I love this idea.
"Bond 23" delayed indefinitely
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
I love this idea.
I admit it's a different take on the Bond mythos. Certainly valid. Not what I imagine when I envision James Bond, but The Spy Who Loved Me definitely ranks up there as one of the best Bond movies regardless. I just didn't like how Moore couldn't take the character seriously, and he really started to show his age in some of the later movies like Octopussy and A View to a Kill.
I like the Moore Bond movies. I like the less "serious" take. I think in today's cinematic climate, what with Bourne and every other spy/government/thriller/action flick, the new Bond movies aren't very set apart from any other action flick. They didn't feel unique...just big action spy thrillers. A return to the Moore vain would give them a feeling of freshness, I think.
Me too!
Well, the Roger Moore movies told me they hated you, too.
So there.
I admit it's a different take on the Bond mythos. Certainly valid. Not what I imagine when I envision James Bond, but The Spy Who Loved Me definitely ranks up there as one of the best Bond movies regardless. I just didn't like how Moore couldn't take the character seriously, and he really started to show his age in some of the later movies like Octopussy and A View to a Kill.
I like the Moore Bond movies. I like the less "serious" take. I think in today's cinematic climate, what with Bourne and every other spy/government/thriller/action flick, the new Bond movies aren't very set apart from any other action flick. They didn't feel unique...just big action spy thrillers. A return to the Moore vain would give them a feeling of freshness, I think.
Well, I think in terms of the Bond franchise, the way things were going (more outlandish as in Die Another Day) I was glad that things were taken down a few notches with Casino Royale. I think if anything audiences like material that's more serious and slightly darker. Yes, Iron Man and other comedies are successful, but maybe a reason why Kick-Ass wasn't so successful is because it looked so bright and happy. Yes, the film was grittier and darker than it was advertised, but I think going the lighthearted approach would seem almost uninventive by today's modern audience.
Smart blockbusters like The Dark Knight and the two most recent Bond films prove that audiences expect a little bit more out of their action films these days. One of the reasons why the Bourne movies were so successful because it presented a very naturalistic and gritty take on a character that was flawed and human. I think I really liked that approach to the Craig Bond -- Bond felt like a human being again, who bled and got hurt. I think that approach is why Casino Royale was so revered and touted as one of the best Bond films in years.
However, that's not refuting that lightheartedness and fun are things that are proven to be not successful -- again, audiences loved the new Star Trek because it was fun, and the same goes for Iron Man and the recent Sherlock Holmes revitalization. I think the next Bond movie can be a bit less serious and a bit more fun, but I don't think it needs to stoop down to Roger Moore levels, with the camp and the ridiculousness, because I think audiences are past that nowadays. I mean, there's a certain balance that's needed, between seriousness and fun, and I think Casino Royale nailed that, and I think Quantum of Solace didn't, which is why it failed to really impress audiences.
For me this is fotunate, since I'm not a big fan of Craig's two Bond films and I was not too interested in seeing him continue in the role for a third time. I hope this issue drags out as long as necessary. Allow the producers to give us back a proper cinematic Bond.
Maybe the next Bond can be Property of Lady, that would be ironic!
Ok, I read through the thread now.
Don't get me wrong I like Daniel Craig, the actor, I just don't think he was a good cinematic Bond. Were they good spy movies, yes, James Bond movies as we've come to know them, no. For better or worse cinematic Bond as portrayed for the better part of 35yrs has evolved slightly different than literary Bond started.
FWIW, Brosnan wanted to do Royale and he wanted the gadgetry toned down. He was invested in the character and wanted to explore more of Bond's personal background. It was the producers(Broccoli's) I blame for the direction into a Bourne-esque evolution. Craig gets a pass from me on that.
Don't get me wrong I like Daniel Craig, the actor, I just don't think he was a good cinematic Bond. Were they good spy movies, yes, James Bond movies as we've come to know them, no. For better or worse cinematic Bond as portrayed for the better part of 35yrs has evolved slightly different than literary Bond started.
