The Daniel Craig Bonds...

[RandyS]

i was afraid that Craig's Bond legacy would end up like Dalton's. Dalton started off with a solid first film and had a second one that, while still fun, just wasn't as good.

That's an interesting comparison. My opinion though, is that while both of Dalton's films were quite good (The Living Daylights in particular), Craig's films were not. Well, okay, Casino Royale was good (but rather soulless), but Quantum of Solace was garbage.

 

[doubleohfive]

If you liked the new Bond you should check out that new Star Trek!

Loved Casino Royale.
Disappointed with Quantum Of Solace.
Cannot fucking stand one frame of film from ST09.

Yes. We know. Which is all the more tragic, because Star Trek 2009 pretty much did for the Trek franchise exactly what Casino Royale did for the Bond films. Oh well. To each their own.

Quantum was ok. As Locutus said though, it inevitably falls short in part because Casino Royale was so brilliantly done.

For myself, I was hoping there would be some small reference to the original story the film got its title from, even if in passing, but even that was not to be.

 

[Gaith]

- Speaking of silly, the notion of an international cabal of world leaders' aides is utterly lame, and destroys any of the real-world credibility the new films are otherwise trying to build.

This is not what the new movies are trying to build. Just because they wanted to get away from invisible cars and space stations doesn't mean an organization similar to Spectre shouldn't be in it. World dominating, secretly acting supervillains are part of James Bond.

So is the USSR, but I think we can all agree they shouldn't bring that back.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be wild and diabolical plots, but if they're to follow Casino Royale's example - and I think they should - there should be at least some grounding in reality. GoldenEye would be an example of that, albeit an already rather silly one. Ironically, QoS does have a credible subplot in the water scheme, but it suffers from being marginalized by the larger story.

I'm all for big-business and terrorist villains; heck, I'd be all for a movie in which Bond battles an al-Qaeda plot. But the notion of an international cabal of power brokers secretly scheming to run governments, oppress and steal from the powerless in order to rack up monstrous profits is ludicrous. That sort of thing happens in public.

 

[MyCylon]

I love both CR and QoS, to be honest. In my mind, QoS is a wonderful follow-up to where CR left off. It was going to be very different in feeling and tone because Bond is a completely different place emotionally and in terms of his goals.

I suppose I view it a bit like Dominoes. CR sets up the character, delving into various aspects of his personality, as well as the world that surrounds him. When part of that world dies with Vesper it paves the path for what we see in QoS: It's essentially a relentless quest on Bond's part to uncover the truth about who was behind Vesper's acts and infiltrating MI6 that invariably results in losses along the way (Mathis, Fields).

Interestingly, one of the things I remember most about QoS in many ways is how beautiful some of its scenes are. For example, I adore the opening shot where the camera pans across the water, towards the winding road surrounding the lake. Orchestral music is mixed very effectively with the engine sounds which take over at some point.
And then there's what's probably my favorite scene in the Opera House where Bond runs into Green and his henchmen. It's beautifully filmed, and I love the way everything just falls silent for a brief moment, everybody holds their breaths, and then all hell breaks loose, accompanied by music from the Opera itself.

If taken on its own, it would probably rate a little higher then it does with most people. But when it is inevitably stacked up against its predescessor, it suffers in the comparison.

Interestingly, I get the exact opposite feeling. I think QoS works because of the emotional setup from CR. Without that I think it would be very hard to understand the true motivations behind what is going on, making it harder to become invested in.
In fact, at some point I was wondering if some of the dislike from QoS came from the fact that people weren't really used to carrying over so much material from one Bond film to another. They've usually been much more self-contained then these two.

Having said that, I hope the next Craig Bond will pick up where CR and QoS let off. I think it's a great starting point and a world and a Bond I want to see a lot more of.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Different tone, I can definitely see, but that doesn't account for the different style of filmmaking that was used. It's completely different. None of the other Bonds used this style, so it feels out of place. The style should match the one that it followed.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If taken on its own, it would probably rate a little higher then it does with most people. But when it is inevitably stacked up against its predescessor, it suffers in the comparison.

Interestingly, I get the exact opposite feeling. I think QoS works because of the emotional setup from CR. Without that I think it would be very hard to understand the true motivations behind what is going on, making it harder to become invested in.
In fact, at some point I was wondering if some of the dislike from QoS came from the fact that people weren't really used to carrying over so much material from one Bond film to another. They've usually been much more self-contained then these two.

Obviously the story would have to be altered to explain Bond's motivation for his actions if it was a solo film. That's a given. I just meant that it suffers in comparison to CR in terms of quality of filmmaking, in my opinion.

The Austrian opera house scene you liked, for instance. The idea of jumping back and forth between the events onstage and the fight offstage was a good one, it was just very poorly executed I thought. The editing was shoddy and it was difficult to easily tell what was happening on a couple occasions. From what I recall they jumped right into the middle of a firefight in a restaurant when all that had been done to set it up was to have Bond encounter Greene's henchmen in a completely different area a moment before where they just stared at each other. Obviously you can put two and two together how they ended up there, but it was a jarring transition.

The scene before that where he gets on the Quantum member's comms and makes them scatter like roaches (except for the smarter Mr. White) so he can take their pictures is quite good, however.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yes. We know. Which is all the more tragic, because Star Trek 2009 pretty much did for the Trek franchise exactly what Casino Royale did for the Bond films. Oh well. To each their own.

So your opinion whether you like a movie or not depends on its financial success, or "what it does for the franchise"? LOL.

This is not what the new movies are trying to build. Just because they wanted to get away from invisible cars and space stations doesn't mean an organization similar to Spectre shouldn't be in it. World dominating, secretly acting supervillains are part of James Bond.

So is the USSR, but I think we can all agree they shouldn't bring that back.

False analogy. Shadow government/conspiracy is timeless, USSR isn't.

 

[Neroon]

 

[Whofan]

One problem I think with QOS was how long it was. Whereas CR was 2 1/2 hours, I think QOS was less than 2.


David Arnold's score was also considerably weaker. I'm suprised he didn't use more of the Bond theme, considering it was fully 'formed' at the end of Casino Royale.

 

[doubleohfive]

Yes. We know. Which is all the more tragic, because Star Trek 2009 pretty much did for the Trek franchise exactly what Casino Royale did for the Bond films. Oh well. To each their own.

So your opinion whether you like a movie or not depends on its financial success, or "what it does for the franchise"? LOL.

Wow, don't leapfrog to any assumptions there.

Both films are excellent, in my opinion, and to suggest that rebooting each respective franchise should be the only reason to find value in the film is foolhardy. Note that I did not specify that. I simply said that it's tragic that Warped9 (and anyone else, really) can see past the 'newness' of Casino Royale and enjoy it yet can't seem to bring himself to do same with Star Trek 2009.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yes. We know. Which is all the more tragic, because Star Trek 2009 pretty much did for the Trek franchise exactly what Casino Royale did for the Bond films. Oh well. To each their own.

So your opinion whether you like a movie or not depends on its financial success, or "what it does for the franchise"? LOL.

Wow, don't leapfrog to any assumptions there.

Both films are excellent, in my opinion, and to suggest that rebooting each respective franchise should be the only reason to find value in the film is foolhardy. Note that I did not specify that. I simply said that it's tragic that Warped9 (and anyone else, really) can see past the 'newness' of Casino Royale and enjoy it yet can't seem to bring himself to do same with Star Trek 2009.

Why is that "tragic"? He likes the one and doesn't like the other. No tragedy about that.

 

[doubleohfive]

Oh jeez, ok tragic was probably the wrong word to use. "Pathetic" didn't seem like it would go over too well either.

There's just a hypocritical closed-mindedness to it.

 

[Warped9]

I accept that others can like something I detest because it works for them and not me. Happens all the time. But why is it "pathetic" that I can't embrace what others like?

It isn't that ST09 is new, but that I think it's poorly done on so many levels. Casion Royale was a well done reboot in my opinion. They got all the essentials right and then some. For me ST09 got nothing right as a reboot.

People like to assume that others don't accept something for preconceived reasons: it's new so they ain't gonna like it. That's bullshit because there are a lot of new things over the years unto today that I've liked. They can't seem to accept us rejecting something not because it's new, but because we think it's bad all on tis own.

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh jeez, ok tragic was probably the wrong word to use. "Pathetic" didn't seem like it would go over too well either.

There's just a hypocritical closed-mindedness to it.

Hm... I can only disagree there. Closed-minded would be if he also hated Casino Royale for being new. But he doesn't. Instead, he makes no difference between new or old, he simply likes good stuff and dislikes bad stuff.

Which is why I thought you implied that one just has to like a movie if it's new and refreshing and good for the franchise.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I love Casino Royale. After so many years of what seemed to be tongue-in-cheek parodies of the character, I felt like I was finally watching a real "Fleming" Bond again.

