Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank1 min ago
Bond 22
8 Answers
It appears Eon Productions are in two minds whether to make Bond 22 gadget laden and a re-introduction of Q with John Cleese and a new sexier Miss Moneypenny.
I am not a huge fan of Daniel Craig and would happily welcome back Brosnan or better still Clive Owen.
However although Casino Royale has grown on me over the last 6 months or so, it has to be said it is not a great Bond movie.
Purists like myself. are overall not happy with CR, and it is fair to say the vast majority of praise came from women more interested in the penis hugging shorts worn by Mr Craig than the actual Bondness of the movie.
Yes, the humour from the Moore era was a trifle OTT, Dalton was a little flat, Connery had no contempories, Lazenby was not given long enough and in my humble opinion Brosnan was spot on.
So my question is: Should Bond stop trying to be as serious as Craig has portrayed? Should he take a leaf out of Brosnan's book?
Or was the formula about right in Casino Royale?
(And please no comments from silly girls saying "OOOhhhhh but Craig is so sexy, those pecs, those blue eyes, that voice, blah de blah de bloody blah)
I am not a huge fan of Daniel Craig and would happily welcome back Brosnan or better still Clive Owen.
However although Casino Royale has grown on me over the last 6 months or so, it has to be said it is not a great Bond movie.
Purists like myself. are overall not happy with CR, and it is fair to say the vast majority of praise came from women more interested in the penis hugging shorts worn by Mr Craig than the actual Bondness of the movie.
Yes, the humour from the Moore era was a trifle OTT, Dalton was a little flat, Connery had no contempories, Lazenby was not given long enough and in my humble opinion Brosnan was spot on.
So my question is: Should Bond stop trying to be as serious as Craig has portrayed? Should he take a leaf out of Brosnan's book?
Or was the formula about right in Casino Royale?
(And please no comments from silly girls saying "OOOhhhhh but Craig is so sexy, those pecs, those blue eyes, that voice, blah de blah de bloody blah)
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Shadow Man. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Many James Bond films absolutely make me cringe at how cheesey they are, I used to like them as a child (although I wouldn't really call myself a Bond fan) but as I grew up I started to find Bond to be a bit of a to$$er, the Bond girls to be empty shlls, and the stories to be ridiculous. I know longer found this quirkiness enjoyable but annoying. I really enjoyed Casino Royale though, I found it thrilling and liked the grittier nature of it, so I'll have to say I find that formula about right.
However, I can see that for Bond true Bond fans it may have been changed too dramitically, as if it may aswell be a film featuring a completely different character.
However, I can see that for Bond true Bond fans it may have been changed too dramitically, as if it may aswell be a film featuring a completely different character.
Have you read any of the books wardy? Just wondered because for me Dalton portrays Bond as Flemming intended and for me, controversially, he is the best Bond, the Living daylights is the best of the lot. I have to say though that Craig was excellent in CR as was the movie. I liked the hard edge, sort of reminiscent of Connery in FRWL or even DrNo. So I would say the formula with CR is not far out, just a tad more humour would be good, I'm happy for DC to continue but I would mind seeing how Clive Owen handles the part at some stage.
I thought that Casino Royale was an excellent film, and followed Bond much more as it was written. There's a certain amount of nostalgia and history with Bond that is impossoble to escape from due to the amount that have been made and the length of time they have been made for. Everyone has a favourite Bond moment already, so what are the chances of a new film giving you that same feeling. Slim. The same was true of the new Simpsons movie, but likewuse it doesn't detract from the fact that as a stand alone film CR was excellent.
I for one found the grittier interpretation a welcome relief after the Austin Powers lampoons had so effectively taken the p*ss out of the genre. So I say, keep it serious, add a more playful element to him when there is no immediate drama, and above all, keep Craig in the lead role
I for one found the grittier interpretation a welcome relief after the Austin Powers lampoons had so effectively taken the p*ss out of the genre. So I say, keep it serious, add a more playful element to him when there is no immediate drama, and above all, keep Craig in the lead role
Shadow Man I am wondering what you mean buy purist.
Tiny,the idea that there is a true Bond fan and a true way of making the films is a flase one.Check out the forum on the James Bond International Fan Club site.The amount of contention on the forumis amazing.Each Bond is vilified and adored in equal measure.What one loves another hates.And all of these people are true Bond fans.
I have been a Bond fan for about 34 years,seen all the films many times and read all the books.I have found something to like and enjoy and enjoy in all periods of the Bond films.I just welcome the fact that the Bond films are still made.I must admit that after the first couple I did find Roger Moore's films increasingly silly.If you look back at the films they do tend to be more serious when they introduce a new actor and then become more fantastical as they go along.
Dalton,for me,gave the best interpretation of the character.He went back to the books and really conveyes Bond for the first time.He was a character not a cypher.
For the same reason I welcome and enjoy Casino Royale.Daniel Craig makes a wonderful Bond.I prefer a Bond with a harder edge.It took a while for me to get on with the conceit of rewinding the series and this being Bond's first mission,but I can't change it so I have to go along with it.
As for the future,I think that the humour and gadgets will creep back.Possibly Q and Moneypenny will return.But I don't think that they should move away from the seriousness.They have an incredible asset in Daniel Craig,and while they have him they should do what they always do and play to his strengths.
Tiny,the idea that there is a true Bond fan and a true way of making the films is a flase one.Check out the forum on the James Bond International Fan Club site.The amount of contention on the forumis amazing.Each Bond is vilified and adored in equal measure.What one loves another hates.And all of these people are true Bond fans.
I have been a Bond fan for about 34 years,seen all the films many times and read all the books.I have found something to like and enjoy and enjoy in all periods of the Bond films.I just welcome the fact that the Bond films are still made.I must admit that after the first couple I did find Roger Moore's films increasingly silly.If you look back at the films they do tend to be more serious when they introduce a new actor and then become more fantastical as they go along.
Dalton,for me,gave the best interpretation of the character.He went back to the books and really conveyes Bond for the first time.He was a character not a cypher.
For the same reason I welcome and enjoy Casino Royale.Daniel Craig makes a wonderful Bond.I prefer a Bond with a harder edge.It took a while for me to get on with the conceit of rewinding the series and this being Bond's first mission,but I can't change it so I have to go along with it.
As for the future,I think that the humour and gadgets will creep back.Possibly Q and Moneypenny will return.But I don't think that they should move away from the seriousness.They have an incredible asset in Daniel Craig,and while they have him they should do what they always do and play to his strengths.
I'm not a Bond movie fan, haven't even watched Casino Royale (same old, same old, Bond saves the day) but I think Craig is a bit stiff and serious for me, though his great pecs and blue eyes make up for it, drool, he may get better over time and ''loosen up'' in the next Bond movie... (does it really matter though as long as he uses lots of gadgets, drives a cool car and kung fu's his way out of trouble at the end of the day?)
what you have to understand is that CR is set before all the bond films that you have seen. in dr no you can see bond was played as a very serious person, and with every movie that follows he changes. in CR he has just been signed on as a 00 and so is very dark, serious and is "just a killing machine".
this movie is hard to follow because it is the 21st film, yet it is the very 1st one as well. if you have read all the books by ian flemming you will find that DG performance in CR is the most (out of all the bond actors) like the books.
now, depending on when, in the bond time line, the next film is set will show the vewing public just how good a bond DG is.
this movie is hard to follow because it is the 21st film, yet it is the very 1st one as well. if you have read all the books by ian flemming you will find that DG performance in CR is the most (out of all the bond actors) like the books.
now, depending on when, in the bond time line, the next film is set will show the vewing public just how good a bond DG is.
1 to 8 of 8