FWIW, Brosnan wanted to do Royale and he wanted the gadgetry toned down. He was invested in the character and wanted to explore more of Bond's personal background. It was the producers(Broccoli's) I blame for the direction into a Bourne-esque evolution. Craig gets a pass from me on that.
I see it like a part of the Bond lexicon -- not wholly representative of that. In terms of the onscreen iterations of Bond, you have the Sean Connery version, which started out pretty gritty and toned down with the first few films, and then things started to get a bit outlandish with Roger Moore. However, the Timothy Dalton films completely reversed that, and the Pierce Brosnan films brought a more balance between the more outlandish qualities of Bond and the character-driven stories of the Connery era.
The Craig films are more akin to the early Connery films or the Dalton films. They aren't really anything new -- they are definitely a different direction, but the way you make it out, it's like this is the first time we've seen a Bond who is grittier and doesn't rely so much on gadgets but his wits. Have you seen From Russia With Love? Even the Dalton films, which admittedly had their fair share of gadgets and Bond staples, were grittier and more reality-driven. So the Craig Bond films are nothing new, just a different take on the character that has changed with almost every new Bond -- every time we got a new actor in the role, he brought something unique and singular to the role, and the tone of the movies adjusted accordingly. The Craig Bond movies were just following this pattern.
If we're talking For You Eyes Only, then ok.
No matter what though, we need Q, gadgets, Moneypenny, and quips to return. They were dead wrong when they felt that those were problems with the series. Those are staples that give the series its charm. The best Bond movies still have those elements, and they were never a detriment to them.
Yes, I've seen every Bond more than once, except QoS. I own them all, except QoS.
The early Bond movies are what I left out on purpose. When I said "for the better part of 35yrs" I was intentionally leaving out Dr.No and FRWL. It was an implied that I understand Bond was less gadgetry, and been around 40+yrs cinematically, focused in the beginning.
Royale grows on me some but I still feel its 20min too long. I don't find the fun in like I do even FRWL. This may seem ironic but I wish we had gotten that third Dalton Bond, Property of a Lady. I have a soft spot for Dalton probably because his were the first ones I saw in the theater I suppose.
Right. I wouldn't argue that at certain times the series went overboard at times but to remove them entirely was a bad move. A happy balance has been struck in all the series where the actor got more than two movies, perhaps even Craig's Bond could find that balance. We may never know.
Why leave out the early Connery films? I mean, they are as integral and important as the Moore ones. Or the Brosnan ones. They all represent a certain iteration of the Bond character. Each different and unique from the other.
To each their own. Craig's Bond has some wonderful one-liners and moments (like when he comes to after being drugged, or the way he handles M in the beginning) and there's some real sort of fun moments in the film (like when he earns the Aston Martin). Sure, not everyone might see it that way, but it was still fun to me, while being intermittently dispersed amongst the film without resorting to borderline camp.
I think part of the fun will be to see how the gadgetry, and some of the Bond staples, like Q and Moneypenny, are gradually reintroduced to the Bond series. The Craig films were never about scrapping those elements entirely -- it was about removing them for a certain while so the producers and filmmakers could focus on Bond as a character. For example, I would love to see Bond interact with a younger, more utilitarian version of Q, maybe under his real name Major Boothryd. There's some potential to reinvent those staples in a fun yet fresh and exciting way.
*Pauses to allow that bloody Avatar ad music to stop playing (the off button doesn't work on it!)*
Anyway, I enjoyed Quantum of Solace quite a bit. The fact people forget is it's part 2 of a trilogy, so there was supposed to be a third chapter and I think they were lining up to bring Q and Moneypenny back. At least that's the feeling I got reading a recent Wilson interview.
It is a shame that Bond is being held up by this nonsense. I don't see why Eon can't just take the property to another studio - as I understand it, Bond is owned by Eon, not by MGM. They just have a distribution deal. Granted, it would probably screw Bond 23 out of future box sets, etc. (sort of like what happened with Return of the Pink Panther) but at least the story would continue.
