Where does Bond go after Craig?

1525526528530531539

Comments

  • Posts: 3,033
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    How about citing the amount of times Craig did similar though? In SF he barely says anything during the exchange with M when they’re in Scotland/she brings up his childhood, and yet his expressions tell so much. You can see it as well during the word association scene (his shift in expression after ‘sky fall’ is so subtle but so effective, and his little glare at the mirror/at M as he leaves is spot on). Or how about his acting when he sees Solonge’s body in CR? Or him getting drunk on the plane/staring at Vesper’s photo in QOS?

    I love Dalton’s Bond, but Craig was just as good, and actually I’d argue better at conveying that side of the character.

    Well why did one need a bunch of awkward, ham-fisted dialogue talking about his emotions when the other clearly didn't?

    I think it’s really only CR that comes close to that. And even if those moments/bits of dialogue aren’t to your taste it’s nothing against Craig’s acting in itself. It’s an issue you have with the writing.

    Dalton had some clunky lines (usually the quips, and honestly, I think a lot of that had to do with his delivery).

    You might think it's only a CR problem, but I don't find any of the romantic dialogue between Bond and Madeline in Bond 25 convincing. It's all very hammy, including "you'll never see me again", "I'm not going to lose... control", "you have all the time in the world" as a matter of fact a lot of the dialogue in Bond 25 is just bad generally. The interplay between Bond and Nomi about the 007 status, bond and M strange antagonistic dynamic, Bond's absolutely baffling exchange with blofeld in his cell. Bond 25 jumps many sharks, but to take blofeld, a man whose iconic stature is built on being the end all be all, ultimate cat stroking manipulator and mastermind, pulling all the strings, and turn him into the interlude villain whose outsmarted and whose operation gets subsumed into the real, actual scary bad guy has to take the cake, huh? How on earth did we, in one film, go from Blofeld sat at the head of the spectre table, shrouded in darkness, everyone scared into a hushed silence at his mere presence, to suddenly he is playing the second fiddle? Anyway, I'll stop ranting now.

    I suppose for me I found the dialogue in the handful of intimate moments between Bond and Madeline in NTTD as being similar in spirit to the dialogue between Bond and Tracy in the barn in OHMSS. Same for the beach scene with Vesper in CR. It’s just the type of dialogue needed for those scenes, broadly speaking.

    To each their own on everything else you mentioned. Like I said I don’t think any of that is a mark against Craig’s acting. Just an individual issue (or indeed issues) with the script, which is fair enough.

    Hmm. I suppose the difference is that I never thought of OHMSS as taking itself particularly seriously, it just happens to have a story where Bond gets married. The relationship is handled more maturely than, say, Bond and Tiffany Case (obviously) but that's by virtue of the material being what it is. I don't find Lazenby to be playing it with a particular sharp edge, indeed he's very playful and silly in some scenes, like when Draco's men capture him initially. The film is certainly more thoughtful than what came before, but It seems a lot more organic, whereas with Craig and CR, it's a very intentional and deliberate shift. Right from the use of black and white in the PTS, moving the gunbarrel, removing Q and Moneypenny, lines like "do I look like I give a damn?" They very much want to make it clear that this is not the same bond you're used to. With OHMSS, I don't get that. There certainly is a shift from the farcical antics of DAF, but I don't feel like the filmmakers are going out of their way to make that shift felt.

    I think just taking the barn scene Lazenby plays it pretty sincerely. It personally gives me the same vibes as Craig’s Bond when he’s on the beach with Vesper, or in the hotel room with Madeline.

    I mean, Craig’s Bond did certainly have that harder edge, and in many ways those ‘do I look like I give a damn’ moments are there to differentiate him, but I don’t think he's quite as different or as always serious compared to previous incarnations as you’re making out. There’s the playful sparring with Vesper when they first arrive at the hotel (all the ‘Mrs. Broadchest’ stuff), him turning on the charm with Solonge and even the hotel receptionist, the dark humour during the defibrillator scene (‘I’m all ears’). Even the ‘half hitman’ line, stupid as I think it is, is basically a quip. Seems to me pretty in line with how the character had been depicted previously, albeit with Craig’s own take on it (which is the norm with new Bonds).

    At the end of the day, it comes back to how the film plays up those moments. When Bond turns on the charm with solonge and the receptionist it's played so straight you could hear a pin drop. It's the least stylised or heightened "sexy" way of shooting that interaction, which again is communicating a shift towards the real, lived in reality of our world. If those scenes had more flair, put some score behind them (like Brosnan flirting with the woman at the kiosk in hamburg), then you can say his Bond played into that as much as other versions. But, and I think this more or less sums up the divide happening, at the end of the day it doesn't matter to me that technically speaking those things happened if the film isn't to some extent centred around them. Yes, technically those scenes were filmed, the actors turned up, cameras rolled, its in the finished product, but the film itself isn't centred in that playful energy and the repartee and snappy pacing, like, say, TSWLM is, so the fact they happen at all is kinda incidental to me.

    I mean, from what I remember Brosnan isn’t flirting with the girl at the kiosk in Hamburg at all. He just speaks to her in German about his car and smiles. It’s a surprisingly sexless interaction. I don’t think we even get a proper close up of him smiling at her, and none of the editing or acting stretches this interaction out to suggest any attraction (unlike the CR examples, so I disagree with you there). Unless I’m remembering a different scene to you?

    I mean, I’m not really sure what specifically you want from these scenes apart from a score, and I’m not going to lie mate, I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say in that last bit in relation to this point. It’s a bit too vague for me/needs more clarifying. I think the CR scenes work well, the editing makes those interactions flow, and Craig/his co-stars’ acting nails it. If anything it’s the lack of score during the Solonge interaction especially that heightens that chemistry.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    echo wrote: »
    At the end of the day, it comes back to how the film plays up those moments. When Bond turns on the charm with solonge and the receptionist it's played so straight you could hear a pin drop. It's the least stylised or heightened "sexy" way of shooting that interaction

    Strongly disagree. These are great little moments, sexy without being smarmy.
    .

    Thanks @echo … I’ve failed in the past to engage Mendes in discussions about nuance, and I don’t know if he understands the difference between subtlety and maturity and, cheesy smarminess….

    Unfortunately, though, this is just Mendes going on about the same points over and over.

    He’s obsessed with the Craig films, even though “Bond 25” was released over two and a half years ago!!

    The Boogie Man, Daniel Craig, won’t ever be returning to the series!!

    Mendes may not have a lot of agency and power in his life, but finally, he does, in this one aspect: since Craig won’t be James Bond again, Mendes has the power to actually never utter that name, nor watch another one of his Bond films. Just like with “Bond 25”, he can pretend the entire era never happened!! After all, it’s contained in this one universe and won’t be continued!!!!

    And yet….and yet……. He brings up the Boogie Man……….at every turn.

    I’m beginning to worry for him….

    We get it, Mendes, you must have PTSD after fifteen years and five films… But it’s time to lay this to rest and look optimistically at a new dawn. A new era!!

    😂

    (And I’m still waiting for the pages and pages and pages of dialogue you stated were in these scripts that repeatedly went on about betrayal, revenge etc etc…)

    😂…

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 1 Posts: 15,094
    The Solange stuff isn't sexy? I'm a bit lost- I think it's the most genuinely sexy stuff in the series; with perhaps the mirror stuff with the widow in Spectre close in second.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    @007HallY , it’s difficult to have a discussion when there are false representations being presented. It’s Straw Man argument tactics mixed in with paragraphs of word salads.

    When you strip everything away, it’s simply an obsession of passionate dislike trying to dress itself up as something reasonable.

    I’ve carefully gone through the posts from today, and there are so many articulate and lovely points that are such a pleasure to read, but then one guy blasts himself chaotically through these well conceived thoughts, that it almost, almost is a blight on the discussion.
  • Posts: 3,033
    mtm wrote: »
    The Solange stuff isn't sexy? I'm a bit lost- I think it's the most genuinely sexy stuff in the series; with perhaps the mirror stuff with the widow in Spectre close in second.

    Good point. The SP scene is a bit more stylised too. Dunno if that’s more to @Mendes4Lyfe ’s taste?
    peter wrote: »
    @007HallY , it’s difficult to have a discussion when there are false representations being presented. It’s Straw Man argument tactics mixed in with paragraphs of word salads.

    When you strip everything away, it’s simply an obsession of passionate dislike trying to dress itself up as something reasonable.

    I’ve carefully gone through the posts from today, and there are so many articulate and lovely points that are such a pleasure to read, but then one guy blasts himself chaotically through these well conceived thoughts, that it almost, almost is a blight on the discussion.

    I just wish I understood what he was trying to say in his last point 😂 I’m not trying to be snarky, just don’t quite get it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The Solange stuff isn't sexy? I'm a bit lost- I think it's the most genuinely sexy stuff in the series; with perhaps the mirror stuff with the widow in Spectre close in second.

    Good point. The SP scene is a bit more stylised too. Dunno if that’s more to @Mendes4Lyfe ’s taste?
    peter wrote: »
    @007HallY , it’s difficult to have a discussion when there are false representations being presented. It’s Straw Man argument tactics mixed in with paragraphs of word salads.

    When you strip everything away, it’s simply an obsession of passionate dislike trying to dress itself up as something reasonable.

    I’ve carefully gone through the posts from today, and there are so many articulate and lovely points that are such a pleasure to read, but then one guy blasts himself chaotically through these well conceived thoughts, that it almost, almost is a blight on the discussion.

    I just wish I understood what he was trying to say in his last point 😂 I’m not trying to be snarky, just don’t quite get it.

    I hear you @007HallY … I gave up a long time ago. You’ve more patience than me!
  • Posts: 2,095
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; it’s easier to state “Hey I don’t really agree with the direction the films took” and just move on. Besides can anyone seriously say that any of these films are really Batman and Robin levels of bad?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; it’s easier to state “Hey I don’t really agree with the direction the films took” and just move on. Besides can anyone seriously say that any of these films are really Batman and Robin levels of bad?

    Great points, both of them, @007ClassicBondFan !!

    But some people, I’m guessing, may have translated these films as a personal attack on them, and their tastes.

    I think it disturbs them when others actually DO like the films that they despise. And therefore, they get trapped on a hamster wheel, endlessly repeating themselves with the hope, I think, of changing minds. Thats why they also repeat what “we” want in the next Bond films, and use hyperbolic explanations of why the last era didn’t work at all…

    That’s the only reasoning I can come up with on something that’s so irrational.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 1 Posts: 8,159
    @007HallY's argument is that Craig shares a certain continuity with the other actors because he also has moments of charm and interplay, but for me that was never the defining criteria I'm judging things by. Craigs films are a break from traditional in terms of the reality they set for themselves, and that's what fans like me are reacting to. You can have sad things happen to Bond, like losing a wife, and have real pathos without interrupting the heightened world he inhabits. But once you Pierce that heightened world, it doesn't really matter what you have in common anymore. Classic bond is capturing a fantasy world in which a single man has hypermasculine powers to bend fortune towards his will, Craigs films, at least to start with, are designed as if they are capturing our world that something kinda unbelievable happens to be taking placing in. So, bond can still seduce a woman, but in one instance its a complete fantasy where the woman almost can't control herself and in the other its a guy punching above his weight and getting lucky. To @007HallY these are equivalents, because the same scenes were filmed using actors. But for someone like me, these are whole worlds apart, because of the whole manner and intent behind what they are meant to convey.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; it’s easier to state “Hey I don’t really agree with the direction the films took” and just move on. Besides can anyone seriously say that any of these films are really Batman and Robin levels of bad?

