Bond Franchise Nears Rescue
- Thread starter thegreatgalling
- Start date
rosstheboss
New Member
Would Sam Mendes still direct? :O
Casino was the resurrection... The last three Brosnan films were garbage.
It's being combined with the Bond franchise. Expect to hear "Bondaggins. Bilbo James Bondaggins."
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
I saw the first Craig Bond, wasn't impressed enough to see the second. Still think Sean Connery was the ultimate Bond!
Goonie
Sr Member
With a special appearance by Leonard Nimoy.
darthgordon
Sr Member
I thoroughly enjoyed Casino. I didn't expect to. There weren't many Bond movies I didn't like (some obviously much more than others). Connery will always be my favorite, and I didn't care too much for Dalton or Lazenby (but could still watch them). I found Casino to be different, but still Bond. It was still very much that character, all be it a Bond who was not yet the Bond we know. I didn't see Quantum because of all the bad things I heard about it. I'd be excited to see them do another one. I think they know what they did wrong with Quantum and can correct it.
Of course, there's rumors that Craig won't even be back.
Of course, there's rumors that Craig won't even be back.
:lol Oh god, please, NO!!!
0neiros
Master Member
Clonesix, you need to read the book Casino Royale. Craig's Bond is the most like the Bond in the books. Dr. No got it right, the others started to get away from the Book Character. The book Bond is a cold blooded *******, who gets the crap beat out of him on a mission, and the ends justify the means to complete that mission. Goldeneye was a great Bond movie, after that Brosnan was given overblown crap.
Solo4114
Master Member
This. Brosnan's bond films had elements that took bond out of the realm of cartoon character and actually tried to humanize him. But the rest of the films were stupid quips and wonder woman's invisible car. Seriously though, if you haven't read them, check out the original Fleming books. Well worth the read.
darthgordon
Sr Member
I think comparing movie Bond and book Bond is a moot point. 22 movies vs. 12 books. 7 different actors have portrayed him. The character from the movies has become a world icon. Most haven't even read the books. In fact, I'd imagine most don't even know there are any books.
Not to mention the fact that the world is different than it was when those books were written. There is no more Cold War.
To make radical changes... going back to the books would not go well with audiences. Movie Bond has become bigger than book Bond.
Not to mention the fact that the world is different than it was when those books were written. There is no more Cold War.
To make radical changes... going back to the books would not go well with audiences. Movie Bond has become bigger than book Bond.
Serafino
Sr Member
The film industry is very very sick. It has severe problems with integrity and originality.
Yes "movie Bond" has taken on a life of its own, but this doesn't mean that anything about "movie Bond" is sacred, especially because "movie Bond" is an amorphous mishmash of characters and styles, different aspects of which appeal to different people, and to audiences as a whole at different times. "Movie Bond" can't even really be defined in a way that most people would agree with, I suspect.
Daniel Craig's Bond in CR was NOT like the book Bond, he represented a swing of the pendulum almost as far the other way as Roger Moore's dapper wise-cracking Englishman was. Craig's Bond was a lot of fun but would have eaten the book Bond for lunch I am sorry to say. It would have been better and more truthful to just invent a new character.
He's actually not a "*******", or always cold-blooded, although he can be relatively cold-blooded at times. By modern standards he's really pretty tame. Doesn't like killing in cold blood (and never really does it), and certainly not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. **
I like Craig's "Bond" in CR. I hope I live to see the day when Bond goes public domain though, I'd love to see accurate renditions of the books done by the BBC too. The Broccolis should get creative and do a movie with 4 Bond "short stories" done by 4 different directors with 4 different actors. People would go see it, and it would give the franchise a chance to explore a bit.
** Rather OT but I think it's interesting that Fleming did not like Bond and did not consider him a hero. This was the Bond who could not kill in cold blood, who was moody at times about his life, who approached women with a kind of boyish sincerity when he wasn't in "professional" mode, and who had some idea of right and wrong. Fleming participated in changing the culture by putting forward a character he himself did not approve of, but whose popular exploits helped advance the general acceptance of sexual freedom and self-interested behavior.