I agree that I can't see the delay taking too long. There were a number of factors back in 1989. I don't believe it had anything to do with Dalton, and Licence to Kill might have "underperformed" but it was still a massive hit. There were other issues -- didn't Kevin McCrory rear his head again at one point? I also remember Richard Maibaum, who was the designated writer for the Bonds up to that point, died as well which set things spinning for a bit.
I can only hope that Craig is patient. Fortunately he's got a lot of other work, so it's not as if he needs Bond. But he's the best Bond we've had since Connery, and his films -- both of them -- are the best Bonds since For Your Eyes Only in my opinion. I want to see more.
Alex
Anyway, I enjoyed Quantum of Solace quite a bit. The fact people forget is it's part 2 of a trilogy, so there was supposed to be a third chapter and I think they were lining up to bring Q and Moneypenny back. At least that's the feeling I got reading a recent Wilson interview.
It is a shame that Bond is being held up by this nonsense. I don't see why Eon can't just take the property to another studio - as I understand it, Bond is owned by Eon, not by MGM. They just have a distribution deal. Granted, it would probably screw Bond 23 out of future box sets, etc. (sort of like what happened with Return of the Pink Panther) but at least the story would continue.
I agree that I can't see the delay taking too long. There were a number of factors back in 1989. I don't believe it had anything to do with Dalton, and Licence to Kill might have "underperformed" but it was still a massive hit. There were other issues -- didn't Kevin McCrory rear his head again at one point? I also remember Richard Maibaum, who was the designated writer for the Bonds up to that point, died as well which set things spinning for a bit.
I can only hope that Craig is patient. Fortunately he's got a lot of other work, so it's not as if he needs Bond. But he's the best Bond we've had since Connery, and his films -- both of them -- are the best Bonds since For Your Eyes Only in my opinion. I want to see more.
Alex
It could be called The Six Doctors-- er, The Six Bonds, and after some wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey machinations, they join forces to defeat a regenerated SPECTRE.Maybe in the next movie, Craig, Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery can take turns.
This sucks. Oh well, while I'd like to see a couple more films with Craig as Bond, at least Quantum of Solace had a sort of finality to it. Bond had gotten revenge for the death of Vesper, and had finally and truly become 007.
Henry Cavill. He almost got the job in Casino Royale, but they thought he was too young at the time.
Robert Pattinson as Emo Bond... who literally sparkles! And spends more time in front of the mirror than the Bond girls.
Jeeez, get over it
He started a topic before you, and yours fell to the bottom, boohoo. Move on
This is a shame. I was really looking forward to more traditional Bond motifs being incorporated into the next film after the iffy meh left by Quantum of Solace. Sad, since the reboot was supposed to revive the series and if this delay turns out like the last gap,we'll never know if it really did help the franchise. What's worse is that the quality or the films themselves are not the issue. Once again its rights and money. Why does someone always interfere and put their hand in the Bond pot?
Hopefully another company will take MGM's reigns soon. Pity.
ETA: Here's my reviews on Craig's two pictures, and the rest of my Bond reviews. I feel like we've already discussed the bipolar nature of Moore's tenure? If he had only done LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, and FYEO, it wouldn't be so bad. Octo and AVTAK aren't super bad,more guilty pleasures, he's just too old.
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/search/label/James Bond
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2008/11/casino-royale.html
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2010/03/casino-royale-revisited.html
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2010/02/quantum-of-solace.html
Hopefully another company will take MGM's reigns soon. Pity.
ETA: Here's my reviews on Craig's two pictures, and the rest of my Bond reviews. I feel like we've already discussed the bipolar nature of Moore's tenure? If he had only done LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, and FYEO, it wouldn't be so bad. Octo and AVTAK aren't super bad,more guilty pleasures, he's just too old.
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/search/label/James Bond
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2008/11/casino-royale.html
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2010/03/casino-royale-revisited.html
http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/2010/02/quantum-of-solace.html
Last edited: