The Daniel Craig Bonds...

[Warped9]

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.

And that is either a misunderstanding or misconception of what I've said often enough. There are things in Trek I've liked post TMP. There aren't many but there are. I just haven't liked it in a consistent fashion---I found it all very hit-and-miss with more "miss" than "hit" in my opinion. The end result was a great disappointment with most of it in general with the exception of an occasional episode or idea.

I could cobble together a list of TNG and DS9 episodes I've liked that would comprise about two seasons worth of episodes. To me that says that Star Trek can be done beyond the TOS/TMP era and without the original crew and I can enjoy it. I could also cite concepts and ideas that I think were noteworthy.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Not to mention I know people who hated all Trek from TNG on but liked the 09 movie - which did, after all, did come from an entirely new creative team. And of course, there were those who took the opposite view.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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'm kind of fond of the idea of James Bond being a codename and shared biography for 007 passed down from agent to agent after one dies, gets injured, or retires (with the same applying to all of the 00 agents and Q and M). There's some continuity issues obviously like multiple Bond's referencing their wife from 'OHMSS' and visiting her grave, but you can chalk that up to it being part of playing the role.

It doesn't make much sense to have a well-known codename in real life espionage, but it works in the Bond universe, and would give the character a sense of immortality with his foes. I can picture them saying "didn't we kill this guy already?" or "just how old is he, anyway?"

Pierce Brosnan's Bond seemed unfamiliar with some of the gadgets in Q's warehouse in 'Die Another Day' that he had personally used before (like the rocket pack) if he was the same person. Likewise, clearly the same person couldn't have served in time-specific adventures spanning from the 1960s-2000s (before the Craig reboot) and be Dalton or Brosnan's ages.

In that case it makes perfect sense to still have Dench around as M with an entirely new Bond, and keeps them in the same continuity if you so desire. Though that requires you to accept certain far out things like much more common advanced private rockets and space stations in the Craig universe, which is pretty far-fetched.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I've often heard of that idea floated before and I've never bought into it. Since Casino Royale goes back to the source material then I think it follows that James Bond is the current 007 following whoever held the number before him. And someone else could get the number after Bond is retired, replaced or killed.

 

[Gaith]

I can criticize (nitpick really) one thing about Casino Royale as a reboot: why did they retain Judi Dench as M?

This exchange alone...

Camille: So, what's your interest in Greene?
Bond: Among other things, he tried to kill a friend of mine.
Camille: A woman?
Bond: Yes. But it's not what you think.
Camille: Your mother?
Bond: She likes to think so.

Makes it all worthwhile.

 

[Warped9]

I can criticize (nitpick really) one thing about Casino Royale as a reboot: why did they retain Judi Dench as M?

This exchange alone...

Camille: So, what's your interest in Greene?
Bond: Among other things, he tried to kill a friend of mine.
Camille: A woman?
Bond: Yes. But it's not what you think.
Camille: Your mother?
Bond: She likes to think so.

Makes it all worthwhile.

This sentiment is taken right out of the Fleming novels (as a whole) because Bond does seem to see M as a crusty father figure of sorts even though he could curse the hell at him as well as show unquestioning loyalty.

Sometimes I miss the original screen M.

 

[Samurai8472]

^^ I've often heard of that idea floated before and I've never bought into it. Since Casino Royale goes back to the source material then I think it follows that James Bond is the current 007 following whoever held the number before him. And someone else could get the number after Bond is retired, replaced or killed.

I wish we could use regeneration as a plausible explanation.

 

[Warped9]

Well if CR really is the restart button then all the previous films are erased from the new continuity.

Whenever I reread a Bond novel I still picture Connery because I think he not only acted the part but he also looked close to what Fleming seemed to be describing. The films after the first four Connery outings seemed to become very hit-and-miss even when I enjoyed them. I liked Roger Moore for a long time even though I felt Connery was still more Fleming's Bond. In an odd way I always felt I was watching the Saint with Moore than 007. I initially liked Timothy Dalton, but I felt his films were a bit weak. I never really had anything against Brosnan, but for me his films were extensions of the extremes of the Moore films---I just couldn't take them seriously (to the extent you can take a Bond film seriously). I might have liked Brosnan better if the films themselves had been better, but as is his films are my least favoured among the franchise. I can rewatch a Connery or Moore Bond, but I have zero interest in the Brosnan's or the second Dalton outing. Indeed Dalton's second film killed my interest in 007 until Craig came along.

As I said Connery still looks like the real 007 to me, but Craig fits the update and rebooting of the character. He fits in very well with getting back to the sensibilities of the original source material.

While QoS isn't one of my favourites it certainly isn't one of my most disliked either.

The ones I like (in no particular order):
Dr. No****
From Russia With Love*****
Goldfinger****
Thunderball***
You Only Live Twice**
On Her Majesty's Secret Service***
Diamonds Are Forever**
Live And Let Die**
The Man With The Golden Gun**
The Spy Who Loved Me****
Moonraker**
For Your Eyes Only**
Never Say Never Again**
The Living Daylights***
Casino Royale*****
Quantum Of Solace**

Note: I should really get around to rereading the books again.

 

[JarodRussell]

Well if CR really is the restart button then all the previous films are erased from the new continuity.

The James Bond movies never had a continuity to begin with. And no, James Bond is not a cover name. Craig plays the same character as Brosnan as ... as Connery. There's no "old Bond dies, new agent takes on his name and continues".

And I find it funny when someone gets irritated by Judi Dench still playing M, when we had Q being played by the same guy in every movie. And Felix was always a different actor in every movie. Young guy in Living Daylights, old gray haired guy in Licence to Kill.

 

[Warped9]

Well if CR really is the restart button then all the previous films are erased from the new continuity.