    @007ClassicBondFan tell this to the fans who point out peirces pain face at every opportunity, or Moores use of stunt doubles. Been 30 years, surely they must be getting tired by now. ;)
  • edited May 1 Posts: 3,033
    Ok, fair enough… I’m not sure I entirely agree and I’m not sure if I 100% understand everything you’re trying to say (especially the ‘it was filmed using actors’ thing). Personally, I find for all CR’s ‘grittiness’ the seduction scenes are actually pretty classically Bondian. You have a man who is able to turn on the charm and essentially through his looks/charisma get what he wants from these women. If anything it’s more pronounced/hypermasculine than some scenes in the old series (a lot of similar scenes with Connery and hotel receptionists don’t actually involve him flirting or getting anything, but simply showed a brief swooning sigh from the receptionists as Bond walked off, or even just a brief flirty look. These aren’t even really stylised moments. The CR scenes are just taking that concept and getting Bond to attain information from these women. The TND example you gave was just wrong too unfortunately).

    Fair enough if these scenes/movies aren’t your cup of tea, and even if so for a lot of the reasons you’re giving, but I think you’re thinking a bit too hard to make up excuses which (sort of but ultimately don’t really) try to justify why these moments are not ‘Bondian’.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 1 Posts: 8,611
    @007ClassicBondFan tell this to the fans who point out peirces pain face at every opportunity, or Moores use of stunt doubles. Been 30 years, surely they must be getting tired by now.

    I’ve been on this site since 2012.

    Personally speaking, I maybe made one comment about “pain face” and that was years ago.

    I’ve personally never mentioned Moore’s doubles.

    But for every one of the pain-face remarks on this site, you’ve probably made fifty comments, or more, about the Craig era, @mendes4lyfe !!

    I rarely hear Moore’s stunt doubles being used in a disparaging way, but for every one of those comments, you’ve made 80-100 comments about the dismal nature of the Craig era.

    You are kinda obsessed…

    It’s time to move on…..

    The Boogie Man will no longer hurt you, @Mendes4Lyfe !!

    😂
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,048
    ROv0LK@facebook.gif
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 1 Posts: 8,159
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ok, fair enough… I’m not sure I entirely agree and I’m not sure if I 100% understand everything you’re trying to say (especially the ‘it was filmed using actors’ thing). Personally, I find for all CR’s ‘grittiness’ the seduction scenes are actually pretty classically Bondian. You have a man who is able to turn on the charm and essentially through his looks/charisma get what he wants from these women. If anything it’s more pronounced/hypermasculine than some scenes in the old series (a lot of similar scenes with Connery and hotel receptionists don’t actually involve him flirting or getting anything, but simply showed a brief swooning sigh from the receptionists as Bond walked off, or even just a brief flirty look. These aren’t even really stylised moments. The CR scenes are just taking that concept and getting Bond to attain information from these women. The TND example you gave was just wrong too unfortunately).

    Fair enough if these scenes/movies aren’t your cup of tea, but I think you’re thinking a bit too hard to make up excuses which (sort of but not really) justify why these moments are not ‘Bondian’.

    Classic bond is what the average man thinks he is capable of in his dreams, Craigs bond is what the average man thinks he's capable of when he's drunk.
  • Posts: 3,033
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ok, fair enough… I’m not sure I entirely agree and I’m not sure if I 100% understand everything you’re trying to say (especially the ‘it was filmed using actors’ thing). Personally, I find for all CR’s ‘grittiness’ the seduction scenes are actually pretty classically Bondian. You have a man who is able to turn on the charm and essentially through his looks/charisma get what he wants from these women. If anything it’s more pronounced/hypermasculine than some scenes in the old series (a lot of similar scenes with Connery and hotel receptionists don’t actually involve him flirting or getting anything, but simply showed a brief swooning sigh from the receptionists as Bond walked off, or even just a brief flirty look. These aren’t even really stylised moments. The CR scenes are just taking that concept and getting Bond to attain information from these women. The TND example you gave was just wrong too unfortunately).

    Fair enough if these scenes/movies aren’t your cup of tea, but I think you’re thinking a bit too hard to make up excuses which (sort of but not really) justify why these moments are not ‘Bondian’.

    Classic bond is what the average man thinks he is capable of in his dreams, Craigs bond is what the average man thinks he's capable of when he's drunk.

    Ok 😂
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    Classic bond is what the average man thinks he is capable of in his dreams, Craigs bond is what the average man thinks he's capable of when he's drunk.

    😂! The Boogie Man is gone, @Mendes4Lyfe .

    Have fun on another thread. Try one of the games we play! Stay off threads where your obsession is unleashed. Trust me, you’ll sleep better.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 1 Posts: 8,159
    I just think it pays to think about that distinction, anyway moving on...
  • edited May 1 Posts: 3,033
    The annoying thing is there’s genuinely a really good point in there about how Craig’s Bond uses his sexuality in a more forward way compared to most of his predecessors. Throughout the first three films he sleeps with women in order to attain something, and often they die because of this. It’s very much in line with the Bond character, but is a spin on this aspect of his womanising.

    It’s just being used in this instance to say how rubbish and ‘non-Bondian’ the Craig films are, which doesn’t seem to be felt by others and goes down the route of counter-examples which disprove minor points/the premise while ignoring the more interesting points. And fair enough if stylistically some don’t like these films for these reasons, but it seems like an interesting discussion is being missed.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,551
    For what it's worth, I think that sequence with Solange is one of the most classic but still sexy sequences in the series and especially in Craig's era, especially considering they don't even get into bed together. I thought that whole scene was blocked and shot brilliantly.
  • Posts: 2,095

    @007ClassicBondFan tell this to the fans who point out peirces pain face at every opportunity, or Moores use of stunt doubles. Been 30 years, surely they must be getting tired by now. ;)

    But what does that have to do what my comment? So what if people make fun of Brosnan’s pain face; I do it myself and he’s my favorite Bond. Nobody brings up Moore’s use of stunt doubles as a reason for why his Bond is bad; sure it’s used as a reason for why he should’ve stepped down sooner but it’s never a personal attack against the man for aging. Heck I personally think the most ridiculous thing from any Bond actor in any of these films was watching Connery dry humping a table in Thunderball. Does that take away from how cool Connery’s Bond was? Heck no; all the actors have “less than ideal” moments in their tenures. When people bring up both of those examples against Brosnan and Moore it’s nothing to do with the men themselves; it’s just good natured humor. Trust me I used to get upset whenever I saw people dogpiling on Brosnan for the longest time, but the tide is somewhat changing and now there seems to be relentless Craig bashing which is extremely unfortunate. Personally I would much rather talk about what I love constantly than what I hate constantly.
    peter wrote: »
    Great points, both of them, @007ClassicBondFan !!

    But some people, I’m guessing, may have translated these films as a personal attack on them, and their tastes.

    I think it disturbs them when others actually DO like the films that they despise. And therefore, they get trapped on a hamster wheel, endlessly repeating themselves with the hope, I think, of changing minds. Thats why they also repeat what “we” want in the next Bond films, and use hyperbolic explanations of why the last era didn’t work at all…

    That’s the only reasoning I can come up with on something that’s so irrational.

    Your guess is as good as mine @peter, but I think you just eloquently nailed it. Besides making these movies are extremely tough; I don’t think “perfection” should ever be demanded from any film, let alone a Bond film. Lord knows my favorites of the series have flaws up the ass in them.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,159
    007HallY wrote: »
    The annoying thing is there’s genuinely a really good point in there about how Craig’s Bond uses his sexuality in a more forward way compared to most of his predecessors. Throughout the first three films he sleeps with women in order to attain something, and often they die because of this. It’s very much in line with the Bond character, but is a spin on this aspect of his womanising.

    It’s just being used in this instance to say how rubbish and ‘non-Bondian’ the Craig films are, which doesn’t seem to be felt by others and goes down the route of counter-examples which disprove minor points/the premise while ignoring the more interesting points. And fair enough if stylistically some don’t like these films for these reasons, but it seems like an interesting discussion is being missed.

