Who killed James Bond ?

[SSgt Burton]

How could you even think that Jaws was bad :darnkids

Jaws was "good" in "The Spy Who Loved Me", following the tradition of henchmen with "unique" ways of killing their victims (ala Oddjob)...

However in "Moonraker" he was reduced to nothing more than comic relief (ala "Nick Nack" in Golden Gun) who "found his true love". Now all we can remember is the goofy wide-eyed "oh ****!" looking Jaws, and not the assassin with steel teeth who would kill you like a vampire.

And once again Dan nails it- "Skyfall" blends this fresh new Bond, with "just" enough of the old. :thumbsup

I watched QoS and it movie was a little difficult to get into (mind you I've been a doing some running around at the time and couldn't watch it all in one shot). The action scenes were great, however as a friend told me beforehand, the film could have had a better antagonist. That guy sure did have a great "trollface" though. :lol

The fight scenes do suffer a bit from that hyper-cut editing style at times (that Dan mentioned earlier). Not as badly as say Batman Begins where you couldn't really see anything going on!


Oh and that knife/scissor fight near the beginning where Bond takes out the baddie by stabbing the artery in his leg, and waiting for him to bleed out like he was waiting for a microwave to finish heating his morning coffee... I think this perfectly captured the cold brutality of a fight to the death, and how it's just another day at the office for Bond. This is certainly "literary" Bond and not the Moore era "That was a close shave" comic relief nonsense.

Parts that made me laugh out loud were just about every scene with CIA agent Felix: that "unimpressed" face he had on all the time is basically me at my job all day! :lol

I was pleasently surprised with the female lead being (to a degree) on Bond's level and not the typical damsel in distress. For me "this" is how you do a female equal of Bond properly and not that stinking hot mess of Halle Berry in Die Another Day.

I liked the nod to Goldfinger with the MI6 agent covered in oil on the bed; she's lying in almost the exact same position as Jill Masterson who was covered in gold paint (oil is "black gold" get it? ).

I also liked the tradition of the "secret villain organization" although for me it kind of came off more like the secret society in Eyes Wide Shut for some reason. :lol

The "secret base" this time was a hotel in the desert (which in famous Bond tradition self destructed). Again a nod to the history of Bond, while trying to stay current.

Seeing Stana Katic (Kate Beckett on Castle) as the Canadian secret intelligence agent at the end--- this had me smiling as Stana Katic just happens to BE Canadian with Hamilton being her old hometown! I wonder if her nationality had anything to her getting this minor role.

While it is my 3rd favourite of the Craig Bond films, it's only marginally behind Casino Royale. Saying something like it is the "worst" of the three isn't really fair as it is a decent Bond movie and on it's own a good action movie.

And I've since rewatched Casino Royale several times. And despite the lack of gadgets (save for the mini defibrillator) I now feel it is on par with Skyfall for the Craig films. The Texas Hold 'em match was brilliant.

The DBS rollover is still painful to watch. :lol

Kevin

 

[Alan Castillo]

The premise of him is ridiculous as it is (sure, metal teeth, but how exactly are his jaw muscles strong enough to bite through a padlock or the cable for a cable car?) but Moonraker just went from unbelievable to stupid REALLY quick.

Ever heard of entertainment :facepalm ? It's James Bond fer cryin out loud, not Clockwork Orange :lol

F-U-N, fun :lol

Wanna see unbelievable ? How about this

:lol

 

[Wes R]

Ever heard of entertainment :facepalm ? It's James Bond fer cryin out loud, not Clockwork Orange :lol

F-U-N, fun :lol

Wanna see unbelievable ? How about this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/JawsandDolly.jpg

:lol

I hope they didn't have kids, that'd be scary lol. I used to make all the bond movie premiers but now i can't see spending that much on a ticket for Craig. They need a more Connery-era bond, that was the right mix of gadgets and action without being super silly. Plus now that Judy Dench is gone there's even less incentive to watch, i just loved her being grumpy at bond.

