"Bond 23" Announced!

[Starkers]

I'm not the biggest Bond fan and I was skeptical when Craig was selected but I loved Casino Royale. It had the right mix of pulse pounding action, intrigue, and romance. Whereas the action in Quantum of Solace was more mindless, there wasn't much of a plot (one that made sense anyway), and Bond seemed so cold and remote (albeit with reason I suppose) that it didn't work for me. He was killing people without interrogating them first and then just lucking up too much as he went along.

His seduction techniques with Agent Fields (who didn't even mention her first name for him to make an entendre or something about) was lame, he didn't bed Camille, and the villains mostly sucked, except for Medrano. CR was a nice intro, but QoS was a weak follow-up. That being said, I would like them to finish out this trilogy. It seemed like Bond went through an awful lot in Quantum to just discard Vesper's memory like he did. That was such an unsatisfying ending.

Actually I love the ending of QoS, and I don't think Bond is discarding the memory of Vesper, in throwing away the necklace he's throwing away his need to get revenge for her death- actually I like the bookending that CR begins in snowy Eastern europe and QoS ends there, that Bond has gone from loose cannon to trusted agent, from the man who couldn't see the bigger picture to the man who didn't kill Vesper's boyfriend because he wasn't important enough and was worth more alive.

Maybe I'm biased because I don't follw the accepted path that CR is brilliant, very good yes, but not really a Bond film and far too long and badly paced. Personally I thought QoS far a far more traditional Bond. The villain had a nefarious scheme (more nefarious than 'win some money at cards') Bond jetted around the world in seconds, he was up against a slightly ridiculous organisation, seduced the pretty young girl who ended up being horribly murdered, and the villain had a secret base (cue the exploding hotel) The Bond music was there, if you listened for it, and the humour was there too, it's just that--like Dalton--Craig suits a dryer, less obvious one liners. Plus Camile had more personality and backstory than the horrendously miscast Eva Green. Best of all QoS didn't take two and a half hours and feature multiple endings...

I don't think we've seen the best of Daniel Craig yet though, but he continues to be the best thing about the new Bonds (and this is said as someone who hated him when he was cast)

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm not the biggest Bond fan and I was skeptical when Craig was selected but I loved Casino Royale. It had the right mix of pulse pounding action, intrigue, and romance. Whereas the action in Quantum of Solace was more mindless, there wasn't much of a plot (one that made sense anyway), and Bond seemed so cold and remote (albeit with reason I suppose) that it didn't work for me. He was killing people without interrogating them first and then just lucking up too much as he went along.

His seduction techniques with Agent Fields (who didn't even mention her first name for him to make an entendre or something about) was lame, he didn't bed Camille, and the villains mostly sucked, except for Medrano. CR was a nice intro, but QoS was a weak follow-up. That being said, I would like them to finish out this trilogy. It seemed like Bond went through an awful lot in Quantum to just discard Vesper's memory like he did. That was such an unsatisfying ending.

Actually I love the ending of QoS, and I don't think Bond is discarding the memory of Vesper, in throwing away the necklace he's throwing away his need to get revenge for her death- actually I like the bookending that CR begins in snowy Eastern europe and QoS ends there, that Bond has gone from loose cannon to trusted agent, from the man who couldn't see the bigger picture to the man who didn't kill Vesper's boyfriend because he wasn't important enough and was worth more alive.

Maybe I'm biased because I don't follw the accepted path that CR is brilliant, very good yes, but not really a Bond film and far too long and badly paced. Personally I thought QoS far a far more traditional Bond. The villain had a nefarious scheme (more nefarious than 'win some money at cards') Bond jetted around the world in seconds, he was up against a slightly ridiculous organisation, seduced the pretty young girl who ended up being horribly murdered, and the villain had a secret base (cue the exploding hotel) The Bond music was there, if you listened for it, and the humour was there too, it's just that--like Dalton--Craig suits a dryer, less obvious one liners. Plus Camile had more personality and backstory than the horrendously miscast Eva Green. Best of all QoS didn't take two and a half hours and feature multiple endings...

I don't think we've seen the best of Daniel Craig yet though, but he continues to be the best thing about the new Bonds (and this is said as someone who hated him when he was cast)

Maybe that's why I don't particularly like it then. I've never really been a big Bond fan. I've probably seen most of them, but Casino Royale is the only one I like enough to own.

 

[Hermiod]

So far I've struggled to derive much enjoyment from Daniel Craig's Bond movies.

Casino Royale was largely boring. I struggled to feel any sympathy for Bond because he was just so unlikeable. I couldn't care less about Vesper because she was such a cookie cutter modern day Bond girl - she has to be Bond's "equal". Bond should put his feet up and relax given how many "equals" he has out there.

And then, after all of that, the movie just stops for what felt like at least 45 minutes. From what I can see they just accidentally spliced in footage from a slow, boring, romantic drama that happened to have two of the same cast members in it.

The one woman I am convinced Bond ever really cared about was Tracy. That should have been their template here but instead we got an extremely annoying perfume saleswoman.

Then we come on to Quantum of Solace. Old school Bond fans like me were hoping Mr. White was part of SPECTRE, but instead we get the watered down version. In response to people like me, perhaps, who felt Casino Royale was slow and boring, this time we get almost non-stop action. Still can't get the balance right, can they ? They forgot to write in a plot and we get another Bond-goes-rogue story. Sorry, I preferred the days where M and co implicitly trusted Bond. Remember "The Man With the Golden Gun" where M implies that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if Bond happened to catch Scaramanga first ?

I will say, however, the villains in both films were well cast.

 

[Starkers]

The one woman I am convinced Bond ever really cared about was Tracy. That should have been their template here but instead we got an extremely annoying perfume saleswoman.

Completely agree on this. I think part of the trouble is that OHMSS could afford to have the slower, romantic bits at the start of the film, hence why it's much better paced than CR. Still it's how the novel runs I guess.

In both the film and the book it's never fully explained why Bond and Vesper fall in love, they just do. Vesper seems to go from hating to loving Bond in about 3 seconds. There's no indication of any kind of courtship, I suppose at least the film indicates an initial mutual attraction, but it's hard to know what Bond sees in her to be honest. She isn't sweet and naive like Kara, or tough and resourceful like XXX (not Vin diesal). To be honest the only reason Bond seems to fall for Vesper is simply because she doesn;'t like him!

 

[Hermiod]

^Ultimately, Tracy was a million times more interesting a character played by a billion times better actress.

If they'd made Casino Royale 30 or so years ago with Diana Rigg as Vesper maybe I might have tolerated the seemingly endless Bond-in-rehab scenes.

This time around, Olga Kurylenko is okay. Not sure why Greene was so reluctant to just shoot her, though. Gemma Arterton is better than her over the top performance in this film, something she's proven since. Still, I don't personally mind having a few flashbacks to the good old days - a stupidly named Bond girl who dies an unusual death.

As for the villains, Quantum seem to be incredibly low rent for people who have people everywhere. They chase around after a relatively small amount of money in Casino Royale and their plan in Quantum of Solace is particularly unspectacular.

Admittedly, their plans are a lot more ambitious than just stealing the Lektor in From Russia With Love.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

TPTB need to include more of the tidbits that make a Bond movie... a Bond movie. It doesn't need silly gadgets, but just enough of them to cause a geekgasm. That, the interactions/humor with M, Moneypenny, Q, and the hot girl(s) are what make Bond 'Bond'.

I like Craig as 007, but QoS to me was just a jumbled generic mess of a bland action movie, with some guy running around who just happened to be named "James Bond".

Just IMO, of course.
Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I hated CR when i first saw it, but the movie grew on me big time, QoS on the other hand lost me from the moment that god awful theme music started up right up through all the Bourne action sequences, and finished when they blew up the hotel made of dynamite.

Fingers crossed the next movie has a decent tune at least.

 

[Starkers]

^Ultimately, Tracy was a million times more interesting a character played by a billion times better actress.

If they'd made Casino Royale 30 or so years ago with Diana Rigg as Vesper maybe I might have tolerated the seemingly endless Bond-in-rehab scenes.

This time around, Olga Kurylenko is okay. Not sure why Greene was so reluctant to just shoot her, though. Gemma Arterton is better than her over the top performance in this film, something she's proven since. Still, I don't personally mind having a few flashbacks to the good old days - a stupidly named Bond girl who dies an unusual death.

As for the villains, Quantum seem to be incredibly low rent for people who have people everywhere. They chase around after a relatively small amount of money in Casino Royale and their plan in Quantum of Solace is particularly unspectacular.

Admittedly, their plans are a lot more ambitious than just stealing the Lektor in From Russia With Love.

Well I kinda liked the fact that in CR Quantum were bothered by the princinple of the thing rather than the money, but you have to wonder why they relied so much on Le Chiffre when he was obviously unreliable.

I quite liked the plan in QoS, it was far fetched without being unbeleivably far fetched. More Octopussy than Moonraker!

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Based on the reaction here, maybe this thread should be retitled "'Bond 23' Denounced"

 

[Captain Craig]

They took Bond, which in Die Another Day had almost became self parody, and turned it back into a respectable film franchise. They revitalized the franchise, were commercial successes and I hope they make many more.

Die Another Day made $160m domestic and $431m Worldwide. A 'revitalization' for commercial viability wasn't needed.
Casino Royale's domestic take and budget were very, very similar.
Quantum of Solace held for par while having a bigger, much bigger budget.

The franchise was doing its best under Brosnan. If any revitailzing occured it was with Goldeneye and how each subsequent Bond entry under him raised the financial viability of the franchise while Daniel Craig and the the Bourne-ification has done good to build minimaly on the audience.

 

[Starkers]

They took Bond, which in Die Another Day had almost became self parody, and turned it back into a respectable film franchise. They revitalized the franchise, were commercial successes and I hope they make many more.

Die Another Day made $160m domestic and $431m Worldwide. A 'revitalization' for commercial viability wasn't needed.
Casino Royale's domestic take and budget were very, very similar.
Quantum of Solace held for par while having a bigger, much bigger budget.

The franchise was doing its best under Brosnan. If any revitailzing occured it was with Goldeneye and how each subsequent Bond entry under him raised the financial viability of the franchise while Daniel Craig and the the Bourne-ification has done good to build minimaly on the audience.

Much as I actually enjoy DAD (nowhere near as bad as its painted) the franchise definitely needed a shot in the arm, and it's always done this- following the way out Moonraker with the very straight For Your Eyes Only for example. I think Brosnan had one more film in him, and a Casino Royale featuring a Bond at the end of his career instead of the begining could have worked. That said, I think Daniel Craig is a great Bond, and I suspect 23 will be a classic!

 

[Samurai8472]

The big question is who Michael Sheen will play.

Give him Q!

Michael Sheen as main bad guy would be awesome. That would actually get me watching the movie in the cinema

The prime minister and someone who played the queen(Dame Judi Dench) That would awesome.

 

[Captain Craig]

They took Bond, which in Die Another Day had almost became self parody, and turned it back into a respectable film franchise. They revitalized the franchise, were commercial successes and I hope they make many more.

Die Another Day made $160m domestic and $431m Worldwide. A 'revitalization' for commercial viability wasn't needed.
Casino Royale's domestic take and budget were very, very similar.
Quantum of Solace held for par while having a bigger, much bigger budget.

The franchise was doing its best under Brosnan. If any revitailzing occured it was with Goldeneye and how each subsequent Bond entry under him raised the financial viability of the franchise while Daniel Craig and the the Bourne-ification has done good to build minimaly on the audience.

Much as I actually enjoy DAD (nowhere near as bad as its painted) the franchise definitely needed a shot in the arm, and it's always done this- following the way out Moonraker with the very straight For Your Eyes Only for example. I think Brosnan had one more film in him, and a Casino Royale featuring a Bond at the end of his career instead of the begining could have worked. That said, I think Daniel Craig is a great Bond, and I suspect 23 will be a classic!

Not that I agree it needed this "shot in the arm" but if the idea of a shot in the arm is to significantly boost the bottom line then Daniel Craig as Bond has not done that. He has not grown the US domestic bottom line by any real increase. Some worldwide gains, yes, but if Bond 23 follows Quantum which saw a small drop then I can see Bond 23 #'s coming back down.
Since every Brosnan Bond saw gains there is no argument that proves a "shot in the arm" was needed. Nothing that indicates another Brosnan Bond, be it Casino or something else, couldn't have done similar #'s to what the Craig Royale managed.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

I don't understand why people don't like Craig's Bond.


I am assuming the people who say that have never read the books.


Craig's Bond is actually very close to the way Bond is portrayed in the books.


Still, Sean Connery is Bond, period, but Craig does the more accurate portrayal.

 

[sidious618]

Yep. Daniel Craig's Bond actually has, y'know, depth. I buy his actions and I buy that he's a person. He is the James Bond of the Fleming novels, something the franchise has never had before (although Dalton, believe it or not, came pretty close and Connery would hit the darkness sometimes).

 

[Jax]

They took Bond, which in Die Another Day had almost became self parody, and turned it back into a respectable film franchise. They revitalized the franchise, were commercial successes and I hope they make many more.

Die Another Day made $160m domestic and $431m Worldwide. A 'revitalization' for commercial viability wasn't needed.
Casino Royale's domestic take and budget were very, very similar.
Quantum of Solace held for par while having a bigger, much bigger budget.

The franchise was doing its best under Brosnan. If any revitailzing occured it was with Goldeneye and how each subsequent Bond entry under him raised the financial viability of the franchise while Daniel Craig and the the Bourne-ification has done good to build minimaly on the audience.

Much as I actually enjoy DAD (nowhere near as bad as its painted) the franchise definitely needed a shot in the arm, and it's always done this- following the way out Moonraker with the very straight For Your Eyes Only for example. I think Brosnan had one more film in him, and a Casino Royale featuring a Bond at the end of his career instead of the begining could have worked. That said, I think Daniel Craig is a great Bond, and I suspect 23 will be a classic!

DAD was panned by so many that another film in the same way would of struggled quite badly at the Box Office.

 

[Cky]

I don't understand why people don't like Craig's Bond.


I am assuming the people who say that have never read the books.


Craig's Bond is actually very close to the way Bond is portrayed in the books.


Still, Sean Connery is Bond, period, but Craig does the more accurate portrayal.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Daniel Craig. Layer Cake is one of my favorate films of all time, and I think he's amazing in that role. I just hate the films in general, I just thought they were so dry. Craig's performance was brilliant, he wasn't as good as my personal fave, Connery, but he's still staying true to the character and thats what matters.

But like I said, when it comes to the films, they just aren't good enough in my books. If they weren't Bond films, I think I would have a different perception, but because it's a Bond film, I naturally compare it to past films, and they just don't match up.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

Don't get me wrong, I do like Daniel Craig. Layer Cake is one of my favorate films of all time, and I think he's amazing in that role. I just hate the films in general, I just thought they were so dry. Craig's performance was brilliant, he wasn't as good as my personal fave, Connery, but he's still staying true to the character and thats what matters.

But like I said, when it comes to the films, they just aren't good enough in my books. If they weren't Bond films, I think I would have a different perception, but because it's a Bond film, I naturally compare it to past films, and they just don't match up.

QoS, I was disappointed in. The only thing I was happy about was Olga because she's Ukrainian (represent,lolololololollllll) but the movie was garbage.


I loved Casino Royale, that movie was awesome.


My favourite Bond movie though will always and forever be Goldfinger.

 

[Captain Craig]

Yep. Daniel Craig's Bond actually has, y'know, depth. I buy his actions and I buy that he's a person. He is the James Bond of the Fleming novels, something the franchise has never had before (although Dalton, believe it or not, came pretty close and Connery would hit the darkness sometimes).

Thats all well and good on some level I suppose. I like LITERARY BOND, even Flemings, cause literary Bond during Gardner and Benson's tenure really was more of a mimic of CINEMATIC BOND.

Its two distinct differences, the LITERARY and CINEMATIC, or at least it was in the beginning when Fleming was the only source.

Brosnan took the franchise to new heights and this "new" direction really hasn't done anything to build on the base in a profound way.

 

[nx1701g]

I don't understand why people don't like Craig's Bond.


I am assuming the people who say that have never read the books.


Craig's Bond is actually very close to the way Bond is portrayed in the books.


Still, Sean Connery is Bond, period, but Craig does the more accurate portrayal.

Um I've read the books - I even have a first printing of Casino Royale - and I don't like Craig Bond.