    If you think the Craig films can stand on their own fair enough, I just don't buy that they are consistent to an holistic aesethetic with the other films, especially since CR kind of sold itself on that not being the case. :-??
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611

    @007ClassicBondFan tell this to the fans who point out peirces pain face at every opportunity, or Moores use of stunt doubles. Been 30 years, surely they must be getting tired by now. ;)

    But what does that have to do what my comment? So what if people make fun of Brosnan’s pain face; I do it myself and he’s my favorite Bond. Nobody brings up Moore’s use of stunt doubles as a reason for why his Bond is bad; sure it’s used as a reason for why he should’ve stepped down sooner but it’s never a personal attack against the man for aging. Heck I personally think the most ridiculous thing from any Bond actor in any of these films was watching Connery dry humping a table in Thunderball. Does that take away from how cool Connery’s Bond was? Heck no; all the actors have “less than ideal” moments in their tenures. When people bring up both of those examples against Brosnan and Moore it’s nothing to do with the men themselves; it’s just good natured humor. Trust me I used to get upset whenever I saw people dogpiling on Brosnan for the longest time, but the tide is somewhat changing and now there seems to be relentless Craig bashing which is extremely unfortunate. Personally I would much rather talk about what I love constantly than what I hate constantly.
    peter wrote: »
    Great points, both of them, @007ClassicBondFan !!

    But some people, I’m guessing, may have translated these films as a personal attack on them, and their tastes.

    I think it disturbs them when others actually DO like the films that they despise. And therefore, they get trapped on a hamster wheel, endlessly repeating themselves with the hope, I think, of changing minds. Thats why they also repeat what “we” want in the next Bond films, and use hyperbolic explanations of why the last era didn’t work at all…

    That’s the only reasoning I can come up with on something that’s so irrational.

    Your guess is as good as mine @peter, but I think you just eloquently nailed it. Besides making these movies are extremely tough; I don’t think “perfection” should ever be demanded from any film, let alone a Bond film. Lord knows my favorites of the series have flaws up the ass in them.

    I agree whole heartedly and have said many times here that there are no perfect films, and certainly there’s not one film that is universally praised by 100% of all of its viewers. It’s impossible!

    And although every filmmaker, whether they are making a microbudget, a b-movie, or a 300 million dollar blockbuster, all set out to make the very best film they can, it still won’t be enough to please all the masses all of the time.

    Taking that into consideration, and looking at the 60 plus years of EoN’s James Bond and they really have done the impossible: they’ve not only kept 007 films coming on a regular schedule, but they’ve been able to keep making him relevant to filmgoers globally, in an especially crowded marketplace.

    Think of all of the franchises that have come and gone from blockbusters like Jaws, the original Rocky, Rambo, the steep drop off of Star Wars, the end of Indy, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Bourne, FF, XxX…. How is EoN still going strong???

    And to think there are a few entitled Bond “fans” who want more movies NOW, and who think they know how to run this franchise better than the family that has been doing it from the beginning! It’s absurd!!!

    Yes, we all have our gripes about a certain film, or an era, but EoN aren’t making these films for just three people on the planet that all think the same; they’re making it for millions of people, all coming from different ethnicities, that speak and work in different languages… we know they’ve made great efforts of bringing in femal audiences as well.

    I mean, their success, on paper, should have probably been over by the late 80s.

    It’s amazing, @007ClassicBondFan , and that’s why I’m tired of a poster that keeps telling us what “we” want in our next Bond pictures. I feel like saying, why don’t you just remain quiet, and let the experts do their jobs? Of course play the “what if” games! What if, so and so directed? Or if so and so got the part! Of course have fun and dissect the series. Of course. And of course, tell us what YOU want in your Bond films, but don’t assume “we” will agree with those personal desires…

    Another film is on the way, and I bet some of these same entitled “fans” will storm out of the cinema, demanding to know when preproduction is starting on the next film, 😂!!
  • edited May 1 Posts: 2,095
    peter wrote: »

    @007ClassicBondFan tell this to the fans who point out peirces pain face at every opportunity, or Moores use of stunt doubles. Been 30 years, surely they must be getting tired by now. ;)

    But what does that have to do what my comment? So what if people make fun of Brosnan’s pain face; I do it myself and he’s my favorite Bond. Nobody brings up Moore’s use of stunt doubles as a reason for why his Bond is bad; sure it’s used as a reason for why he should’ve stepped down sooner but it’s never a personal attack against the man for aging. Heck I personally think the most ridiculous thing from any Bond actor in any of these films was watching Connery dry humping a table in Thunderball. Does that take away from how cool Connery’s Bond was? Heck no; all the actors have “less than ideal” moments in their tenures. When people bring up both of those examples against Brosnan and Moore it’s nothing to do with the men themselves; it’s just good natured humor. Trust me I used to get upset whenever I saw people dogpiling on Brosnan for the longest time, but the tide is somewhat changing and now there seems to be relentless Craig bashing which is extremely unfortunate. Personally I would much rather talk about what I love constantly than what I hate constantly.
    peter wrote: »
    Great points, both of them, @007ClassicBondFan !!

    But some people, I’m guessing, may have translated these films as a personal attack on them, and their tastes.

    I think it disturbs them when others actually DO like the films that they despise. And therefore, they get trapped on a hamster wheel, endlessly repeating themselves with the hope, I think, of changing minds. Thats why they also repeat what “we” want in the next Bond films, and use hyperbolic explanations of why the last era didn’t work at all…

    That’s the only reasoning I can come up with on something that’s so irrational.

    Your guess is as good as mine @peter, but I think you just eloquently nailed it. Besides making these movies are extremely tough; I don’t think “perfection” should ever be demanded from any film, let alone a Bond film. Lord knows my favorites of the series have flaws up the ass in them.

    I agree whole heartedly and have said many times here that there are no perfect films, and certainly there’s not one film that is universally praised by 100% of all of its viewers. It’s impossible!

    And although every filmmaker, whether they are making a microbudget, a b-movie, or a 300 million dollar blockbuster, all set out to make the very best film they can, it still won’t be enough to please all the masses all of the time.

    Taking that into consideration, and looking at the 60 plus years of EoN’s James Bond and they really have done the impossible: they’ve not only kept 007 films coming on a regular schedule, but they’ve been able to keep making him relevant to filmgoers globally, in an especially crowded marketplace.

    Think of all of the franchises that have come and gone from blockbusters like Jaws, the original Rocky, Rambo, the steep drop off of Star Wars, the end of Indy, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Bourne, FF, XxX…. How is EoN still going strong???

    And to think there are a few entitled Bond “fans” who want more movies NOW, and who think they know how to run this franchise better than the family that has been doing it from the beginning! It’s absurd!!!

    Yes, we all have our gripes about a certain film, or an era, but EoN aren’t making these films for just three people on the planet that all think the same; they’re making it for millions of people, all coming from different ethnicities, that speak and work in different languages… we know they’ve made great efforts of bringing in femal audiences as well.

    I mean, their success, on paper, should have probably been over by the late 80s.

    It’s amazing, @007ClassicBondFan , and that’s why I’m tired of a poster that keeps telling us what “we” want in our next Bond pictures. I feel like saying, why don’t you just remain quiet, and let the experts do their jobs? Of course play the “what if” games! What if, so and so directed? Or if so and so got the part! Of course have fun and dissect the series. Of course. And of course, tell us what YOU want in your Bond films, but don’t assume “we” will agree with those personal desires…

    Another film is on the way, and I bet some of these same entitled “fans” will storm out of the cinema, demanding to know when preproduction is starting on the next film, 😂!!

    Wonderfully said @peter! As much as the fans would love to be in some sort of creative position with regards to the films, it’s for the best that these movies are made by professionals who know what they’re doing and can deal with the stresses of making a Multi Million Dollar production. More and more I’ve learned that the creative process can be a huge pain in the arse at times (just by writing the reviews alone Ive learned that!) and even if the end result may be something less than ideal, it’s not as if the creators aim to make the worst thing they possibly can as you stated. EON and Daniel Craig didn’t have any negative intentions going into the productions of these films, just as I’m sure is the case with any of the other Bond actors. Sure there may have been some bumps along the way I’m sure, but it’s not like I’m hearing “Twilight Zone” levels of disaster going on BTS. It’s not like I’m hearing any mistreatment of the people who make these movies or anything; quite the opposite in fact!