I have no use at all for Quantum of Solace. It was nothing but a string of overblown action sequences. Not only that, but the action sequences themselves were rendered essentially unintelligible due to that accursed herky-jerky shaky cam crap.

 

[Warped9]

I can criticize (nitpick really) one thing about Casino Royale as a reboot: why did they retain Judi Dench as M? I accept CR as starting from scratch when Bond becomes 007, but then shouldn't they have contracted a new actor to play M? They chose not to and so I turn a blind eye to the same actress playing M because they got everything else right.

I don't dislike ST09 because it's new or because it's a reboot. I reject it because in my opinion it fails in every important way. I don't think it's good as TOS, as Star Trek or as a reboot or as a film. They did many things in the film that I dislike in films in general. That said I could have been pleasantly surprised if they'd done a genuine full up reboot that more clearly and honestly cut ties with what had come before, and then I might have enjoyed it on its own terms.

I recall being prepared to dislike Batman Beyond when I heard the first details. Or the Peter Jackson King Kong. Yet in each case I was surprise to see they'd really thought things through and made them work.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I can criticize (nitpick really) one thing about Casino Royale as a reboot: why did they retain Judi Dench as M? I accept CR as starting from scratch when Bond becomes 007, but then shouldn't they have contracted a new actor to play M? They chose not to and so I turn a blind eye to the same actress playing M because they got everything else right.

It's as simpl as the fact that the producers really liked her performance as M and reckoned they couldn't think of anyone to improve on it. Their attitude was that the fans would turn a blind eye to any continuity issues - much like you (and pretty much everyone else) have.

I don't dislike ST09 because it's new or because it's a reboot. I reject it because in my opinion it fails in every important way. I don't think it's good as TOS, as Star Trek or as a reboot or as a film. They did many things in the film that I dislike in films in general. That said I could have been pleasantly surprised if they'd done a genuine full up reboot that more clearly and honestly cut ties with what had come before, and then I might have enjoyed it on its own terms.

I personally like it a lot, but you're entitled not to, fair enough. I don't think that makes you hypocritical, tragic or anything, it just means you have different taste than me.

 

[Warped9]

I don't dislike ST09 because it's new or because it's a reboot. I reject it because in my opinion it fails in every important way. I don't think it's good as TOS, as Star Trek or as a reboot or as a film. They did many things in the film that I dislike in films in general. That said I could have been pleasantly surprised if they'd done a genuine full up reboot that more clearly and honestly cut ties with what had come before, and then I might have enjoyed it on its own terms.

I personally like it a lot, but you're entitled not to, fair enough. I don't think that makes you hypocritical, tragic or anything, it just means you have different taste than me.

Thank you. Would that some others get that distinction.

 

[doubleohfive]

I can criticize (nitpick really) one thing about Casino Royale as a reboot: why did they retain Judi Dench as M? I accept CR as starting from scratch when Bond becomes 007, but then shouldn't they have contracted a new actor to play M? They chose not to and so I turn a blind eye to the same actress playing M because they got everything else right.

It's fairly easy to understand why. Dench had worked with the producers before. She's an Academy-award winning actress. She's established in the role.

This whole desire to make it a nice and neat and clean and tidy reboot is unnecessary. We know its a reboot, you know its a reboot, they know its a reboot. Is it really that big a deal that Dench is playing M again?

The answer is "No. It is not."

I don't dislike ST09 because it's new or because it's a reboot. I reject it because in my opinion it fails in every important way. I don't think it's good as TOS, as Star Trek or as a reboot or as a film. They did many things in the film that I dislike in films in general. That said I could have been pleasantly surprised if they'd done a genuine full up reboot that more clearly and honestly cut ties with what had come before, and then I might have enjoyed it on its own terms.

I personally like it a lot, but you're entitled not to, fair enough. I don't think that makes you hypocritical, tragic or anything, it just means you have different taste than me.

Thank you. Would that some others get that distinction.

I don't begrudge you your right to not like the movie. However its rather difficult for me to believe you gave it a fair chance being that for as long as I've known you, Warped9, you have continually and endlessly espoused that there's nothing worth watching in the Star Trek oeuvre produced after 1979.

You are completely, totally and perhaps rightfully unapologetic about it, and that's your right. I just think in this context it's hypocritical because I completely disagree with your assessment of Star Trek 2009. It did exactly what it set out to do and what the fan base needed it to do in order to re-energize the franchise.

 

[sidious618]

Casino Royale is one of the best "action" films of all time. It's a great character piece and very well acted which is what makes it so awesome.