Skyfall, the new James Bond film in Cool Spies Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Skyfall, the new James Bond film

Author	Comment
Joe Karlosi		#221	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 27 12 7:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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! Amazing how that happens, isn't it? And you thought Craig looked so old even then. Just wait how young he will look to you in SKYFALL once we get to his 2016 Bond film! "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
	Remove this ad
Joe Karlosi		#222	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 27 12 7:25 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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. They could always return to that storyline eventually. I mean, it's not like they didn't go back and forth on the whole Blofeld and SPECTRE thing during the older movies. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Latarnia		#223	[-]
Registered User Posts: 24691 Nov 27 12 9:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't agree with everything in this long review of SKYFALL, but the author does bring up many interesting points, such as how much was employed from previous Bond films. (I was aware of this, in part, but the list is longer than my remembrance.) Also, this whole dark gothic Batman thing about Bond's youth and the house from Dark Shadows or, as Tim Lucas stated, the house from THE WOMAN IN BLACK.... This heavy darkness is not Fleming, of course, and the author quotes Fleming, in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, when he wrote of Bond's early youth: "It was one of those beautiful, naive seaside panoramas for which the Brittany and Picardy beaches have provided the setting. . . . To James Bond, sitting in one of the concrete shelters with his face to the setting sun, there was something poignant, ephemeral about it all. It reminded him almost too vividly of childhood [and] always in those days, it seemed, lit with sunshine. . . . It was all there, his own childhood, spread out before him to have another look at. What a long time ago they were, those spade-and-bucket days! How far he had come since the freckles and the Cadbury milk-chocolate Flakes and the fizzy lemonade! Impatiently Bond lit a cigarette, pulled his shoulders out of their slouch and slammed the mawkish memories back into their long-closed file. Today he was a grown-up, a man with years of dirty, dangerous memories—a spy." Anyway, here's the review: http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_review.html Mirek Last Edited By: Latarnia Nov 28 12 1:02 AM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#224	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 27 12 10:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	What a bitter, sour grapes review. The guy had his mind made up from the beginning, no doubt. It's hilarious to me that people like that think it's anything "new" for James Bond movies to be occurring within the times they're made. Hey, one more time, guys, in case you missed it: JAMES BOND NO LONGER EXISTS IN THE 1950s OR 1960s. And no matter how many times some purists want to try and deny it, it always comes back to the fact that that is PRECISELY what they want. If Ian Fleming had written James Bond in the 21st Century, this is how the character would now be. For them, the best scenario would be to make all the future EON Bond movies "retro" pieces, occurring in the '60s. Completely reverting back to those clothes, that culture, the attitudes and politics of their day. Remake all the books again, in the vintage years they're supposed to be. Honestly, if you think about it objectively for a moment -- really, what is the point of making Bond look and act in 2012 as though he's in a 1962 time warp? But of what use is speaking common sense in this case? When a mind's made up, it's made up. Anyway -- I feel very sad for that unfortunate writer of the article. As for the types of movies he named that SKYFALL is supposedly drawing from (MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, BOURNE, etc.) I haven't seen any of those. I didn't even see the recent Batman. Thus, I only viewed SKYFALL's James Bond as Bond. A different Bond from Sean Connery... who is different from Roger Moore, who was different from Dalton and Brosnan --- but still a Bond... "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Nov 27 12 10:49 PM. Edited 2 times.
Latarnia		#225	[-]
Registered User Posts: 24691 Nov 28 12 12:59 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe, you're spinning and spinning it with incorrect assumptions. 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. Regarding what an Ian Fleming would write in the 21st century, well, none of us know that, but perhaps it would not be a spy series about a British agent who looks like Putin and runs around like the Energizer Bunny. Mirek
Jago Turner		#226	[-]
Registered User Posts: 672 Nov 28 12 7:26 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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 even liked Quantum of Solace more than most people (helped by some beautiful photography and Arnold's best Bond score). 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. Casino Royale felt written by a grouch and turned Bond into a pouter. He's just so deeply pained by the misery of living that despite all his gymnastic savagery you feel like he spends most of his time feeling sorry for himself. Maybe this suited the age. 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. And why do I bother saying this. 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.
Joe Karlosi		#227	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 28 12 8:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Nov 28 12 8:30 AM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#228	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 28 12 8:28 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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. I just want to interject here to suggest that I think it's more a matter of "the further you take James Bond away from that older time period, the less like the older, original Bond he tends to be". And this would - or should - go without saying. 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. But maybe they are now. Just as so many diehard Bond fans grew up on the Fleming novels, so too are new generations now growing up on the current Bond movie brand. 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. When I read your first three sentences I was prepared to reply with precisely what you went on to say in your final thought here. I can't agree with you; I think there has been compromise. And there looks like there will be even more in the next movie, judging by the end of SKYFALL. 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. I am an avid hater of COPPOLA'S DRAC.... Err, I mean BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. I can completely feel your pain there. However, that did not translate over to Craig's CASINO ROYALE. I thought that movie was the proper shot in the arm this tired series required. I don't know how these things happen differently for different people, but they do. 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. And yet again (and again and again) - that was Yesterday. You're still wanting James Bond to behave like his persona from a world that was gone a long time ago now. (By the way, I don't see Craig as a "pouter"). Or if we agree that he is, well, Bond was not a pouter once upon a time -- he is now. You either accept it or you do not. Obviously, a few of you don't accept that -- but on the flip side, an extraordinary number of people -- including old-fart Bond diehards from the past -- do. 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. Which is why I'll repeat what I said before... maybe these first three Craig movies were a novice Agent 007 just coming of age and working past his demons, to ultimately emerge more like the Bond you want to see in the next installment. We'll have to wait and see, but you and I are already of a like mind on this theory, because you've basically said the same thing yourself here. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
	Remove this ad
Jago Turner		#229	[-]
Registered User Posts: 672 Nov 28 12 9:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think the main difference between you and me, Joe, is that I don't think you think James Bond is Ian Fleming's James Bond or, if you do, we see different things as being the essential heart of that character. Of course you can take any superspy give him a British accent and call him James Bond and of course for many audiences that will be what James Bond is; a spy with a British accent. I think there is a bit more to it than that. 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 have been unimpressed with most depictions of Bond for a very long time. It's just that with Casino Royale I thought the character and the films parted ways completely. But, yes, we are in agreement that Skyfall was a huge improvement. 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. Quite honestly I enjoyed the Guy Richie Holmes films. I also enjoyed the Moffat/Gatiss Holmes TV series. But I would hate to think we couldn't also see more traditional depictions of Holmes alongside these interpretations. Because Eon is the only company entitled to make Bond films it is more limiting. But I have enjoyed Toby Stephens as Bond on the radio. Stephens is one of the men who should have been Bond and the dramatisations of Dr No, Goldfinger and From Russia with Love have been a real treat.
jjonathanbarnett		#230	[-]
Registered User Posts: 973 Nov 28 12 12:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"It was one of those beautiful, naive seaside panoramas for which the Brittany and Picardy beaches have provided the setting. . . . To James Bond, sitting in one of the concrete shelters with his face to the setting sun, there was something poignant, ephemeral about it all. It reminded him almost too vividly of childhood [and] always in those days, it seemed, lit with sunshine. . . . It was all there, his own childhood, spread out before him to have another look at. What a long time ago they were, those spade-and-bucket days! How far he had come since the freckles and the Cadbury milk-chocolate Flakes and the fizzy lemonade! Impatiently Bond lit a cigarette, pulled his shoulders out of their slouch and slammed the mawkish memories back into their long-closed file. Today he was a grown-up, a man with years of dirty, dangerous memories—a spy." Wow. That is some good writing. That is what a boy wants his adulthood to be. That is what a man wants his childhood to be. It reminds me of a sequence from Nightmare Alley when the protagonist remembers playing with a dog in a field as a kid.
Jago Turner		#231	[-]
Registered User Posts: 672 Nov 28 12 12:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Someone once said of Fleming that he was incapable of writing a boring sentence. I know there are writers who write of more important things and who delve deeper into the human psyche and give us a better view of the scope of history but I don't think anyone has ever written such joyfully evocative and, at the same time, readable prose as Ian Fleming.
Latarnia		#232	[-]
Registered User Posts: 24691 Nov 28 12 2:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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. 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. Mirek
Joe Karlosi		#233	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 29 12 1:10 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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. But as you've said -- "we've never seen a precise interpretation of Fleming's Bond", period. If that's the case, it goes back long before the Daniel Craig Trilogy. The same holds true if we hark back to DRACULA. With all the dozens or so interpretations of Stoker's character, not one of them 100% nailed Bram Stoker completely. I think some things translate differently to the screen. I just wonder, if you like the previous films, if you will not find the return of a more traditional Fleming-esque Bond frustrating. Why would I, when I have openly accepted ALL the varying types of Bond films for the past 50 years? Why would I, when I still pick Sean Connery as my personal favorite 007, and GOLDFINGER as my favorite movie of the whole bunch? 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. Yes, I was the one who brought up not really accepting Robert Downey's Holmes previously. I did this in order to show that I can relate in a way to what you and others are feeling (regarding James Bond). To me, "Basil Rathbone is Sherlock Holmes" (I guess sort of like how some Bond fans say "Sean Connery is James Bond"). I fully admit that this is something of a contradiction on my part, but I'm not too full of self-pride to admit that there is an inconsistency there with my lack of acceptance of the Downey Holmes.... ...HOWEVER ... I still am consistent in applying the same logic regarding new audiences. To brand new fans, Downey just may be "their" Holmes. And truth be told, I only saw the first Downey Holmes movie and while I prefer the older films, once I tried to put myself in a mindset of accepting this modern-day interpretation, the Holmes movie was not so bad. (By the way -- interestingly, the old Rathbone movies are really NOT Doyle's Holmes either! And of course Nigel Bruce is NOT really Doyle's Watson!). All I can say is, sometimes "A" works for us while "B" does not. Even within the same basic principles. For me, I have an easier time accepting Bond retooled than I do Holmes. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Joe Karlosi		#234	[-]
Registered User Posts: 844 Nov 29 12 1:28 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	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. I'm not spinning anything, and depending on which side you're on, it seems to me like you're spinning! Mirek, you ignored the part where I stated that MANY Bond diehards tend to completely dismiss the whole Pierce Brosnan period (except for throwing a bone to GOLDENEYE)... and more often than not, they list Brosnan lowly on their list of favorite to least favorite actors in the role. Likewise, when they list their all-time favorite Bond films, Brosnan's titles don't come up. If they do, it's very rare. Maybe they name check GOLDENEYE just to spread the wealth. On the other hand, I have seen lots of lists by long-time vintage Bond enthusiasts who list CASINO ROYALE (and now SKYFALL already!) in their Top Four (or higher), right along with the Sean Connery films. I'm not making any of that up -- I have nothing to gain one way or the other, and I don't care... They can choose MOONRAKER, MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, TOMORROW NEVER DIES, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, or DIE ANOTHER DAY to be placed inside their "Top Four" somewhere... that's fine with me. BUT THEY DON'T. The "fact" is also that many diehard Bond fans are placing Daniel Craig as their second favorite all-time Bond actor, often right behind Sean Connery. I have seen plenty of lists, heard many discussions from many sources -- and the cheers for Craig simply outweigh the jeers. He regularly gets placed with Connery -- and I don't mean by new kids on the block. 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. I still see that Craig has enjoyed a much more enthusiastic reception than Brosnan did, especially after GOLDENEYE. With Pierce's last three films, they just went through the same old now-outdated motions. I must emphasize that I personally enjoyed Pierce Brosnan .... but the movies themselves, gadgets, "R", and fantasy were becoming old hat, and it was time to retire that approach. I realize that you and other Bond fans did not like where the franchise went with CASINO ROYALE, but the "fact" (again, your word) is that mostly was welcomed as just the shot in the arm this series required by 2006. Now, those are the facts too. Yes, I am fully aware that not everything works for everyone, but you have to look at it objectively and say "Nope, I did not like Craig and where the franchise went, but it worked successfully in the full picture, despite my own objections". "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Nov 29 12 1:34 AM. Edited 3 times.
Richard.monsterkidclass...		#235	[-]
Registered User Posts: 1688 Dec 14 12 4:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Latarnia wrote: I doubt they'd do MOONRAKER again--even a strict adaptation of the novel. Mirek 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?) An faithful, updated and scaled-down MOONRAKER is exactly what the series needs to get back on its feet. It would have to be carefully written, however. So long as they keep it on earth and there are no laser battles. John Logan could pull it off, but I doubt the Broccoli's want to go there. I remember reading an interview with Barbara Broccoli saying they are not interested in doing remakes. So Logan would have to disguise it somehow. Being faithful to the book is largely a disguise. I doubt she's read the book or that she would recognize a cleverly disguised remake, but her stepbrother might. Logan is already contracted to write Bond 24 (for 2014 release) and Bond 25 (for 2016 release). Richard "Richard, you are right in 98% of the things you say." Ted Newsom, on CHFB Last Edited By: Richard Dec 14 12 4:55 AM. Edited 1 times.
Jago Turner		#236	[-]
Registered User Posts: 672 Dec 14 12 6:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think I'd prefer if they left the original novels alone. Casino Royale used a lot of Flemings scenes and situations (more than most) and yet, for me, undercut the meaning of the novel by missing the tone completely (I compared it, in this sense, to Coppola's Dracula that has more scenes and situations from Stoker's book than almost any other adaptation and yet completely fucks the tone and the meaning to something bizarrely anti-Stoker). I have more faith in Logan than Haggis but as Skyfall is more tonally correct than the previous two movies without pretending a Fleming plot I would sooner see them bash out something original than possibly skewer and misinterpret another of my favouite books.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Skyfall, the new James Bond film