    It may just be a side effect of “fandom” in general to have such an intense personal dislike for what is different and out of the ordinary; it’s nothing we can control. All we can do is refute and state our own opinions. Doesn’t take away anything from the legacy of any of the talent involved in this series over its past 60+ years of existence.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    💯 💯 💯 @007ClassicBondFan , and what a sixty plus year legacy it is. No other film series can come close to the accomplishments of EoN.

    And comparing the size of EoN to the monoliths that other film series were born from, this family outfit is the little engine that could (and keeps doing!)!
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 749
    I’m watching Citadel. It’s a reminder on how easy it is to get this genre wrong.

    Also, very much a ‘no’ from me for Richard Madden as Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,611
    I’m watching Citadel. It’s a reminder on how easy it is to get this genre wrong.

    Also, very much a ‘no’ from me for Richard Madden as Bond.

    Madden was atrocious, but that series was one of the best (unintentional) comedies I've ever seen. It was a laugh-a-minute as the two leads with no charisma, no chemistry, tried to make scenes sexy and cool.

    My youngest daughter and I (she was 18at the time), relished each new episode, smacking our chops and waiting for the cheese-fiesta that Citadel didn't know it was delivering to us, 😂...

    On a serious note, I thought Madden was great in Bodyguard, but after seeing Citadel, I wouldn't want the guy watching another Bond film, let alone auditioning for the part, 😂.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 39
    I’m watching Citadel. It’s a reminder on how easy it is to get this genre wrong.

    Also, very much a ‘no’ from me for Richard Madden as Bond.
    I think I got about two episodes in before giving up - it’s one of the worst things I’ve sat through in quite a while. Madden struggles badly with the accent too. I have no idea why they didn’t get him to use his normal accent and let him rehash his performance from ‘Bodyguard’.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 749
    Stanley Tucci is good, he’s always watchable, but he’s not enough to save Citadel. At least Amazon has a success with Fallout, a show that seems to know where to put its money.

  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited May 2 Posts: 567
    mtm wrote: »
    Those are totally different scenes: Dalton's Bond didn't fall in love; Craig's did. That he actually put that into words to the person he's in love with isn't all that surprising. Honestly I didn't really buy there was much going on under the surface with Dalton's: he's just angry. It's not massively interesting: we get stuff like "If (M) fires me I'll thank him for it" (which if anything gets Bond's character wrong) - and certainly LTK brings up a discussion of loyalty between the two of them. If Craig had said that would that have been a problem?
    "The old ways are the best" isn't even Bond's line! I'm not sure the others are either. I'm sure we can come up with examples of lines Dalton didn't say either :D

    That comes from the short story though.
  • Posts: 1,560
    Obviously the Bond series hasn't done the impossible, since by definition the impossible can't be done. The series has done what might have seemed unlikely fifty years ago had anyone been thinking that far ahead.


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,094
    Stanley Tucci is good, he’s always watchable, but he’s not enough to save Citadel. At least Amazon has a success with Fallout, a show that seems to know where to put its money.

    I wondered why they didn’t make a spy series starring him. Didn’t need to be as big and overblown and green (seriously, that show was coloured green as much as I watched) but he should have been the star.
    mtm wrote: »
    Those are totally different scenes: Dalton's Bond didn't fall in love; Craig's did. That he actually put that into words to the person he's in love with isn't all that surprising. Honestly I didn't really buy there was much going on under the surface with Dalton's: he's just angry. It's not massively interesting: we get stuff like "If (M) fires me I'll thank him for it" (which if anything gets Bond's character wrong) - and certainly LTK brings up a discussion of loyalty between the two of them. If Craig had said that would that have been a problem?
    "The old ways are the best" isn't even Bond's line! I'm not sure the others are either. I'm sure we can come up with examples of lines Dalton didn't say either :D

    That comes from the short story though.

    Fair enough, a while since I read it.
Sign In or Register to comment.