Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes confirmed for Bond 24

[MacLeod]

Teh Craig era Bond films did seem to be doing a bit of creating the Bond universe or rather re-creating. As you said Moneypenny, M's new office which has echos of the earlier ones.

But Skyfall was certainly a popular movie, Coming in at number 2 for the 2012 box office.

 

[DalekJim]

Mind you, I'm not advocating Roger Mooresque campfests

I love Roger Moore.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Skyfall is absolutely beautiful, probably the best-photographed Bond film ever.

It's also completely, utterly stupid, and it boggles my mind that John Logan continues to get work.

This. So very this.

 

[The Realist]

STID has plenty of dark grit compared to the previous films.
Was it the lack of comic relief in SKYFALL that put you off?
That may the biggest difference between the two movies.

Despite the title, I didn't find the overall tone of STiD excessively dark at all. Yes, there was death and sorrow, but there was also color and humor and energy. There was friendship, love, camaraderie, and casual sex with twin catgirls. There were heroes tempted to hatred and vengeance (those favorite Hollywood character motivations) who found their better instincts. There were actors who brought spirit and wit to their performances, instead of mistaking unrelieved dourness for artistry.

Basically, it was a movie that left me feeling exhilarated and buoyant -- feelings I have sadly resigned myself to never taking away from a CraigBond film.

 

[Relayer1]

Glad to hear it. Other than one or two minor things I adored Skyfall. It was a little bit more of an M film than a Bond film but that's fine with me considering M was played by Judi Dench. Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond movie (and I don't think it'll be displaced even if a better Bond film arrives) but Skyfall is probably a close second.

Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond movie too, then several Connery ones.

Skyfall was one of the better movies, but to be honest I'm not thrilled Mendes is back again. Not upset, but not thrilled...

 

[tighr]

Teh Craig era Bond films did seem to be doing a bit of creating the Bond universe or rather re-creating. As you said Moneypenny, M's new office which has echos of the earlier ones.

The Craig films are re-molding the Bond ethos into something that more closely resembles the James Bond of the books.

Casino Royale is a near perfect adaptation of the book of the same name, minus the added subplot of Bond gaining his 00 status and Le Chifre's plot to blow up the airliner (necessary expansions to make the film more cinematic).

As a lifelong Bond fan, I wish I could be excited by this, but after Skyfall I've been forced to admit that Daniel Craig is never going to be my James Bond. Why the ultimate male wish-fulfillment character has been turned into this sullen, joyless, eternally-burdened fellow, who seems always to be having a miserable time of it, is a mystery to me. Even the sex scenes have become grudging and perfunctory, as if showing Bond taking any pleasure in life at all is now verboten.

This is actually a perfect example of how Craig's Bond resembles the Bond of the books. James Bond was never meant to be this awesome guy, he has always been "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", a government agent who does everything for the Crown. He's not supposed to enjoy life; no one should ever enjoy killing for a living. He's an assassin, but it's what he's paid to do. The books even describe how he's not supposed to fall in love, because that creates attachments that can be used against you. When he does fall in love, it bites him in the ass, and he learns a lesson. In Casino Royale, the line "the bitch is dead" is a direct lift from the book, where he realizes he was fooled by love but as a spy he's not allowed that luxury.

 

[Harvey]

I had a lot of fun at Skyfall. Visually, it was the best looking Bond film in quite a while. As far as the writing went, the plotting was pretty stupid, but the character work was great. This was, perhaps, a bit of a reversal from a lot of earlier Bond films. Hopefully, they'll manage to do get right in the next installment, as they did in Casino Royale (I like Quantum of Solace, but it's brief running time didn't leave a lot of room for character development).

 

[The Realist]

This is actually a perfect example of how Craig's Bond resembles the Bond of the books. James Bond was never meant to be this awesome guy, he has always been "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", a government agent who does everything for the Crown. He's not supposed to enjoy life; no one should ever enjoy killing for a living. He's an assassin, but it's what he's paid to do. The books even describe how he's not supposed to fall in love, because that creates attachments that can be used against you. When he does fall in love, it bites him in the ass, and he learns a lesson. In Casino Royale, the line "the bitch is dead" is a direct lift from the book, where he realizes he was fooled by love but as a spy he's not allowed that luxury.

I've heard the "bookBond" argument many times, and you make it better than most. But while I might at one time have found it persuasive, I don't have much interest in it anymore. MovieBond has had 50 years of storied cinematic history to become his own thing, and I'm not sure there's any inherent virtue in making the character slavishly "faithful to Fleming" -- at least not if it gives us Craig's glum interpretation as the result.

FWIW, Dalton also based his version of Bond on the literary source material, and was lauded by fans for doing so. Somehow, though, his Bond came out flinty and intense, but not perpetually po-faced like the current incarnation. Indeed, Dalton's may well be my favorite take on the character.

 

[Relayer1]

As a lifelong Bond fan, I wish I could be excited by this, but after Skyfall I've been forced to admit that Daniel Craig is never going to be my James Bond. Why the ultimate male wish-fulfillment character has been turned into this sullen, joyless, eternally-burdened fellow, who seems always to be having a miserable time of it, is a mystery to me. Even the sex scenes have become grudging and perfunctory, as if showing Bond taking any pleasure in life at all is now verboten.

This is actually a perfect example of how Craig's Bond resembles the Bond of the books.

You are a fan of the films rather than the books - first and foremost I love the original Fleming creation and try to forget the tongue in cheek git from the middle era movies. That's nothing like Bond.

Craig and the current team have got it more 'right' than most. The resurrection of a failing franchise shows that audiences agree.

He's a killer, a cad and a connoisseur. He's NOT a load of laughs.

 

[The Realist]

You are a fan of the films rather than the books - first and foremost I love the original Fleming creation and try to forget the tongue in cheek git from the middle era movies. That's nothing like Bond.

Oh, I've read and enjoyed Fleming, but as I noted in response to tighr above, it's not necessarily a given that "more like Fleming = better" when it comes to the cinematic Bond. Besides which, the "middle era movies" -- which I guess refers largely to the Roger Moore years -- are my least favorite as well.

I'm not after parody Bond, but what I am after is a Bond whose life and world (the occasional bout of torture and threat of death aside) is enviable and exciting. For at least 20 successful movies, the essence of movieBond was, "Christ, I wish I could be like that suave, witty, deadly, drowning-in-babes bastard." Nobody does it better, the world is not enough, and all that. As I say, I know the current fashion is for everything to be dark and serious and angsty and self-important, and we're supposed to sneer at such wish-fulfillment and escapism as puerile and childish. But I'll take it over Craig glowering his one-note way through another "Flemingesque" performance anytime.

 

[tighr]

You are a fan of the films rather than the books.

Was that for me, or was I misquoted? I am a fan of the films AND the books, but I recognize that many of the films are Adam West Batman-level campy (mostly the Roger Moore films, especially Live and Let Die and Moonraker). The Lazenby film and the Dalton films are probably the most true to the source, and Living Daylights or OHMSS are probably my favorites. Even the Connery films descended into campy-ness, with the jetpack from Thunderball.

My favorite film remains Goldeneye (a wholly original story and title), but Casino Royale was probably the best adaptation of all the books. Some of the early films only take the titles from their source material!

 

[Relayer1]

I was agreeing with tighr and replying to The Realist.

Anyway,

Some of the early films only take the titles from their source material!

Yeah, I still think there is some mileage in filming the stories from Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Is it true Logan will be writing? That just completely baffles me. The guy must have blackmail folders on half of Hollywood.

Skyfall was truly beautiful. The script, however, was utter shit, maybe the single worst-written Bond film.

However, I have to give a lot of the former credit to Deakins. I hope he returns as DP.

 

[ATimson]

Too bad. I was hoping we'd get another director so David Arnold would return.

 

[tighr]

Skyfall was truly beautiful. The script, however, was utter shit, maybe the single worst-written Bond film.

Most Bond fans would probably disagree with you, and cite Die Another Day as a worse example.

Somehow, in the span of less than one year, a North Korean gets believable plastic surgery/genetic therapy, finds a diamond mine in South Africa, becomes a billionaire playboy celebrity, is knighted by the Queen, builds a satellite death ray that can destroy anything you point it at, and his main goal with it is to.... build a road from North Korea to South Korea so that foot soldiers can march across a former minefield? Why not just point the death ray at the South Korean President, then while you're at it the American President, the British Queen, and why not just blow up the UN building while you're at it. Clearly it already has the ability to neutralize nuclear bombs, since we see that on film.

Meanwhile, James Bond is equipped with a virtual reality simulator, a surfboard with a storage compartment for guns, the ability to stop his own heart, and a motherfucking invisible car.