Yes "movie Bond" has taken on a life of its own, but this doesn't mean that anything about "movie Bond" is sacred, especially because "movie Bond" is an amorphous mishmash of characters and styles, different aspects of which appeal to different people, and to audiences as a whole at different times. "Movie Bond" can't even really be defined in a way that most people would agree with, I suspect.
Daniel Craig's Bond in CR was NOT like the book Bond, he represented a swing of the pendulum almost as far the other way as Roger Moore's dapper wise-cracking Englishman was. Craig's Bond was a lot of fun but would have eaten the book Bond for lunch I am sorry to say. It would have been better and more truthful to just invent a new character.
He's actually not a "*******", or always cold-blooded, although he can be relatively cold-blooded at times. By modern standards he's really pretty tame. Doesn't like killing in cold blood (and never really does it), and certainly not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. **
I like Craig's "Bond" in CR. I hope I live to see the day when Bond goes public domain though, I'd love to see accurate renditions of the books done by the BBC too. The Broccolis should get creative and do a movie with 4 Bond "short stories" done by 4 different directors with 4 different actors. People would go see it, and it would give the franchise a chance to explore a bit.
** Rather OT but I think it's interesting that Fleming did not like Bond and did not consider him a hero. This was the Bond who could not kill in cold blood, who was moody at times about his life, who approached women with a kind of boyish sincerity when he wasn't in "professional" mode, and who had some idea of right and wrong. Fleming participated in changing the culture by putting forward a character he himself did not approve of, but whose popular exploits helped advance the general acceptance of sexual freedom and self-interested behavior.
Solo4114
Master Member
That may be....but the books are BETTER.
Yeah, good point. "Movie Bond" has certain repeated themes, but they can be done VERY poorly. The quips, for example. The gadgets. Wearing a tux and going to casinos. And being a womanizer. That's about it for movie Bond. Movie Bond sometimes also is a know-it all, which I find annoying, not to mention a jack-and-master-of-all-trades (either by virtue of his own abilities or his gadgets) which I ALSO find annoying. All of this, I find, robs the hero of heroism.
That said, I didn't like the distinct "bourne" direction that Quantum took.
Actually, the three actors I find who best embodied the literary Bond were Connery (especially in the first two films), Craig, and Dalton. Craig was a LOT more physical than book Bond ever is. But Book Bond is also pretty damn tough. The escape in Moonraker is a good example, as are his exploits in Dr. No. Actually, come to think of it, Live and Let Die has a pretty harrowing sequence in it, which is eventually reproduced on film in For Your Eyes Only. But yeah, Craig's definitely tougher. I found him to be a good modernized version of book Bond and about as close as we'll get these days. Plus, after Die Another Day, it was SUCH a refreshing change. God that movie was bad...
Yeah, book Bond ruminates on how awful his line of work is (basically paid assassin), and seeks comfort in the finer things in life to soothe himself. Book Bond also is very good at his job, and has both a patriotic streak and a real ego to him, which makes his disgust with his work (at times) also clash with his enjoyment of his work. He's an odd character, really. Far moodier and more brooding than anything we've seen on film. You absolutely nailed the bit about his somewhat boyish approach to women, which also retains the boyish bitterness when those relationships go south. What I loved about Craig's run in CR was how he went from just being this giddy-in-love character to a man who'd closed his heart off completely in bitterness. That, to me, was VERY much the literary Bond.
I guess what I'd personally like to see from the films is a Bond who is not necessarily a know-it-all, who's fallible, and who has to rely on his resourcefulness, cleverness, and grit to get out of rough situations, instead of just HAPPENING to have the perfect gadget for JUST SUCH A PURPOSE. Example: "I say! Bloody dangerous being in this piranha-filled tank. Good thing Q gave me that anti-piranha spray earlier in the movie which would otherwise have been totally useless..."
Wakeem
Sr Member
I think after Quantum of Solace, that Dalton is closer to the book Bond than Craig. People should revisit Dalton's films in this break. Yes, Casino Royale was really good especially after the mess of Die Another Day. But Quantum is truly forgettable except for a handful of scenes. Quantum and Die Another Day are both in the same boat really except they approach it from two different directions.
Where did you hear that Craig might not come back? He needs to do at least one more and finish the Quantum Group.
Similar threads
