"Bond 23"
- Thread starter Carson Dyle
- Start date
firesprite
Master Member
That's ok Firesprite, you're just as entitled to be wrong as Mic is
Gee, thanks, Paul! :lol
Robbie TPC
Well-Known Member
I like Daniel Craig a lot, but not as James Bond.
Clive Owen would be a great Bond, or Eric Bana perhaps.
And they should bring the characters “Q” and Miss Moneypenny back into the Bond franchise, Bond isn’t Bond without those two characters IMO
Clive Owen would be a great Bond, or Eric Bana perhaps.
And they should bring the characters “Q” and Miss Moneypenny back into the Bond franchise, Bond isn’t Bond without those two characters IMO
OldKen
Master Member
Nu trek is beyond watchable. FAR better than the prequels.
Transformers was a facepaced blur of sellout crap that used pop culture from my childhood to make a buck.
BB and TDK were both good. They weren't heaven sent perfect like some fanboys claim.
The prequels. Not good. Shouldn't have been made. Not the abomination some think. But didn't have half the presence in this day the originals did in theirs.
ESB??? It isn't Casablanca, It's a wonderful life, or singin in the rain. But it is the coolest piece of cinematic art that has came out in my lifetime. (ANH is still my favorite SW though)
These are not my oppinions.
They are FACT. :angel
And Mic I never judged you or worried about your oppinion until I read you think ESB is barely watchable. Yet you really liked transformers.
Whatever was left in my hope for humanity has just died.
lolpBack on topic...
New bond... yay? I don't mind Daniel Craig as bond. But we need to get a cohesive Bond type story for the next one. The last one WAS kinda a bourne style and the story was all over the place.
That being said. Sure, give it one more go. Just do it right. Not campy Pierce Brosnon invisible car bond... but not Bourne ultimate fighter either.
Just Bond.
James Bond.
(had to)
Amen brother.
Amish Trooper
Sr Member
Because to be honest your points and opinions have weight and substance. They may not always go with the the grain but you do make sense.
Now I just need your autograph to go with larry's .
TheDoctor
Sr Member
Amen brother! Amen!
Actually, it'd be kinda cool if, for the next movie, they fast forward a couple years where Bond has been "in the field" for some time. In fact, you could reasonably assume Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace took place in fall 2006 or winter of 2007 and place the next film in 2012 (five/six years later).
If you don't want to be terribly canon (which they seem to not be), then they could just 'say' it's 10 years later...
Of course, you could compermise and say it's 007 years later....
Gadget Meister
New Member
Please do not let the next movie descend into another load of Bourne again crap. Let's get back to a proper escapist, sexist Bond film with a decent, larger than life villain, crazy lair, hot babes, mega gadgets and real stunts. Need some innuendo with Moneypenny and Banter with Q.
BUT don't go down the awful bad CGI route of DAD.
BUT don't go down the awful bad CGI route of DAD.
Solo4114
Master Member
This.
I LOVED Casino Royale.
I say this, however, as someone who has become more of a fan of very early Bond and the literary version of Bond, rather than the caricatured version of Bond who is a hair's breadth from becoming Austin Powers (although Austin Powers 1, like Galaxy Quest to Star Trek, is really a terrific Bond movie).
If one is a fan of the more over-the-top Bond, it makes perfect sense that this new direction is awful, dour, and boring. Not enough sex, not enough gadgets, NO quips whatsoever, what's the point, right?
For me, though, I liked that Bond's greatest gadget in CR was his wits and toughness. I liked that he was too shaken to quip much, and that he got stirred by Vesper, only to shut down after her betrayal as a defense mechanism. (GET IT?!) Seriously, though, he was less a caricature, and more of a character in that film.
That said, QOS was a POS in my opinion. Dull story with maybe 10-15 min of really good stuff scattered throughout the film, and with TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE action sequences. The opening scene alone makes me me want to force-feed the editor grams upon grams of ritalin.
Clive Owen would have been a FANTASTIC Bond, but he's on record as saying it will never happen and that he doesn't think he's right for the part. I've thought for YEARS that he'd be amazing in the role, but I can understand not wanting to go that route.
The Bourne crap that I dislike is the way the action is staged and the emphasis on disorienting kung fu crap. I do not, however, miss the loss of gadgets, the goofy pun-named women (Xenia Onatop? Come on... I mean, no worse than ***** Galore, of course, but still...).
But I gotta disagree strongly on the whole larger-than-life villain with a crazy layer and mega gadgets thing. To me, that's Bond from a different era, and an era that cannot be recaptured. You can still enjoy the old films, of course, but to try to force that style into a modern telling....well, in my opinion it just doesn't work. If you want that, let me say one word to you that may make you think twice:
Moonraker.
