what should have happened instead of die another day

QBranch

@ Agent007391

Even ol' Moneypenny got hold of a gadget at one stage...

Agent007391

QBranch said:
@ Agent007391

Even ol' Moneypenny got hold of a gadget at one stage...

Yes! Hell, one could even call M's wall phone/TV a gadget and give HER one! EVERYONE HAD GADGETS IN THAT MOVIE!!!

And then there was that gene therapy clinic which was a nod to Scaramanga's funhouse. Why? For what reason would a simple doctor of genetic tampering need those revolving mirrors AND a secret door?

QBranch

Even the gadgets had their own gadgets... I'll stop now. :p

DarthDimi

It's funny how everybody complains about the overuse of gadgets in DAD, while we also have quite the exhibition of gadgets in LTK (including explosive toothpaste...), MR and others...

QBranch

I make fun of DAD all the time but I still love it to death!

Risico007

honestly in 2002 they should of gotten much closer to Moonraker if that's how they wanted to go or possibly do a post Fleming novel? How cool would it have been for say The Facts of death or The Man with the red tattoo for Brosnan's final outing.

Agent007391

DarthDimi said:
It's funny how everybody complains about the overuse of gadgets in DAD, while we also have quite the exhibition of gadgets in LTK (including explosive toothpaste...), MR and others...

Well, y'see, I'm keeping my gadget-bitching down to Die Another Day here because it's a Die Another Day thread. Look at LTK's gadgets, though, they don't even show up until halfway through the movie, and then they're underused.

Risico007 said:
honestly in 2002 they should of gotten much closer to Moonraker if that's how they wanted to go or possibly do a post Fleming novel? How cool would it have been for say The Facts of death or The Man with the red tattoo for Brosnan's final outing.

A few scenes from License Renewed would have worked in Die Another Day, but the whole book wouldn't have made a particularly good movie.

Samuel001

Luds said:

shadowonthesun said:

Luds said:
He had ample chances to ask for re-writes, he had some pull and over the years could have done something about the bad writing as well.

Perhaps he was saving all that pull for CASINO ROYALE. He seemed genuinely enthusiastic about it - he is, after all, the only Bond actor who did not do a film that was directly based on Fleming's source material - and perhaps felt that if he aired his grievances over DIE ANOTHER DAY during pre-production for CASINO ROYALE, it would make for an altogether-better script.

Maybe so, or maybe he was just happy getting his big phat paycheck.

Many movie stars hold off, or make a lot of noise when they're unhappy with a project, especially when they're a key figure. Brosnan had been Bond for a while, he certainly could have done something about DAD had he wanted to imo.

Plus, it being his last film on his contract Brosnan could have said "if this one isn't good enough, I'm leaving" and though he did come up with the great Bond in prison idea, he needed to say this should be played over the entire film and made sure it did not decend into CGI heaven and Iceland - where none of the cast actually went.

Agent007391

But he didn't leave until 2005. He was obviously anticipating a fifth film, but the closest he got was Everything or Nothing.

DaltonCraig007

Brosnan left in February 2003. You can find the interview on the internet where Brosnan says DAD was great, he's gone out on a high, and he is bowing out of the role.

If the old MI6forums were still here, you could read through the posts of that period, and you'd notice there were 8 members out of 10 that wanted Brosnan back for B21. Once the film was delayed, some members started thinking Brosnan was getting too old.

The rumours of a new Bond started getting strong in mid-2004, 1.5 years after DAD.

Brosnan wanted to return in 2004, started re-contacting EON, but they were already in the optic of a reboot/younger Bond, thus Brosnan's offer was rejected (and his salary demand rejected as well).

All in all, Brosnan left in Feb. 2003.

People can say DAD was horrible all they want, but the truth is if EON listened to these same fans after 2002, Brosnan would have made a 5th film. Practicly no-one wanted Brosnan gone after DAD.

If EON could have avoided a painful 2 years search after DAD for a new Bond, you can bet your house they would have prefered to have Brosnan back for 1, maybe 2 more films.

There were no clear candidates for B21. Craig only got the role because he made Layer Cake and he was good friends with Barbara Broccoli. Craig got the role by luck, not by his looks nor acting talent. He is the only Bond of the lot to not have earned the role rightfully.

Samuel001

Agent007391 said:
But he didn't leave until 2005. He was obviously anticipating a fifth film, but the closest he got was Everything or Nothing.

He left in 2003/4 and was Bond for that long until EON stopped contract talks with Brosnan even though he keep on with the Bond talk saying he'd do another. He wanted a fifth film but EON obviously wanted to move on. During 2005 EON were on the hunt for someone else. It was an 18 month search in all for Craig.

DaltonCraig007

Brosnan left in 2003, EON started thinking of a new direction, 1 year later in 2004 Brosnan re-contacts EON, but it's too late - EON were already in the optic of a younger Bond for a reboot. Brosnan's very high salary demand didn't help, but he was rejected since he didn't fit the part for the new direction EON were going to.

In the end we got a Bond that didn't get the role properly or rightfully. He bought his way to the role. Frankfully, IMO, he is the only Bond that doesn't deserve getting the role. I'm waiting for B23 to see if he his any good in the role, I'll forgive him a bit if the film is good. But IMO his first 2 outings are not Bond films, thus have no part in the franchise. And even if his last 2 outings are great, he will still be, for me, the only Bond to have bought his way to the role in a unrightful and insulting way for the Bond legacy.

Agent007391

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I know I read somewhere that he left in 2005, but they must have gotten it wrong.

DoctorKaufmann

DAD's PTS was very promising, Bond getting betrayed, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. But them after some 20 minutes into the movie, they actually tossed the whole "Bond as a broken charcter" out of the window and the movie went clearly downhill from that very moment onward. Instead we got an overload of gadgets and referential hommages to the previous Bond movies. Plus they had Halle Berry doing a version of Catwoman without leathersuit. Apart from that, I liked Brosnan in the movie, and somehow he was let down after GE with mediocre (TWINE, TND) scripts. And it is in no way sensational news, that DaltonCraig does not like Daniel Craig as Bond. Yes, DAD was a financial success, but practically all Bond movies have been box office hits (to my knowledge, only OHMSS and LTK neede some time to make money, but both succeeded in the long run). But as with MR, MGW and BB realiszed, that they pushed Bond too far coming to CGI and overblown stories (as did Cubby after "Moonraker"). So if you go by box office earnings, it is not that much of a surprise, that even DAD was a huge success. So, eitgher way, DAD made CR possible. People like it, people dislike it, I like CR and dislike DAD...

Samuel001

DaltonCraig007 said:
In the end we got a Bond that didn't get the role properly or rightfully. He bought his way to the role. Frankfully, IMO, he is the only Bond that doesn't deserve getting the role. I'm waiting for B23 to see if he his any good in the role, I'll forgive him a bit if the film is good. But IMO his first 2 outings are not Bond films, thus have no part in the franchise. And even if his last 2 outings are great, he will still be, for me, the only Bond to have bought his way to the role in a unrightful and insulting way for the Bond legacy.

EON wanted to change course so how on Earth does that mean Craig "bought his way to the role in a unrightful and insulting way for the Bond legacy"?

I really don't get this - one bit.

Think about it, he wasn't even on the radar at the time it was decided something different needed to be done. Blame EON, they gave us Die Another Day which in turn lead to Casino Royale. Daniel Craig had no part in it.

Agent007391

Daniel Craig won the role fair and square, he didn't buy into it.

Samuel001

Agent007391 said:
Daniel Craig won the role fair and square, he didn't buy into it.

It shouldn't tale a mathematician to tell us that. ;-)

shadowonthesun

DaltonCraig007 said:
In the end we got a Bond that didn't get the role properly or rightfully. He bought his way to the role. Frankfully, IMO, he is the only Bond that doesn't deserve getting the role.

Huh?

This isn't a Formula 1 seat, where some rich playboy who fancies himself as a racing driver can buy a drive because his money outweighs his talent. And given the overwhelmingly-positive critical response to Craig's performances, I think your accusations are incredibly unfair.

Samuel001

And how this insults the Bond legacy I'll never know. For all we know the same will happen to Craig after Bond 24 with another new direction. Except Bond #7 will be liked, so it would be in no way insulting.

shadowonthesun

But Craig is liked. By most people.

Samuel001

shadowonthesun said:
But Craig is liked.

Not by DC007 in his illogical argument, that was my point.

shadowonthesun

I see. I don't really understand it, either:

DaltonCraig007 said:
And even if his last 2 outings are great, he will still be, for me, the only Bond to have bought his way to the role in a unrightful and insulting way for the Bond legacy.

How does that even work? I mean, Craig won the role through an audition, the same as most of the other actors. Look at Brosnan, who was targeted by the producers. When GOLDENEYE went into pre-production, were there any auditions? I don't recall there ever being any.

Samuel001

I would say of course there were auditions but Brosnan was the favourite or at least was a stand-out potentail for a while. Though mentioning him in this argument will not help things.

shadowonthesun

I think it will. When EON decided it was time to re-cast Bond for CASINO ROYALE, they went into the auditions blind. There was no clear favourite; the press reported that the likes of Goran Visnjic were in contention, but as far as we know, EON were never leaning towards any one particular actor the way they were with Brosnan. Daniel Craig received comparatively little coverage than not a few of the actors who auditioned; it wasn't until he was actually cast that the media began to focus on him.

QBranch

I don't understand all this hate for Craig. As the years get further away from CR, it just seems more and more a no-brainer him being Bond. Oh, and I'm gonna be bold and ask- "Where can I find the DAD appreciation thread?"

shadowonthesun

While there is hate for Craig, it is coming from the absolute minority. There are only one or two people who believe Craig is absolutely unworthy for the role - almost everyone else would agree that Daniel Craig is one of the best things that happened to the James Bond franchise.

forgotmyusername

Samuel001 said:

shadowonthesun said:
But Craig is liked.

Not by DC007 in his illogical argument, that was my point.

Not illogical but logical - a 38 year old SAS best of the best recruit who acts like a 25 year old rookie - ummm makes perfect sense - as Spock would say that's....

shadowonthesun

I don't think Bond is really acting like a "twenty-five year-old rookie". I honestly doubt MI6 would recruit twenty-five year-olds to the Double-Oh section. Based on the bio written for Bond, he's had experience in both Special Forces and military intelligence, both of which are fields MI6 would want its recruits to have done time in. I don't think they'd recuit anyone younger than thirty to the Double-Oh section. And while Craig is thirty-eight, that doesn't necessarily mean his version of Bond is. His Bond could be thirty-three or thirty-four.

Bond's problem is not that he is acting like a rookie, but that he hasn't quite got his Special Forces background out of his system. He is a sledgehammer when M needs him to be a scalpel. All of the Double-Ohs probably have similar teething problems as they accomodate to the demands of the job. And although CASINO ROYALE was made in 2006 and QUANTUM OF SOLACE in 2008, QOS starts just twenty minutes after CR ends. So when you watch them back-to-back (and ignore the problem of exactly which year it is set in), it is perhaps six weeks from the mission in Madagascar to Bond confronting Yusuf Kabira in Russia. Bond has earned M's trust in that time, and has clearly come to an understanding about what it means to be a Double-Oh - by not killing Yusuf, Bond has shown that he now knows that he needs to guard his emotions carefully.

One thing that I'd really like to see BOND 23 do is blend parts of DIE ANOTHER DAY and X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. Yes, I know they're both dismal films, but here's my idea:

One of the cleverest things that DIE ANOTHER DAY did was to continue the story through the title sequence. Until then, the film had always stopped, taken a three-minute interlude for the song and the Binder/Kleinmann title design, and then resume the film. And perhaps the only decent part of WOLVERINE was its titles, which showed Hugh Jackman and Liev Schriber fighting through various wars - the American Civil, both World Wars and Vietnam. I was kind of hoping the film would explore this over two hours rather than two minutes, but I'd like to see the idea applied to Bond: during the titles, the story continues as it did in DIE ANOTHER DAY, bringing Bond from 2008 (QUANTUM OF SOLACE) to 2012 (BOND 23), just as ORIGINS did, in time for the film to come forward into the present day. It would probably need more than three minutes to do it, though. Maybe five.

forgotmyusername

x-men origins was far from dismal - jackaman's best performance of the Wolverine.

There is an idea that we see another life of Bond in his three years off since QoF. Then again I'm getting a bit worried now, in Bendy Mendy's vision do we have our hero retire after QoS and Bond 23 is his reintroduction to the service after M is murdered?

For me I just want a Bond Movie the last two have not been Bond movies.

shadowonthesun

Bond didn't retire at the end of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements