has anyone else lost their love of the bond series?

[mjcmmv]

8 minutes ago, Remington said:

Anyone else watch the Bond 25 announcement?

I heard Rami Malek is going to be a villain! That's ingenious! 

[mjcmmv]

After watching BCC's "Bodyguard", I'm routing for Richard Madden as the next James Bond. 

 

[mjcmmv]

7 minutes ago, mjcmmv said:

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by mjcmmv

[Remington]

18 minutes ago, mjcmmv said:

I heard Rami Malek is going to be a villain! That's ingenious! 

Yup. And Ana de Armas as one of the Bond girls. Lol definition of sexy.

[mjcmmv]

Just now, Remington said:

Yup. And Ana de Armas as one of the Bond girls. Lol definition of sexy.

 

1 minute ago, Remington said:

Yup. And Ana de Armas as one of the Bond girls. Lol definition of sexy.

Ah, good addition. 

 

[Kladdagh]

I was REALLY disapointed by "this" presentation ... 

The "good news for me was the return of Felix and the cast of Ana de Arma ... 

Hope lea seydoux caractere will only perform few minutes max ... 

[Vincent Hanna]

1 hour ago, Kladdagh said:

Hope lea seydoux caractere will only perform few minutes max ... 

Apparently one of the writers is from the Bourne films. I'd laugh if the opening is exactly the same as the Bourne Supremacy where Bond is hiding out at his beach house, is discovered by the bad guys and Lea Seydoux is killed. That'd would be a facepalm moment but can see them doing it.

[Kladdagh]

49 minutes ago, Vincent Hanna said:

Apparently one of the writers is from the Bourne films. I'd laugh if the opening is exactly the same as the Bourne Supremacy where Bond is hiding out at his beach house, is discovered by the bad guys and Lea Seydoux is killed. That'd would be a facepalm moment but can see them doing it.

I have the same feeling ... 

[Matt5]

Daniel Craig takes himself far too seriously imo 

[mjcmmv]

1 hour ago, Matt5 said:

Daniel Craig takes himself far too seriously imo 

Amen!

[Matt5]

2 minutes ago, mjcmmv said:

Amen!

Ha ha 

[Robbie C.]

Even though the first Bond I saw was Roger Moore, my favorite remains Pierce Brosnan. It's not his fault the best script he got was for a video game and not one of the movies. Unlike many, I read the books before I saw any of the movies, and Brosnan came the closest to how I imagined Bond from the earlier books (especially Live and Let Die and From Russia with Love). I haven't seen any of the new movies and frankly have no interest.

[Vincent Hanna]

On all the news shows here in the UK, everyone keeps going on about "Bond having to update with the times". Why??

It's been like 25 years since Judi Dench called Bond "a sexist misogynist dinosaur from the cold war". Can we just move on? Do we really need to emasculate him even more in this new #MeToo era? Imagine Goldfinger being released today with that scene of Bond forcing himself onto Pussy Galore against her will. The outrage would be amazing to see. 

If the Bond producers were brave, they could go the opposite way and portray Bond as the "Dirty Harry" type character who is above this political correctness nonsense and who is willing to break unjust laws to achieve his ends. That would be a cool movie with a refreshing message to see in cinemas.  Dirty Harry had that message and was a huge success.

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Vincent Hanna

[Marc]

 

I've been watching this Dutch guy's channel were he recaps the plot and how they came to be made. Also on YouTube there's plenty of what I assume the official DVD documentaries that have all been uploaded if you don't own the films on disc. Dalton was my favourite Bond and the most underrated so I begun with his first.

I'm not the biggest Daniel Craig fan and think the new films suffer from watchability. Theses been some really good moments and memorable scenes in them but you have to let years pass before you want to visit them which is a shame.  He's arguably only made one dud, Quantum of Solace which I've blanked out of my memory. 

Brosan gets fair too much of an easy ride. I enjoyed GoldenEye (1995) and Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) but the other two, World is Not Enough (1999) and Die Another Day (2002) are not just two of the worst Bond films but action movies of that era. Tonally and post-9/11 them choosing to go ahead with Die Another Day's script, style of direction and giving Halle Berry such a large role was a terrible idea. I remember feeling it really damaged the franchise.

