Did you guys really wanted this Dark Bond before it happened?

2»

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    This is typical for them. All actors who have done more than two films have seen their films get lighter in tone with time. Only Moore saw a reversion to a darker tone (with FYEO) during his run, but I think that was because he had such a long run, and because FYEO was actually intended for a new Bond.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    To tell you the truth, I did wanted it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    To tell you the truth, I did wanted it.

    :)) =))
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2015 Posts: 5,131
    AceHole wrote: »
    Yes. But since SF it seems EoN are not following through with what CR and QoS built up.

    SF was 'pitch black' (dark) in tone compared to all the Brosnan outings.

    DAD was a similar tone to Casino Royale........the 1967 spoof version.
  • RC7RC7
    edited June 2015 Posts: 10,512
    suavejmf wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Yes. But since SF it seems EoN are not following through with what CR and QoS built up.

    SF was 'pitch black' (dark) in tone compared to all the Brosnan outings.

    SF was not dark in tone. It has a few fleeting moments, but next to QoS, which is in my eyes the darkest of all the Bond films, it's comparatively light. Don't know what it has to do with Brosnan, but for the record I would say it's not dissimilar to GE in tone.
  • Posts: 12,837
    I wasn't really wishing for a "darker Bond" but I was happy with it when it happened. Much like now, I'm not wishing for a return to a Roger Moore type Bond but if that's the direction they go in when Craig leaves, I'll be happy with that as long as the films are good.

    I think the different interpretations of the character is what has kept Bond alive over the years, I don't think he has to or should be anything really. As long as the films are good, and the character isn't changed beyond recognition (whether the films are dark or not, he still has to be suave, charming, dangeorus, etc), then I don't really care whether Bond is a quip spewing playboy or a tortured assassin. I like all the versions of the character, what matters to me is that the version they're going for (whether it's dark or light) is done well. The quality of the films are more important than the tone, imo. The only risk with a lighter film is that there is a potential for the tone to undermine any sense of danger (like in the Marvel movies), but luckily I don't think any Bond film so far has had this problem.
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Yes. But since SF it seems EoN are not following through with what CR and QoS built up.

    SF was 'pitch black' (dark) in tone compared to all the Brosnan outings.

    SF was not dark in tone. It has a few fleeting moments, but next to QoS, which is in my eyes the darkest of all the Bond films, it's comparatively light. Don't know what it has to do with Brosnan, but for the record I would say it's not dissimilar to GE in tone.

    SF is very similar to GE in tone, and plot, and themes, which is why the exploding pen line really annoyed me. Don't try and act all smug and say "look guys, weren't those films dumb, isn't this one so much better" when your film is so similar and, in some ways, inferior (not one action scene from Skyfall comes close to anything in Goldeneye), to the one you're mocking.

    It's a shame because that was a really great scene but then that line at the end sort of dragged it down imo. I still think SF is a great film and the best Daniel Craig film though, which is an opinion that doesn't seem all too popular these days. It's interesting how we had all the best Bond ever hype but now there are quite a few people who are critical of SF and even though plenty still like it, most people now seem to agree that CR was the better film.
Sign In or Register to comment.