The fact that Bond in Skyfall is equipped only with a gun and a miniature radio beacon is beautiful.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Skyfall is every bit as absurd. The difference is at least Purvis and Wade possess a little aptitude for comedic timing. DAD had punch. Skyfall had none.

More importantly, however, Logan tried so hard to recapture the psychological nuance of TDK and failed so miserably that it came off as parody at best. In other words, it was the eager overachiever.

DAD was just stupid.

ETA: Also, the first act of DAD is probably the best-written 30 minutes of Bond-film in the last 30 years. It really didn't go downhill until Berry appeared onscreen.

 

[FPAlpha]

You are a fan of the films rather than the books - first and foremost I love the original Fleming creation and try to forget the tongue in cheek git from the middle era movies. That's nothing like Bond.

Oh, I've read and enjoyed Fleming, but as I noted in response to tighr above, it's not necessarily a given that "more like Fleming = better" when it comes to the cinematic Bond. Besides which, the "middle era movies" -- which I guess refers largely to the Roger Moore years -- are my least favorite as well.

I'm not after parody Bond, but what I am after is a Bond whose life and world (the occasional bout of torture and threat of death aside) is enviable and exciting. For at least 20 successful movies, the essence of movieBond was, "Christ, I wish I could be like that suave, witty, deadly, drowning-in-babes bastard." Nobody does it better, the world is not enough, and all that. As I say, I know the current fashion is for everything to be dark and serious and angsty and self-important, and we're supposed to sneer at such wish-fulfillment and escapism as puerile and childish. But I'll take it over Craig glowering his one-note way through another "Flemingesque" performance anytime.

Every Bond movie is also a reflection of their time and social era. Just look at old Bond movies from the Connery era.. to be honest part of what he does could be construed as rape (attempted or otherwise). Remember the scene with him and Pussy Galore (that name alone makes me either chuckle or roll my eyes) in the shed where he basically forces himself on her until she finally gives in? The scene in 60s context is meant to show how utterly cool and man-ish Bond is that even if women resist him they can't forever and in the end his sexyness prevails.

Film a scene like that today and the media will have huge "Bond abuses woman in new movie!!!" page one articles. Yet in the 60s this was a representation of the social standing of women and men. Bond took it maybe a bit further than that to exaggerate the character and show his larger than life, every guy wants to be like Bond image but it's still there.

Bond movies were always a bit childish and very unrealistic but it's how people wanted him to be.. that alcohol guzzling, women using by the dozens and villain defeating supermacho was the male ideal at the time and always was throughout the movies but some of that just doesn't fly with today's audience anymore or it get's relegated to the comedy/absurd corner.

This is also why Craig's Bond movies are for the most part so successful.. it's part Craig's brilliant performance of the character but also the total shift in tone. Bond now bleeds, gets beaten up, gets his heart broken and barely manages to survive and that makes him a better relatable character and this is why he works better today because he seems more real.
People know that no matter how heroic you are a punch to the face will hurt and you will bleed.. that a heavy object to your balls will hurt like a mother but this Bond is hurting yet he never gives up.

I love the old Bond movies for their campiness and larger than life character, their humor and wacky gadgets but the current Bond is far more interesting and i hope they continue with that tone even after Craig passes the torch over to his successor.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The scene in 60s context is meant to show how utterly cool and man-ish Bond is that even if women resist him they can't forever and in the end his sexyness prevails.

It's also meant to show that Bond is so irresistible he can even turn a lesbian straight, which would be even more problematic in today's social context. Daniel Craig's Bond isn't without his sexually creepy moments, though.

 

[Starkers]

I'm not sure why people call Skyfall glum? It's the funniest Craig Bond film by miles!

 

[Professor Zoom]

Skyfall is every bit as absurd. The difference is at least Purvis and Wade possess a little aptitude for comedic timing. DAD had punch. Skyfall had none.

This. The goal is to humiliate and kill M, but the plan is to get captured, rely on Q's stupidity and break out on the day she's testifying? Really? Just do what Bond did several times, sneak into her house... This WAS supposed to be a gritty realistic film, yeah?

Goldfinger's plan was the easiest way to achieve his insane goal. This guy.... an easy goal... so he made it that much harder for himself?

Bad, bad, bad writing.

ETA: Also, the first act of DAD is probably the best-written 30 minutes of Bond-film in the last 30 years. It really didn't go downhill until Berry appeared onscreen.

It's sort of like The World is Not Enough... Not a bad Bond movie until Denise Richards shows up.