Time For Bond to Retire?
- Thread starter JeffinOakland
- Start date
Dovetailing on your 'respective genres' last bit I think it's safe to put Friday the 13th(9 with a 10th entry reboot coming in '17) and Halloween(10) in there as well.
Transformers is one of those concepts that's now proven itself in Hollywood. One day, maybe even after this 5th entry, it'll take a hiatus for 'x' years. However, due to the nature of the property it'll reconfigure and come back to cineplexes at some time.
Yeah, Guy Ritchie's The Man From U.N.C.L.E. movie was basically what I had wished the new Bond movies had been. Unfortunately, sequels to TMFU don't look very likely.
I like early Connery Bond the most. IMO, the Bond franchise went downhill after From Russia With Love. I have quite enjoyed the contemporary take of the Craig films, though.
Kor
They aren't all bad. Sure they aren't super serious and realistic but I think the 70's needed that. In my recent rewatch I had a great time watching them. Moonraker especially was a great viewing, had me grinning ear to ear. If you go into them knowing exactly what they are, you'll have a good time.
As long as there are movies, there will be Bond. I think there are still loads of opportunities to have stories that take him to other countries. International intrigue is part of what makes Bond so much fun, and there are many countries he hasn't yet visited in his travels.
There are two entertainment "franchises" immune to personal criticism (meaning, I don't turn on a "critical eye" to them unless someone wants to talk to me about them in that fashion)--Bond and Trek. I've seen every (official) iteration of each on screen. I have my preferences, but I've liked each film and series and come to them with the notion of "comfort food". At the same time, I'm more than willing to watch someone's take that challenges each one's fundamental premise ("dare to be different")--neither is sacrosanct. As long as I'm entertained, it's all good.
I saw them all first run, except for the first 2 or three, they're embarrassing.They aren't all bad. Sure they aren't super serious and realistic but I think the 70's needed that. In my recent rewatch I had a great time watching them. Moonraker especially was a great viewing, had me grinning ear to ear. If you go into them knowing exactly what they are, you'll have a good time.
Nope. No one is making you watch them if you don't like them. No reason why the rest of us can continue enjoying them.
Moonraker was my first in-theater Bond experience and at the time, when I was a child, it was a lot of fun. Now, like a LOT of people, I find most of Roger Moore's run to be mediocre at best. There are some flashes of brilliance, especially early on, but after Man with the Golden Gun, I find most of them unwatchable. Not to say that all of Connery's movies were top notch. Thunderball leaves me bored and Diamonds are Forever might as well have been a Roger Moore vehicle. But at that point, Sean was phoning it in at best.
Dalton and Brosnan both did a fine job, as did Lazenby. Brosnan fell victim to "more is better" when it came to stunts and tech gadgets, but I mostly like what he did.
Daniel Craig brought some raw gravitas back to the roll. I love all his Bond movies, even though Quantum of Solace had some big misfires. Spectre brought us back to the Bond of old, with mixed results.. Do we need to step backward for actually storytelling or was it an attempt at fan-service (much like Star Trek ID with Khan? The fan service in Skyfall was more subtle and more of a nod than anything.
But all that said. Long live Bond... I don't want a movie world where they aren't making new adventures of 007.
Dalton and Brosnan both did a fine job, as did Lazenby. Brosnan fell victim to "more is better" when it came to stunts and tech gadgets, but I mostly like what he did.
Daniel Craig brought some raw gravitas back to the roll. I love all his Bond movies, even though Quantum of Solace had some big misfires. Spectre brought us back to the Bond of old, with mixed results.. Do we need to step backward for actually storytelling or was it an attempt at fan-service (much like Star Trek ID with Khan? The fan service in Skyfall was more subtle and more of a nod than anything.
But all that said. Long live Bond... I don't want a movie world where they aren't making new adventures of 007.
After Skyfall I was excited to see SPECTRE, but as of now I still haven't seen it and don't know whether I should. Any thoughts?
I daresay the Bond movies have ranged from pretty good to pretty bad. Much like the weather in Vermont, if you don't like what you're seeing, wait a bit.
I daresay the Bond movies have ranged from pretty good to pretty bad. Much like the weather in Vermont, if you don't like what you're seeing, wait a bit.
I highly recommend Spectre, It's one of my Top 10 Bond films. I find it very enjoyable and fun.
No Bond movie will ever please everyone because different parts of the audience want different things from the franchise. Some people want the more outlandish, pulp-fiction stuff (master criminals in hidden volcano lairs, Bond girls with ridiculously suggestive names, that kinda thing) and others prefer more "realistic" spy thriller yarns. And the Bond franchise, over the decades, has tended to swing back and forth between those two poles.
Whenever things get too silly, they course-correct and try to get more serious, but if they get too serious, people start to pine for more of the fun, comic-booky stuff. "Where are the quips and death-rays and deadly bowler hats?"
If history is any indication, at some point the pendulum will swing away from the gritty, realistic approach represented by Craig and back toward some modern-day version of the Moore movies, and then back again . . . .
Whenever things get too silly, they course-correct and try to get more serious, but if they get too serious, people start to pine for more of the fun, comic-booky stuff. "Where are the quips and death-rays and deadly bowler hats?"
If history is any indication, at some point the pendulum will swing away from the gritty, realistic approach represented by Craig and back toward some modern-day version of the Moore movies, and then back again . . . .
I seemed to have touched a nerve. Interesting responses, for the most part. I'm 43 and my dad introduced me to Bond when I was a kid. I was a huge fan until recently. Now, I still watch them but they seem tired to me.
As long as Bond is played by the right actor, Conery, Craig, or similar type,the movies will never get old.
Wait, Tom Hiddleston is being considered for Bond? That seems like it's taking the character into the wrong direction to me. He seems like a good actor, but much like a Trek captain character, it takes more than just a good actor to play the role. Tom. like all of the actors who have played Bond, seems like he'd handle the suave part of the character just fine. But when it comes to personal charisma and projecting an air of dangerousness, like all of the Bonds EXCEPT Connery and Craif, I think he'd have real trouble.
Wait, Tom Hiddleston is being considered for Bond? That seems like it's taking the character into the wrong direction to me. He seems like a good actor, but much like a Trek captain character, it takes more than just a good actor to play the role. Tom. like all of the actors who have played Bond, seems like he'd handle the suave part of the character just fine. But when it comes to personal charisma and projecting an air of dangerousness, like all of the Bonds EXCEPT Connery and Craif, I think he'd have real trouble.
Hiddleston is still just a rumor at this point. As far as I'm concerned Daniel is still Bond even though online media likes to think he's done.
Similar threads
