Search this Topic:
Nov 27 12 7:23 AM
Latarnia wrote:So I was in a DVD store the other day and they had on CASINO ROYALE. My, how young Craig looked there, as if the film were made 20 years ago!
"Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Nov 27 12 7:25 AM
Jago Turner wrote:You are quite right Mirek. Quantum of Solace seemed to lead directly to another sequel about an organisation that they were calling Quantum. It looked like they were heading for a kind of SPECTRE with a we-mean-it-this-time version of Blofeld. That's why, when we saw the posters and trailers with Fiennes many of us thought he was going to be playing Blofeld in the same way he'd played the maniacal head of an evil organisation in the Harry Potter films. In the end they opted to do something else entirely.
Nov 27 12 9:16 PM
Nov 27 12 10:45 PM
Nov 28 12 12:59 AM
Nov 28 12 7:26 AM
Nov 28 12 8:09 AM
Latarnia wrote:The public was perfectly satisfied with Pierce Brosnan in the role, a traditional tall handsome man playing the role of Bond. (Incidentally, Christopher Lee is on record as saying he knew Fleming and spoke with Fleming and that Brosnan came closest, physically one would assume, to Fleming's Bond.) But anyway, the public was very satisfied with Brosnan and Brosnan's last Bond was a huge success. Yet Barbara Broccoli decided a new direction was needed, or perhaps she had a sexual thing going on with Craig, so she chose someone Bourne-like to carry on the series. The continual popularity of the Bond films does NOT mean that Craig is the savior, because there was nothing to save. And by now, I think people would probably accept a monkey in the role, as long as it was a "James Bond" film.
Nov 28 12 8:28 AM
Jago Turner wrote:First. I'll put my hands up and say that I absolutely think that James Bond would work much much better as a period piece. This doesn't mean I'm some old grinch. I just feel that the further you take Bond away from that time period the less like Bond he tends to be.
For many millions this couldn't matter less. My one contention with Joe is that I do not believe that those millions can really have beeen all that fussed about the character in the first place.
To modernise a character requires compromise. I don't think there has been a compromise in the Craig Bonds. I think the character has been overhauled completely and the divorce with Fleming made final. Having said that I liked Skyfall and felt it felt like the makers were flirting with an ex and heading towards a reconciliation.
I only hated Casino Royale. I hated it for the same reasons I hated Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Other versions of Dracula were much further from Stoker... And I still loved them. Why were they less bothersome? I love most of Coppola's work. I like most of the actors who were in his Dracula. I thought it looked brilliant with fantastic effects and cinematography. But it took the book and turned it into something that, despite all the costumes, felt like it was written by a nineteen year old schoolgirl.
Maybe 2006 was a time when men were supposed to feel a little sorry for themselves. But if there's one thing that defines Bond is it that he doesn't feel sorry for himself. He has his bad moments but he isn't a pouter. In fact, despite all his snobbery, he rather enjoys life. And because Bond rather enjoys life we rather enjoy his company. This is true of Fleming's Bond. It is true of all the Bonds until Dalton but even Dalton seemed to retain just a touch of fun. Most modern action heroes seem to be haunted miserable characters. Jason Bourne - not a happy man. Jack Bauer - even less happy. Bond should have a twinkle in his eye at least. If he seduces a woman it isn't only because she has information pertinent to the case. It's because it's fun to seduce women.
Because I feel that the point is being characterised as a grouch point when, n fact, my whole problem with Craig's Bond is that he is grouchy. It was nice to see some lightening up in Skyfall. Maybe he will lighten up some more. You can enjoy women without a) falling in love with them or b) treating them like %##+. We actually came close to that playfulness in the exchanges between Bond and Moneypenny in Skyfall. Still has a way to go but it was a step in the right direction.
Nov 28 12 9:22 AM
Nov 28 12 12:11 PM
Nov 28 12 12:28 PM
Nov 28 12 2:16 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote:Latarnia wrote:The public was perfectly satisfied with Pierce Brosnan in the role, a traditional tall handsome man playing the role of Bond. (Incidentally, Christopher Lee is on record as saying he knew Fleming and spoke with Fleming and that Brosnan came closest, physically one would assume, to Fleming's Bond.) But anyway, the public was very satisfied with Brosnan and Brosnan's last Bond was a huge success. Yet Barbara Broccoli decided a new direction was needed, or perhaps she had a sexual thing going on with Craig, so she chose someone Bourne-like to carry on the series. The continual popularity of the Bond films does NOT mean that Craig is the savior, because there was nothing to save. And by now, I think people would probably accept a monkey in the role, as long as it was a "James Bond" film. Most diehard Bond fans place Pierce Brosnan way down on the list when discussing their favorite Bond actors, and they tend to overlook his movies in the series entirely (often with the exception of GOLDENEYE, yet even there they still complain about Judi Dench's feminist M anyway!). Although DIE ANOTHER DAY was a financial success, it was panned -- and how many fans do you constantly hear saying that DIE ANOTHER DAY is "the worst Bond film", or one of them? So no -- while I personally enjoyed Pierce as 007, the "big picture" shows that he was NOT that welcome in the grand scheme. There is not ONE Brosnan installment that any fan considers "One Of The Best Bond Films Ever".They had to get away from the old tired formula. It's obvious in watching the last couple of Pierce Brosnan movies (and especially DIE ANOTHER DAY with its "greatest hits" approach) that these old familiar formula stories were just not working anymore for the new Century. Yes, there was a series here which "needed to be saved". Now in comparison, let's look at Daniel Craig. Although we already know that this opinion is not very popular around Latarnia Country, CASINO ROYALE is often considered one of the "Best Bonds Ever" -- as well as SKYFALL being in the running too -- and not just by Joe Six Pack, but by many Bond Purists. And when you read diehard fans' evaluations of Craig as James Bond, many of them place him right behind Sean Connery at the Number Two Best position. For every one negative review that complains about Craig and his films there are 5 others complimenting both him and the movies. We already know that three of you here don't like him as Bond: Mirek, Richard, and Jago. While perusing these oft-inactive Bond threads here on the Latarnia site, anyone else can see they amount basically to you three guys of a like mind who are always disapproving Craig (while sometimes throwing a bone in saying he is a "good actor"), and slapping each other on the back in disapproval. But what has happened is, I am basically the only voice here doing what I'm doing right now in defending Daniel Craig, even though success has largely shown that he requires no defending. It seems that a lot of Craig supporters don't even want to waste their time (truth be told, I PM'd a very big Bond fan asking why he doesn't get more involved in these talks and he, perhaps wisely, said it was a waste of time and wrote 'yada yada' with regard to the Anti-Craig crowd). And while different types of opinions are what makes message boards go 'round, I am beginning to agree with him somewhat.
Nov 29 12 1:10 AM
Jago Turner wrote:We've never seen a precise interpretation of Fleming's Bond on the big screen but certain aspects of his character were maintained because they were the aspects of his character that created the franchise. If Bond is just a Brit with a gun who works for someone called M then you can't blame some of us being a little unimpressed.
I just wonder, if you like the previous films, if you will not find the return of a more traditional Fleming-esque Bond frustrating.
In order for you to appreciate my point of view (not agree but appreciate) it might be wise to bring up Sherlock Holmes. I may be misremembering things but I seem to recall that you are not impressed with Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes. Why not? He's a very good physical actor. The films have been hugely successful so clearly anyone suggesting that Downey is not Sherlock Holmes now is a living in the past. Perhaps they'd prefer Cushing or Rathbone. But Downey Jr is Sherlock Holmes. He's an excellent Holmes and he's connecting people who never read the stories with Holmes so he is Holmes now.
Nov 29 12 1:28 AM
Latarnia wrote:Once again you are spinning, Joe, but without much factual information to back up your contentions. The fact is that Brosnan was an immensely popular Bond who still could have continued on with the series for a couple of more films. There is zero proof otherwise. The fact is that there is a legion of Bond fans who bemoaned his removal and the placement of Craig in the role.
Once again you are spinning, Joe, but without much factual information to back up your contentions. The fact is that Brosnan was an immensely popular Bond who still could have continued on with the series for a couple of more films. There is zero proof otherwise. The fact is that there is a legion of Bond fans who bemoaned his removal and the placement of Craig in the role.
As for the average "Joe," (not you, Joe), he probably couldn't care that much which actor plays Bond as long as he's offered up action and more action. This is probably more true nowadays, when the majority of the movie-going public (young kids) have been bred on video gaming and respond to video gaming-like films.
Dec 14 12 4:50 AM
Latarnia wrote:I doubt they'd do MOONRAKER again--even a strict adaptation of the novel.
Ted Newsom wrote:It's
still not a bad set-up-- millionaire crazy guy Hugo Drax (German?
Revenge for the death of his family in WWII maybe?) plans to shoot a
satellite rocket into space independent of a government (fairly up to
date idea) and Bond finds out it's due to orbit the earth then hit
London with a big nuke ... maybe to start WWIII as a false flag
operation. Bring out a hoard of uniformed Nazi-style thugs as Drax's
private army. Just keep the weightless laser battles out of this one.
(Yeah, OK, the scorched earth idea has been done once or twice... but who cares?)
Dec 14 12 6:01 AM
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.