 

[Laspector]

Be honest. Do you really just want to see Bond go through the same motions he always has? The opening sequence that's mostly unrelated. The mission from M. The visit to Q branch. The casino scene introducing the villain. The villain's unstoppable one-note henchman ("Allow me to introduce my associate: Mr. Tines. His weapon of choice? An ordinary dinner fork, dipped in poison and hurled with deadly accuracy. Pray that you don't end up on his menu, Mr. Bond..."). The femme fatale. The good girl. The elaborate trap that Bond gets out of with a deus-ex-machina gadget that was apparently designed ONLY for this purpose. The plot to ransom the world for ONE HUNDRED GAJILLION DOLLARS!!! Some orbital satellite that will blanket the world in potpourri, triggering rampant allergic reactions, unless Bond can stop him. The commando raid. Yadda yadda yadda.

Well, since you asked--Yeah! That's exactly what I want out of a Bond movie. Nothing more nothing less. Why not just ask me if I still want space battles and lightsabers in a Star Wars movie? And while we're at it, let's get rid of that opening crawl, also. I mean it's been done to death.

 

[Alan Castillo]

Well, since you asked--Yeah! That's exactly what I want out of a Bond movie. Nothing more nothing less.

Yipee ! Another pallbearer for the Craig-era Bond :thumbsup

Come on folks, plenty of room still left in the looney bin :lol

Love this thread :ninja

.... I knew I was not alone :lol

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Ever heard of entertainment :facepalm ? It's James Bond fer cryin out loud, not Clockwork Orange :lol

F-U-N, fun :lol

There's fun and then there's Austin Powers. Moonraker was Austin Powers.

Bond went from a series of serious spy films with an extravagant twist (Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS) to overblown stereotypes (Moonraker, AVTAK, DAD, and their ilk)

Wanna see unbelievable ? How about this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/JawsandDolly.jpg

:lol

You're making my point for me! :lol

They need a more Connery-era bond, that was the right mix of gadgets and action without being super silly. Plus now that Judy Dench is gone there's even less incentive to watch, i just loved her being grumpy at bond.

Skyfall has set that up. An introductory Q scene, and you just know Mallory is going to be grumpy at Bond with the best of them. Now with backstory as to why he begrudgingly respects him.

Well, since you asked--Yeah! That's exactly what I want out of a Bond movie. Nothing more nothing less. Why not just ask me if I still want space battles and lightsabers in a Star Wars movie? And while we're at it, let's get rid of that opening crawl, also. I mean it's been done to death.

Not nearly a proper comparison.

It would be like asking for every Star Wars movie to be about a kid that blows up the Death Star. Twice is enough, now take that lightsaber (PPK) and those space battles (big action scenes, which the Craig films DO have) and use them in a different story. The opening crawl? That's the Bond theme and it's blaring in Skyfall.

Skyfall is easily the best Bond film since the Connery era IMO. And it FEELS like a Bond film. Any Bond fan who didn't have goosebumps at the end of that film has something wrong with them. There's Moneypenny, there's M, there's THE office. Bond is BACK.

 

[Edraven99]

Yipee ! Another pallbearer for the Craig-era Bond :thumbsup

Come on folks, plenty of room still left in the looney bin :lol

Love this thread :ninja

.... I knew I was not alone :lol

Nope... definitely not alone... To me, with the possible exception of Skyfall, the Craig era Bond so far hasn't been Bond for me.

I go to see James Bond *for* the formulas - the exotic locations, the exotic women, the gadgets, the over the top stunts, and the panache. You take away all of that and what you have left is Jason Bourne or John McClane or any other host of action movie heroes that *aren't* James Bond.

To me James Bond is the "man" most men aspire to be; he's sophisticated, he has the toys, he can bed any woman he wants and if he can't out think you, he can kick your ass while looking good doing so. He isn't the "ordinary guy put into extraordinary situations"... he's the guy you PUT into extraordinary situations if you want to get the job done.

In my opinion, Craig isn't quite "pretty" enough to pull off Bond. He's certainly tough enough, but to me Bond also has to look good in a tux and Craig doesn't look very comfortable in his, and he certainly isn't what I would call "suave". IMO the only Bond that was ever to pull off both sides of that coin convincingly was Connery.

For the record, my Bond will always be Brosnan. I was a big fan of Remington Steele back in the day and I still remember seeing the teaser trailer for Goldeneye for the first time in the theaters - the one where he shoots out the letters on screen to form "007" and then walks towards the screen to say "You were expecting someone else?" The theater went nuts! Hell *I* went nuts!

True, the man probably couldn't beat anyone in a fist fight, but he does have the look and the style and sophistication down.

And I don't think anyone here can deny just how awesome the opening boat chase scene from TWINE was... that was to me Bond at its finest.

The Brosnan era Bonds certainly had its fair share of issues - the crappy American actresses, the over use of CGI, Die Another Day in general - but to me, *that* was James Bond...

 

[Alan Castillo]

Bond went from a series of serious spy films with an extravagant twist (Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS) to overblown stereotypes (Moonraker, AVTAK, DAD, and their ilk) .....

..... while grossing countless bazillions for the studio, and those iconic props being replicated till this very by the likes of FE. Think they'll want to make the mini-radio next :lol ? (where's the tongue-sticking-out-emoticon when you need it) ... oh wait ...

(another thing worth saving :lol)

So they must have been doing something right, not only for me but for millions of others.

There 'aint a looney-bin big enough for us all I'm afraid :lol

You're making my point for me! :lol

And that, sir, is entertainment and what I'm talking about :lol

 

[Alan Castillo]

For the record, my Bond will always be Brosnan.

Agreed :thumbsup

:cheers

Still love Moore & Connery, but Brosnan did it best :thumbsup

 

[Solo4114]

Nope... definitely not alone... To me, with the possible exception of Skyfall, the Craig era Bond so far hasn't been Bond for me.

I go to see James Bond *for* the formulas - the exotic locations, the exotic women, the gadgets, the over the top stunts, and the panache. You take away all of that and what you have left is Jason Bourne or John McClane or any other host of action movie heroes that *aren't* James Bond.

Honest question here: is it for the formula or for a sense of the familiar? Because, you can have the formula and still have a crap movie. And you can eschew the formula, and still have a good movie and a good Bond movie at that. By your description, for the most part, neither Dr. No nor From Russia with Love would qualify. Dr. No has zero (0) gadgets. Bond survives due to his grit and smarts and a bit of luck. It's "exotic" locale is Jamaica, and (arguably) the underground fortress below Crab Key. FRWL has "gadgets" only in the sense of the now-rather-tame briefcase. Everything else is gadget-free. It's "exotic" locale is Istanbul and a train, and it ends in Venice. But mostly it's just the train. Are you suggesting those aren't Bond films or are inferior ones?

To me James Bond is the "man" most men aspire to be; he's sophisticated, he has the toys, he can bed any woman he wants and if he can't out think you, he can kick your ass while looking good doing so. He isn't the "ordinary guy put into extraordinary situations"... he's the guy you PUT into extraordinary situations if you want to get the job done.

Well, (1) I don't aspire to be Bond. He's a killer by trade, and the women he beds frequently end up dead because he bedded them. Bond leads a miserable life punctuated by moments of excitement and extremes, but it always comes back to this: he's a killer. That's his job. No thanks on that one. (2) His sophistication in the films is taken to ridiculous extremes, too, to the point of him being a walking encyclopaedia (at least during the Moore era). (3) Mostly, he doesn't "out think" anyone in the films, at least the most formulaic ones, because he's getting out of a jam thanks to the special shark repellent gadget (or whatever) that Q gave him. That said, Bond is far from ordinary in any version.

As to the Craig era, as I've said, the whole point of, at least, the first two films was to move away from the formula and reboot Bond as a character, rather than a checklist of cliches. You can still have some of that stuff in a film and have it be great, but actual character moments in Bond films -- as opposed to just power fantasies played out on the screen -- are few and far between. I get the sense that Brosnan wanted to do a lot more of that stuff, and from the moments we saw, he'd have done them exceptionally well. But the filmmakers were too busy having him make lameass jokes like "Christmas comes twice this year" (ugh...also, hardly what I'd call suave or sophisticated) to give him the room to do so. That's what insistence on formula gets you. I don't think most people know how to make the formula more than just a paint-by-numbers series of scenes, and frankly, Bond can be better than that. Much better.