While I can certainly understand a lot of criticism that Quantum of Solace has received since it's initial release, I do find myself growing more attached to it the more I watch it. Certainly the action scenes are pretty shaky and hard to focus on, but at it's core where the characters are concerned, I really couldn't have been more satisfied with the development. I liked how Bond handled the death of agent Fields and I liked how Bond and Camille were working together on a more professional level without going the usual "end up together" ending.
Plus, having Dominic lash out at Bond the way he did in the final fight was so refreshing. No taunting, no wisecracks, no poetic speeches, no self-justifying lecture. Heck, Dominic looked like he didn't even know how to fight at all! He just grabs an axe and starts swinging at Bond like a mad man. See? That's a villain who really wants Bond dead, thus making it a lot more exciting and fun for me.
I hope they take the criticisms about the action scenes to heart, because I don't want to see the director's banging on the camera in the behind the scenes footage (Thank you JJ Abrams).
Plus, having Dominic lash out at Bond the way he did in the final fight was so refreshing. No taunting, no wisecracks, no poetic speeches, no self-justifying lecture. Heck, Dominic looked like he didn't even know how to fight at all! He just grabs an axe and starts swinging at Bond like a mad man. See? That's a villain who really wants Bond dead, thus making it a lot more exciting and fun for me.
I hope they take the criticisms about the action scenes to heart, because I don't want to see the director's banging on the camera in the behind the scenes footage (Thank you JJ Abrams).
I'm sorry but that's epic fail right there. :lol
Moonraker is HANDS DOWN the worst Bond film ever made.
Larry Young
Master Member
A View to a Kill remains the only film I've ever fallen asleep in. Man, I have to strive to find something entertaining in that flick.
burningman
Well-Known Member
I like craig alot... He is so much closer to the Bond in the books and that Bond wasn't a wisecracking parody of a spy. He was a ruthless jerk and good at what he did. Craig is playing Bond as I imagined him in my head and now that I'm rereading some of the books I can only picture craigs face now. Craigs fights are more brutal than Bournes fights. Borne is just an offshoot of mixed martial arts (still good) but Bond to me was more of a get the job done with anything I can. If i need to use a hammer fine, my fists fine, a chair fine. Bourne was good but when craig got puched ot landed a hit i felt it in my gut.
Some of Connery was close. Dalton was just a pompus ******. Brosnan was charming. Lasenby was forgettable and Moore was funny in Canonball Run.
The one thing that always bugged me about Bond is that Q always read all the scripts thus knowing exact what gadge Bond was going to need. Now granted the exact same thing happen in Casino R with the difibulator in the car but I'm will to forgive it cause the rest of the movie was so badass (except the poker game being the flavor of the month card game wise. Texas holdem)
Some of Connery was close. Dalton was just a pompus ******. Brosnan was charming. Lasenby was forgettable and Moore was funny in Canonball Run.
The one thing that always bugged me about Bond is that Q always read all the scripts thus knowing exact what gadge Bond was going to need. Now granted the exact same thing happen in Casino R with the difibulator in the car but I'm will to forgive it cause the rest of the movie was so badass (except the poker game being the flavor of the month card game wise. Texas holdem)
Larry Young
Master Member
I love how this is who Fleming had in mind:
You can really see why they went with Connery, if you were thinking of casting true-to-the-books.
Casino Royale was a great reboot. But then they fell right back into old habits with Quantum of Solace. Is it the producers or what?!
'James Bourne' is true a certain amount. But these days they need rapid movements to keep peoples' attention, apparently.
How did Q get the gadgets right every time? Bond used every gadget given to him. I'd like to see him say 'This thing is no help whatsoever!'
In the early days the gadgets were more general purpose, such as a briefcase with lots of stuff. Later they became single use, and incredibly expensive, even if they could be made at all.
Cloaking devices belong in Star Trek. And I hated John Cleese as Q.
'James Bourne' is true a certain amount. But these days they need rapid movements to keep peoples' attention, apparently.
How did Q get the gadgets right every time? Bond used every gadget given to him. I'd like to see him say 'This thing is no help whatsoever!'
In the early days the gadgets were more general purpose, such as a briefcase with lots of stuff. Later they became single use, and incredibly expensive, even if they could be made at all.
Cloaking devices belong in Star Trek. And I hated John Cleese as Q.
Solo4114
Master Member
To be fair, all three (Moonraker, Octopussy, and A View to a Kill) are pretty atrocious.
I find Moonraker to be the most absurd and most transparently "cashing in." Plus, Moonraker recycles a LOT of elements from The Spy Who Loved Me, which itself recycled a LOT of stuff from You Only Live Twice.
I find Octopussy to be pretty absurd too (especially the whole "chick ninjas" thing -- basically yet another commando raid on yet another bad guy stroghold, only THIS time it's acrobatic prostitute catburgulars! Or something.). Some elements were fun, though.
A View to A Kill is dull, but not as truly awful as Moonraker, in my opinion. And it's more...sad. Everyone involved just looks so worn down. Well, except Grace Jones. But that's just because she looks scary. The love scene between her and Roger Moore...>gag< Who the hell thought it'd be a good idea to have a geriatric Bond making out with she-man?
The film that finally made me just get completely sick of "movie Bond," though (and perhaps this influences my love of CR) was Die Another Day. Good GOD that was an awful film. Absurd stunts, idiotic gadgets, and the WORST quipping and mugging-for-the-camera that I've seen. And Halle Berry, while hot as usual, had ZERO chemistry with Pierce Brosnan.
The thing is, although Brosnan's last three Bond films were often unsatisfying, there are kernels of REALLY great stuff in there. Stuff that takes Bond from beyond the realm of a caricature and into the realm of an actual character. I know I keep harping on this, but to me it's what makes the books so enjoyable. Bond isn't just some catch-line-spouting gadget-laden cardboard cutout. He's actually got some depth to him.
The way I see it, if I want big dumb action, there's a WEALTH of 80s action flicks to choose from. Sly, Ahnold, Bruce Willis, etc. There's plenty of cheesy sci-fi flicks where I can get whiz-bang gadgetry and such. Hell, there are plenty of "James Bond clones" out there where I can get big dumb superspy action if I want it. But the Bond franchise CAN do more than that, given the material that it comes from.
I find Moonraker to be the most absurd and most transparently "cashing in." Plus, Moonraker recycles a LOT of elements from The Spy Who Loved Me, which itself recycled a LOT of stuff from You Only Live Twice.
I find Octopussy to be pretty absurd too (especially the whole "chick ninjas" thing -- basically yet another commando raid on yet another bad guy stroghold, only THIS time it's acrobatic prostitute catburgulars! Or something.). Some elements were fun, though.
A View to A Kill is dull, but not as truly awful as Moonraker, in my opinion. And it's more...sad. Everyone involved just looks so worn down. Well, except Grace Jones. But that's just because she looks scary. The love scene between her and Roger Moore...>gag< Who the hell thought it'd be a good idea to have a geriatric Bond making out with she-man?
The film that finally made me just get completely sick of "movie Bond," though (and perhaps this influences my love of CR) was Die Another Day. Good GOD that was an awful film. Absurd stunts, idiotic gadgets, and the WORST quipping and mugging-for-the-camera that I've seen. And Halle Berry, while hot as usual, had ZERO chemistry with Pierce Brosnan.
The thing is, although Brosnan's last three Bond films were often unsatisfying, there are kernels of REALLY great stuff in there. Stuff that takes Bond from beyond the realm of a caricature and into the realm of an actual character. I know I keep harping on this, but to me it's what makes the books so enjoyable. Bond isn't just some catch-line-spouting gadget-laden cardboard cutout. He's actually got some depth to him.
The way I see it, if I want big dumb action, there's a WEALTH of 80s action flicks to choose from. Sly, Ahnold, Bruce Willis, etc. There's plenty of cheesy sci-fi flicks where I can get whiz-bang gadgetry and such. Hell, there are plenty of "James Bond clones" out there where I can get big dumb superspy action if I want it. But the Bond franchise CAN do more than that, given the material that it comes from.
Last edited:
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
I can generally find something to like about any Bond film, even the sucky ones.
Moonraker, despite being one of the silliest Bond films ever made, features a irresistibly droll performance from Michel Lonsdale as Hugo Drax. And Derek Meddings' miniature work has never been better.
View to a Kill is an abominable POS, but Grace Jones remains one of the franchise's most memorable henchwomen.
Even Octopussy, a terrible movie by any standard, is somewhat mitigated by Steven Berkoff's hysterically over-the-top turn as the Russian equivalent Buck Turgidson.
I suppose it's the Pierce Brosnan Bonds that challenge me the most in terms of finding something to like. None of them are as cheesy as the films noted above, but neither are they as fun or memorable (Femke Janssen and Judy Dench notwithstanding).
I do find it ironic that, in movies like The Tailor of Panama and The Matador, Brosnan has proven himself better at spoofing James Bond than he was at actually playing him.
Moonraker, despite being one of the silliest Bond films ever made, features a irresistibly droll performance from Michel Lonsdale as Hugo Drax. And Derek Meddings' miniature work has never been better.
View to a Kill is an abominable POS, but Grace Jones remains one of the franchise's most memorable henchwomen.
Even Octopussy, a terrible movie by any standard, is somewhat mitigated by Steven Berkoff's hysterically over-the-top turn as the Russian equivalent Buck Turgidson.
I suppose it's the Pierce Brosnan Bonds that challenge me the most in terms of finding something to like. None of them are as cheesy as the films noted above, but neither are they as fun or memorable (Femke Janssen and Judy Dench notwithstanding).
I do find it ironic that, in movies like The Tailor of Panama and The Matador, Brosnan has proven himself better at spoofing James Bond than he was at actually playing him.
The only title more lame than Quantum of Solace.
Similar threads
