• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"James Bond 23" officially slated for 2012!

I liked Bronsan's films. They were loud, splashy, silly, and, most importantly, fun. They knew exactly what they were doing and were having a blast doing it.
Which is all very well if thats what you like. But they (and other films in the franchise) were totally divorced from the original source materiel. And if one cares about that then those films didn't work.

I tend to judge a film on its own merits, and generally enjoy all the Bond movies for different reasons.
 
Yeah I'm like that. Sometimes I want to watch a gritty spy drama, but other times I want Roger Moore...in space...with a "laser" pistol...
 
That's the awesomeness of the James Bond franchise. It has just about everything. It is also a franchise that, by now, it can go around and take a risk, such as Bond with laser gun or turning Bond into Jason Bourne. The cool thing is that if the risk fails, there will always be next film to correct the wrong.
 
I liked Bronsan's films. They were loud, splashy, silly, and, most importantly, fun. They knew exactly what they were doing and were having a blast doing it.
Which is all very well if thats what you like. But they (and other films in the franchise) were totally divorced from the original source materiel. And if one cares about that then those films didn't work.

But they're an adaptation of the character from the books, not a slavish copy. And apart from anything else, Brosnan's movies weren't based on any of the Fleming books, so why shouldn't they differ from the source material?

Fleming was a racist snob so I have no difficulty with the movies not adopting his viewpoint. Though to be fair, while he originally opposed the casting of Connery as Bond, he later said that if he had the chance to re-write them, he'd make Bond more like Connery. His books were full of name-dropping and product placement, so the charge that Brosnan's movies consisted of too much product placement is also a little ill-founded, IMHO.

The 007 most like that of the books was arguably Dalton and while I like his performances, his tenure didn't set the world on fire.
 
The 007 most like that of the books was arguably Dalton and while I like his performances, his tenure didn't set the world on fire.

I think that had more to do with poor timing than anything else. I'm a Dalton fan as well. I think he was a solid fusing of the Book-Bond and the Movie-Bond.
 
^ Yeah, he was unlucky, to be fair. But he insisted, particularly on LTK, on playing Bond exactly as per the books. So no wise-cracks etc. And the audience expected wisecracks and a more cinematic 007. While Batman didn't help, this was also part of the reason for its underperformance.
 
From seeing that trailer:

Face-wise, Daniel Craig just doesn't come close to the smooth-skinned, refined handsomeness of the others. He has a rough, workmanlike look about him which standsout in contrast to the others.

That's exactly what my mom thinks about him. He looks like a factory worker.

^ Agreed. I did think "Die Another Day" was over the top...but I always took that to be the point of the film.

Well then the first 30 minutes are a complete head scratch.

It's like a completely different movie.

It was great until Bond entered the ice palace.
 
^ Re Craig. I don't have a link, but once read that Fleming said that Bond should look like 'a navvy [roads construction worker, generally Irish) in a suit. So I actually think Craig fits that bill quite well.
 
Well then the first 30 minutes are a complete head scratch.

It's like a completely different movie.

It was great until Bond entered the ice palace.
It was great until Berry entered. But I think I may have said that up-thread.

If they would have dropped the corny and held onto the tone of the first chunk of scenes, I think it would have been a brilliant film.

The concept itself was interesting and had a lot of potential. They just decided to have their ham and cornball with it.
 
I love Craig's look and his attitude with the character and the take they've had with him so far. I just hope he has evolved and grown a bit in "SkyFall" as I'm sure he will.
 
^ Yeah, he was unlucky, to be fair. But he insisted, particularly on LTK, on playing Bond exactly as per the books. So no wise-cracks etc. And the audience expected wisecracks and a more cinematic 007. While Batman didn't help, this was also part of the reason for its underperformance.

I dunno, I found him to have some wisecracks in his films. However, they were in a completely different tone from Roger Moore (drier and no winking at the camera).

Personal theory: Had things been different and Dalton did a Bond 17 in 1991, people would have warmed up to his portrayal.
 
There were wisecracks in the Dalton films, but they didn't suit his drier sense of humour, Craig has been better suited in that respect.

But yeah for me Dalton had the best fusion of the realistic and fantastical elements of fillmatic 007.

Not that any Bond film, and precious few of the books were true espionage thrillers as such (FRWL definitely aside).
 
Craig's look.


I want to repeat what 'Superman The Movie' writer Tom Mankiewicz once said...

Sean has the face of a bastard. Sean looked dangerous and Daniel Craig is dangerous and that’s a really good thing.

I feel Craig has got a bit of a Bastard face, he looks dangerous. He looks like someone who will frak you up.
 
^ Yeah, he was unlucky, to be fair. But he insisted, particularly on LTK, on playing Bond exactly as per the books. So no wise-cracks etc. And the audience expected wisecracks and a more cinematic 007. While Batman didn't help, this was also part of the reason for its underperformance.

I dunno, I found him to have some wisecracks in his films. However, they were in a completely different tone from Roger Moore (drier and no winking at the camera).

Personal theory: Had things been different and Dalton did a Bond 17 in 1991, people would have warmed up to his portrayal.

TLD had wisecracks but for me, Dalton's delivery of the likes of 'He got the boot' was the weakest thing about his performance. I don't remember him making any jokes in LTK (but no doubt they were there).

As I say, I like Dalton's performance, but compared with Craig's sardonic delivery, he's definitely lacking in that department.
 
I liked Bronsan's films. They were loud, splashy, silly, and, most importantly, fun. They knew exactly what they were doing and were having a blast doing it.

And did it without the "winking and nudging" that characterized most of Moore's Bond films (still my guilty pleasure, frankly).

I think Craig's Bond would play better as a constrast against the more lush, "romantic" landscape presented by the earlier films (pre-Dalton to be specific). Craig as "brute force and brutal" against the "nuanced and sophisticated" environment. But the look and feel of the actual filmmaking is as dark and harsh as Craig's portrayal.

As for Dalton's Bond. Didn't care for his "by the books" portrayal (more of the "cinema Bond" fan here), and he had the weakest scripts story wise in the franchise.

The only reason I'm glad Dalton got his gig was because he spared Brosnan having to take a black eye professionally from the terrible plots.
 
^ I think had Brosnan not been prevented from playing Bond in the 1980s by the Remington Steele contract, The Living Daylights would have been much as it is; perhaps with more humour and less grit. However, Licence To Kill was very much written as a vehicle for Dalton and to his perceived strengths. So had Brosnan been the incumbent, the follow up to TLD would have been a very different movie.
 
^ I think had Brosnan not been prevented from playing Bond in the 1980s by the Remington Steele contract, The Living Daylights would have been much as it is; perhaps with more humour and less grit. However, Licence To Kill was very much written as a vehicle for Dalton and to his perceived strengths. So had Brosnan been the incumbent, the follow up to TLD would have been a very different movie.
See, I don't think so.

It's like what we were saying a few posts up about the first part of DAD. That was really his LTK and it was probably the best snippet of Bond he was in.
 
If Bronsan was in LTK, I think the core story would have been roughly the same (Bond goes rogue to seek revenge for a friend), but the tone of the movie would have been a bit lighter.

Then again, Licence to Kill is, arguably, my favorite Bond film, so what do I know? :lol:

ETA: Then again, it is not like the plots for Bronsan's films were all that much better or worse than Dalton's. YMMV.
 
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=32874

First official picture of Bond at a swimming pool

57397.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top