..... while grossing countless bazillions for the studio, and those iconic props being replicated till this very by the likes of FE. Think they'll want to make the mini-radio next :lol ? (where's the tongue-sticking-out-emoticon when you need it) ... oh wait ... http://alancastillo.com/IMAGES/tongue.gif (another thing worth saving :lol)

So they must have been doing something right, not only for me but for millions of others.

Oh come on. Don't appeal to box office. Half the movies that make gobs of cash do so primarily as a result of their marketing campaigns pre-release, and brand name familiarity, rather than the quality of the films themselves. X-Men 3 made over $400 million, but I doubt anyone here would call it a "good" movie. I mean, I don't begrudge you your enjoyment of even some of the (in my opinion) worst aspects of the Bond films, but the old "It made money, ergo it's good" (or for that matter even, popular) argument is bogus.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

..... while grossing countless bazillions for the studio, and those iconic props being replicated till this very by the likes of FE. Think they'll want to make the mini-radio next :lol ? (where's the tongue-sticking-out-emoticon when you need it) ... oh wait ... http://alancastillo.com/IMAGES/tongue.gif (another thing worth saving :lol)

So they must have been doing something right, not only for me but for millions of others.

There 'aint a looney-bin big enough for us all I'm afraid :lol

Well, despite the fact that I agree with Dan that Box Office is bull... Since you brought it up let's look at box office shall we? Adjusted for inflation the top five Bond films at the box office are:

1. Skyfall
2. Thunderball
3. Goldfinger
4. Casino Royale
5. From Russia With Love

Funny, no goofy Moore films there!

 

[Michael Bergeron]

And I don't think anyone here can deny just how awesome the opening boat chase scene from TWINE was... that was to me Bond at its finest.

Even when I first saw it in theatres I kind of rolled my eyes. Another made up action scene for the hell of it. Seen it all before, it's like jingling keys in front of an infant.

However the pre-credits in TND I'll give you is one of the best of the series. There was a purpose for it and an impending doom that needed escaping.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Roger Moore on Sean Connery, Daniel Craig and the new Bond films:

Is Sean Connery still your favorite Bond?

Well, I finished the book three or four months ago, but since then, I went to a screening of Skyfall and I’ve changed my opinion. I think that he [Daniel Craig] is THE Bond. He’s quite brilliant. I wrote to Barbara [Broccoli] and Michael [Wilson] and said…they’ve guaranteed Bond another 50 years of life.

Presumably you’d seen the other two Daniel Craig Bond movies?

Yes, I thought Casino Royale was tremendous. I thought his action was quite extraordinary—he did more action in the first 30 seconds of the film than I did in 14 years of playing Bond. To me, he looks like a killer. He looks as though he knows what he’s doing. I look as though I might cheat at backgammon.

Even HE knows. :lol

 

[batguy]

After mentally reviewing the DC movies a little more, I will concur with the consensus here - yes, it was a reboot.


As for best Bonds, I agree that the chief problem has always been balancing suave Bond and ass-kicking Bond. But IMHO the Bond that did those two things best may have been Timothy Dalton rather than Connery.

I'm not saying Dalton was the perfect Bond though. He seemed a bit out of place when doing anything very amusing/lighthearted (and Connery not only pulled this off too, he NAILED it). The two movies they gave Dalton were also severely '80s which wasn't his fault. The choice of him seemed like a bit of a knee-jerk away from the end of the previous era, as with DC.




What surprises me about Skyfall is how they are playing-up Bond being physically over the hill. It's only DC's 3rd movie and they're planting some strong seeds of replacement.

I hope the choice of the next Bond stays within balance, and doesn't just swing back too far in the other direction (sauve & mature). Brosnan always seemed too suave & mature for Bond and the problem was exacerbated by his movies, with way more exaggeration & CGI than serious gritty stuff.

 

[Alan Castillo]

Oh come on. Don't appeal to box office. Half the movies that make gobs of cash do so primarily as a result of their marketing campaigns pre-release, and brand name familiarity, rather than the quality of the films themselves. X-Men 3 made over $400 million, but I doubt anyone here would call it a "good" movie. I mean, I don't begrudge you your enjoyment of even some of the (in my opinion) worst aspects of the Bond films, but the old "It made money, ergo it's good" (or for that matter even, popular) argument is bogus.