The Bourne Identity was released two months prior in September of 2002 to Die Another Day, November 2002 and what a difference in those two films. Ones a regarded as a modern day genre defining classic and the other has an invisible car, dated CGI and a surfing scene. There's no excuse, even principal photography for Die Another Day began in January of 2002, the world had changed and audiences wanted something that reflected the current climate. 

 

[Sonny-Burnett]

The new trailer for the next Bond Film which incredibly won't be released until April. I for one am sad to see Daniel Craig go as Bond. Having read all the Bond novels as well as articles on the author Ian Fleming i believe Craig portrayed the Bond role closely to the form intended by Fleming, maybe closer than anyone else.  I don't understand the rumors that Fleming's 007 will become the latest victim of the Hollywood PC culture and will replace him with a female lead. My comment isn't intended to be sexist, just that the 007 character has been established since the late 1950s and a re-characterization now seems absurd. May NOT be well received by the franchise base.  Side note: Perhaps the producers intend to make 007 female, but the James Bond character may be either retired or perhaps to be resurrected in a later film. 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Sonny-Burnett

[jpaul1]

actually if i understand your fan point of view, i disagree on the fact that the character can't be played by a female. Bond is a number, nothing else. anyways thx for the trailer. creating a Bond movie is pretty tricky in nowadays era. i hope they'll succeed. i've been watching Moonraker recently, and i was thinking to myself that even some things related to Bond are pretty much non sense nowadays, a good Bond is still something trully delightful

[Sonny-Burnett]

22 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

actually if i understand your fan point of view, i disagree on the fact that the character can't be played by a female. Bond is a number, nothing else. anyways thx for the trailer. creating a Bond movie is pretty tricky in nowadays era. i hope they'll succeed. i've been watching Moonraker recently, and i was thinking to myself that even some things related to Bond are pretty much non sense nowadays, a good Bond is still something trully delightful

James Bond is a name and person. 007 is the number that can be reassigned to a new agent if Bond dies or retires, which is why i said making 007 a female may happen but replacing Bond is another matter. This is my favorite franchise of all time and I'd like to see continuity rather than a hard left PC turn. I'd really like to hear the scoop from the producers as to their intentions because fans like me may not be watching in the future. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Sonny-Burnett

[Mr. Calderon]

Daniel craig has a kgb agent look. These new movies make.me sleep.

[Neons in Noir]

I've been a big fan of the film series for most of my life, and seen all of 'em up until Quantum of Solace. While Casino Royale was a good Bond film, I just cannot stand the charmless and sterile Daniel Craig. So, after that I gave up. I'd say GoldenEye was the last truly great Bond film. I think in an inter-connected world it is very hard to convince people of an "exotic villain" living in a remote location, while the protagonist uses things that are (by today's standards) ordinary.

If I had to rank the portrayals of Bond and the direction of the films I'd say: 

Sean Connery

Timothy Dalton

George Lazenby

Roger Moore

Pierce Brosnan 

Daniel Craig

[pahonu]

51 minutes ago, Neons in Noir said:

I've been a big fan of the film series for most of my life, and seen all of 'em up until Quantum of Solace. While Casino Royale was a good Bond film, I just cannot stand the charmless and sterile Daniel Craig. So, after that I gave up. I'd say GoldenEye was the last truly great Bond film. I think in an inter-connected world it is very hard to convince people of an "exotic villain" living in a remote location, while the protagonist uses things that are (by today's standards) ordinary.

If I had to rank the portrayals of Bond and the direction of the films I'd say: 

Sean Connery

Timothy Dalton

George Lazenby

Roger Moore

Pierce Brosnan 

Daniel Craig

That would also be my order except for switching Lazenby and Moore.  Lazenby was a bit stiff in the role and parts of the film lag.  Moore had the more down to earth For Your Eyes Only which, I think was better than In Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and The Spy Who Loved Me, which was the best of Moore’s “fantastical” Bond adventures.  I also only cared for the first of both Brosnan’s and Craig’s films.

