think his death can't be blamed on Bond.

[jamie00007]

No, I have no idea where this "running around killing people" idea comes from. Because nowhere in the film does that happen. The CIA frames him to make M think he's running around killing people, but thats not what he's actually doing doing. He tried to capture Mitchell and only killed him when Mitchell was about to shoot him, Slate attacked him unaware when he was unarmed with a knife, the cops were corrupt and were obviously going to kill him and theres the climactic shootout. He never kills anyone thats not in self defence or in the line of duty. The only one that he really didnt have to kill was the guy on the roof, but technically he didnt kill him, Greene did, and as far as Bond knew at that point he was just another henchmen of the type Bond has killed a hundred times over in the other films. Really, what would Connery or Moore have done in the same situation? Well, we know what Moore would have done because he was in the same situation.

[Golddragon71]

Yeah except I don't think the fat bald guy would ever have worked for Special Branch lol.

Ok THAT said, I Love Craig as Bond. Yes I had my doubts about him at first but Casino Royale quelled most of those. (except, in my mind, Bond would never have needed anyone to supply him with a Dinner jacket that'd make him look like he belonged at the table.)
QoS didn't bowl me over as much. Yes it was a good story, Yes it did tie up the storyline so Bond could focus on cases and not his screwed up relationship with Vesper. Still, I agree with the two main points that many hereabouts have said It should've started the ball rolling on making him More Established Bond and Not "Evolving into Bond" The Bond theme would've worked well in scenes like the Chase Scenes (Pre and Post Credits) The Boat fight, and the final confrontation.
I do feel that Skyfall SHOULD Have the Gunbarrel sequence in it's proper position at the the beginning of the film (even if we never see so many gadgets or Bond never drinks another Martini or never plays another hand of Baccarat/Chemin De Fer) Those TWO Elements turn an action movie about a Guy named James Bond....INTO a JAMES BOND MOVIE (That and a credit sequence featuring silhouetted nudes )

[S K Y F A L L]

I'll be annoyed if they can't deliver more then 3 Bond films this decade.

[Colossus]

I'm annoyed that his hair hasn't grown out in the SF shots like it's been hypothesized at the outset to explain the crew cut of CR that he's like a fresh soldier, and each movie he's "growing". So much for that.

[Leon]

I'm annoyed that his hair hasn't grown out in the SF shots like it's been hypothesized at the outset to explain the crew cut of CR that he's like a fresh soldier, and each movie he's "growing". So much for that.

Well, to be more accurate, his hair is shorter in Skyfall than it's ever been in the other two. In Quantum it was longest, but looked pretty unstylish - for the more classic Bond look it would need to be more like these cuts below. I honestly can't see why they've decided to raze his hair so short all over when I personally think these slightly longer, more suave styles look not only more like Bond, but generally just more grown-up and stylish. I mean, it's these people's jobs to get the whole Bond image right - they spend a fortune on it, getting ths suits details down etc etc. One thing about Daniel Craig's Bond is is toughness. He looks mean, dangerous and is the most muscle bound of any of the actors to date. The last thing he needs is more hard-man looks with a shaved head, it needs to be counterbalanced by making sure the rest of his look is suave and polished.




Even just slightly longer ontop so it isn't spiking up:






For comparison:

[Golddragon71]

I agree on this. the Buzz-cut does not suit Bond at all

[honeyjes]

Reading some of these comments reminds me of a parent asking a child why he/she can’t be more like their sibling. I think from the offset with Daniel refusing to die his hair there was never going to be a Connery Bond pastiche.

As for Mr Fassbender, the above picture just makes me think that if he was ever to play bond, he looks so much like a dressed up mannequin, I would be watching, looking for the strings and wondering where is the on and off switch.