The James Bond movies never had a continuity to begin with. And no, James Bond is not a cover name. Craig plays the same character as Brosnan as ... as Connery. There's no "old Bond dies, new agent takes on his name and continues".

And I find it funny when someone gets irritated by Judi Dench still playing M, when we had Q being played by the same guy in every movie. And Felix was always a different actor in every movie. Young guy in Living Daylights, old gray haired guy in Licence to Kill.

I always accepted that each new actor for 007 was a reset for a new continuity. The only real glitch here is when we see Lazenby and then Connery returns for Diamonds Are Forever. Yet there are references to Bond's dead wife in two of Moore's films, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, but you can attribute that to acknowledging the part of the mythos of Bond.

 

[sidious618]

License to Kill plays pretty heavily on Bond mythos.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Well if CR really is the restart button then all the previous films are erased from the new continuity.

The James Bond movies never had a continuity to begin with. And no, James Bond is not a cover name. Craig plays the same character as Brosnan as ... as Connery. There's no "old Bond dies, new agent takes on his name and continues".

And I find it funny when someone gets irritated by Judi Dench still playing M, when we had Q being played by the same guy in every movie. And Felix was always a different actor in every movie. Young guy in Living Daylights, old gray haired guy in Licence to Kill.

Largely correct - but David Hedison played Leiter in both Live & Let Die and Licence to Kill. Coincidentally, the scene in LTK where Leiter is fed to a shark is taken from the original novel of LALD.

Though it is indeed funny that between The Living Daylights and Licence, Leiter somehow aged from John Terry (born 1950) to Hedison (born 1927!). Tough couple of years ...

 

[Warped9]

Two films that would be fun to see remade with Craig as Bond and the right writers and director: Moonraker and On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Moonraker could be cool if based on the actual original book. Update it so someone gets hold of a missile or device or project called Moonraker and Bond has to stop them. OHMSS would just be worth seeing without Lazenby.

 

[doubleohfive]

^Moonraker would be a great, great film if simply done as a straight adaptation of the original novel.

Lazenby was fine in the role, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service is easily one of the best films of the series. Just like nobody should ever try to remake Wrath of Khan, nobody should try to remake OHMSS.

 

[Starkers]

Casino Royale is too long, Quantum of Solace is too short...I'm really hoping Craig gets a third film that's just right.

Actually in many respects I prefer QoS, if only because I can find the time to watch it. Seriously if I have 2 1/2 hours free I'm more likely to watch OHMSS!

I think they do work well togeather, and I especially like how CR begins in snowy Eastern Europe and ends in sunny Italy and QoS starts in Italy and ends in snowy Eastern Europe. I also like that at the start of CR Bond can't see the bigger picture..."I thought one less bomb maker in the world was a good thing." yet by the end of QoS he can see the bigger picture to such an extent that he doesn't kill Vesper's boyfriend.

I think for me what lets CR down is not just the length, but the structure--there's nothing wrong per se with having your action sequences at the start (see Empire) but when you have a running theme of mano a mano--cobra vs mongoose, Bond vs free runner, Bond vs bomber, Bond vs Le Chiffre (even Bond vs the African guy since he offed his bodyguard so quickly)--then to jam in a final fire fight which has Bond vs, er some guys, kinda spoils things. It is like the producers didn't trust that people would have gone for a Bond film without a big fight at the end. It doesn't help that there's so little romance between Bond and Vesper, and that it mainly comes towards the end, romance is fine but at least in OHMSS it was more obvious and came in earlier.

CR really does hit you over the head sometimes plot wise: take Mathis' cringeworthy aside to camera explaing the rules of poker and that Bond has spotted LeChiffre's tell, or 007's really lousy detective work in making it to the health club in the Bahamas where he finds (conviniently) CCTV footage flagging Demitious, wow lucky that camera was pointing in the right place eh? Contrast that with the clever way in which Bond tags Green and co and follows them to Austria. And therein lies the major difference. In CR the plot is explained to us; at great length, just check out M's clumsy line about how Le chriffre can set up a high stakes poker game at casino Royale in montenegra (which is in the former yugolsavia she might as well have added) QoS on the other hand requires you to think a bit more.

Now how much of that is intentional I don't know. CR is very polished whereas QoS is not, but that might not have been the original intention, remember the writer's strike probably entailed that the QoS script was maybe a draft or two short of where they'd have wanted it, as such QoS is quite rough and ready but I kind of like that.

For me QoS feels a bit more like a Bond film, a touch more humour (very deadpan I grant you but that suits Craig) a villain with a diabolical plan, and a villain with a ridiculous hq...hello and welcome to my exploding hotel! Plus Camille is quite interesting.

And herein likes another couple of problems I have with CR. The villain and the girl.

Le Chiffre. This guy is the bad guy? Funny cos for most of the film he appears to be the bad guy's accountant! And sorry but an asthmatic villain? He doesn't even have any memorable henchmen! Shame really as Mads was one of the only good things about Clash of the Titans. Don't get me wrong, Greene isn't great. but he just feels a touch more villainous.

And on to Vesper...Is she French, is she English? There's no need to decide because clearly Eva hasn't! Her character doesn't develop much. She's a bitch and then she isn't and loves Bond. Now in fairness I blame Fleming because even in the book the girl makes no sense! There's never any indication of why Bond would fall in love with her unless it was the fact that she didn't fancy him! I think as well Eva just doesn't ever make Vesper seem vulnerable enough. I wish they'd hired Rose Byrne she'd have made a better Vesper (and probably would have had a better accent).

Oh yeah, and how come Le Chiffre was still so bothered about the money even after Bond handily killed the guy he owned it to?

I'm sorry, the above makes it seem like I hate Casino Royale and I really don't, I just think its flawed and somewhat overrated, by the same token Quantum of Solace is somehwat underrated.