Well, despite the fact that I agree with Dan that Box Office is bull... Since you brought it up let's look at box office shall we? Adjusted for inflation the top five Bond films at the box office are:

1. Skyfall
2. Thunderball
3. Goldfinger
4. Casino Royale
5. From Russia With Love

Funny, no goofy Moore films there!

My my my, there you go picking the trees and not seeing the wood, as usual :lol

(The opening ceremony of the World Cup just started, so I'll be brief :lol)

My point is, marketing or whatever, people still went in masses to see Bond.

Between 1973 and 2006 (14 movies), was what I call 'my' Bond era. The rest is 1962-1971 (6 movies) and 2006 to 2014 (3 movies) . The golden age, for me, was my era.

And the people loved it, because they kept on going.

Not saying people don't like the current Bond (weirdos :lol) at all, or that many feel the 'real' Bond was 1962-71 or whatever.

I said it earlier on - I say potayto you say potahto. Its like an argument about religion or politics.

I started this thread just to know who killed my Bond :lol, you know, that Bond that made bazillions for the studios, had millions pay to watch them, created an undeniably massive fan-base and also inspires prop makers to make mega-cool prop replicas from 40-year-old movies that endure till today (wonder if they'll still remember that mini-radio in 40 years time or how hard the Bond license will be fought for :lol).

... Benny-Hill notwithstanding :lol

Now, when your beloved Craig or whoever is next, manages to reach 14 movies (and surpass the income), we'll talk again.

In the meantime, my era is statistically the largest and most popular era ..... and you have to wait to equal that :lol

 

[Michael Bergeron]

In the meantime, my era is statistically the largest and most popular era ..... and you have to wait to equal that :lol

Actually, statistically according to PROFIT let's consider what you believe to be "Classic Bond" and what I believe to be "Classic Bond". My line contains 10 films. Those of Connery, Lazenby, and Craig (although I'd lump Dalton in there as well I'll leave him in your category as you've claimed him in your previous comment). Your line contains 13 films. Those of Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan.

Yours certainly has more films, but it also contains the lowest average profit margins of all the Bonds meaning it was NOT the most popular era.

My 10 films when adjusted for inflation made the studios a total of $518,800,000

Your 13 films when equally adjusted made the studios $439,920,000

The most popular era according to both box office and overall profit for the studios was the first 5 Connery films. What I consider to be the best of Bond. By a LONG SHOT. As a matter of fact, his first five alone brought in PROFIT (not gross, just the money that went to the studios) $344,310,000. On average his films made back 5000% more than they cost to make. Compare that to an average of 400% for Moore? Or 450% for Brosnan? No contest.

I'm the wrong guy to ever say the word "statistically" to. :lol

 

[Alan Castillo]

Your movie 'line' is 'broken up' with bits here and there.

Mine is a continuous winning streak spanning decades. So there :lol

(So its only your name that is broken :lol ?)

.... now compare how much it cost to make your favourite movies versus those of my era.

No wonder yours brought in 5000% ...... they were cheap :lol

No mega production costs like those that made my era, aka the Golden Age :angel

And I'll tell you for the 50th time (now nit-pick it was only twice :lol), you are never going to convince me.

...... as I know I am never going to convince you.

I do, however, how the answer to my greatest concern : Craig and the studio killed Bond :lol

 

[Michael Bergeron]

.... now compare how much it cost to make your favourite movies versus those of my era.

No wonder yours brought in 5000% ...... they were cheap :lol

No mega production costs like those that made my era, aka the Golden Age :angel

Far from it. During the Connery years they were some of the most expensive films made. Yours had very little bang for the buck.

And I'll tell you for the 50th time (now nit-pick it was only twice :lol), you are never going to convince me.

...... as I know I am never going to convince you.

On this we seem agreed! :lol

I do, however, how the answer to my greatest concern : Craig and the studio SAVED Bond :lol

Fixed that for you.

 

[Alan Castillo]

Fixed that for you.

:darnkids

thumbsup

 

[Solo4114]

Side note:

I just want to say that I really appreciate the tone of this discussion. It's all been pretty good natured rather than the usual Intarwebz fiasco when fans with different opinions mix like raw sodium and water.

So, kudos to everyone who's been in on this. I might not agree with your position, but I agree with how you've presented it!