[IzzyFan99]

On 6/19/2020 at 7:37 PM, Neons in Noir said:

I've been a big fan of the film series for most of my life, and seen all of 'em up until Quantum of Solace. While Casino Royale was a good Bond film, I just cannot stand the charmless and sterile Daniel Craig. So, after that I gave up. I'd say GoldenEye was the last truly great Bond film. I think in an inter-connected world it is very hard to convince people of an "exotic villain" living in a remote location, while the protagonist uses things that are (by today's standards) ordinary.

If I had to rank the portrayals of Bond and the direction of the films I'd say: 

Sean Connery

Timothy Dalton

George Lazenby

Roger Moore

Pierce Brosnan 

Daniel Craig

My thoughts exactly. People also seem to give Craig credit for things Dalton was doing back in the late 80s. 

Die Another Day wasn't great, but at least it actually resembled a Bond film. I'm not quite sure what Quantum of Solace was.

Edited June 21, 2020 by IzzyFan99

[Tom]

vor einer Stunde schrieb IzzyFan99:

My thoughts exactly. People also seem to give Craig credit for things Dalton was doing back in the late 80s. 

Die Another Day wasn't great, but at least it actually resembled a Bond film. I'm not quite sure what Quantum of Solace was.

LOL, somehow that thread reminds me of the discussion that MV was not MV anymore after season 2!

I see a lot of similarities between the two series, its development over time and the fan discussions around it....

the early Bond films up to and including Pierce Brosnan had a good portion of lighthearted tone and (self-)irony and even kills were filmed with a twinkle in the eye (Connery and even more Moore). Bond was a killer, but with charme and charisma. 

Craig has no charme or humor at all. He (sorry to say, but that´s my perception) looks like a butcher, an unintelligent mechanic rather than an undercover agent from (military) intelligence. I don´t buy that he is sophisticated enough to work with informants, develop a strategy and work his way through a case or to appreciate a good year of Dom Perignon like Connery did. His only language is kill, no cultivation. His appearance comes across like any other brutal agent movie, so in some way Bond has lost his USP (Unique selling proposition) that always distinguished him from Rambo, Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson and similar movie characters by being a smart and charming killer. The new Bond fights with Craig are ultra brutal, messy and challenging for the actors, the fights in the older bond movies look like cartoon fights against it, but everything has lost soul here. 

Also to underline that change of Bond style: if you look at the gadgets - they were small and "charming" at first, then, in late Brosnan movies, they became ridiculously unrealistic (invisible car, ...). Craig´s gadgets are either blunt deadly weapons (exploding watches) or he does not need them at all because he has choked, killed, stabbed, etc his enemies before he could use the gadgets.

Said all that: is it good or bad? I don´t know, that´s a subjective thing, maybe they needed to do some changes in a 60 year old series? But, IMHO they changed the tone of the Bond series much more than they changed the tone (I don´t mean the colors) of MV from season 2 to 3. Crockett&Tubbs still maintained their character, slowly getting disenchanted over time but they did not lose their primary character features. Bond did, less between Connery and Moore, more to Dalton who became charmless and brutal in his second movie, going back a bit to Connery/Moore time with Brosnan and then "jumped" away to a completely different character with Craig.

That´s maybe also the explanation why many fans still like the first Craig bond (Casino Royale) , but nothing afterwards. CR was a classic bond movie with its script and some kind of back to the roots journey with the character with Craig resembling a bit of the older Bonds. But with Quantum of Solace they moved it into a more exchangeable "Secret Agent on a revenge mission" style, maybe to compete with other action thrillers at that time. Also QOS was only 100 minutes, the only movie of the series that short. Nothing to tell for 120+ minutes?

I like the Craig bonds for its action, but they lost its unique and charming tone they had until then. Recently seen Rambo Last Blood and Tyle Rake Extraction and I don´t see much difference anymore.

Craig is no good actor by the way for me. He does not have to be. His bond has only one face expression left - he looks grimly and aggressive all the time-no facets, no other feelings- maybe except from a love scene (but even there he does not seem to do it out of passion for women in general, I can´t imagine any woman holding Craig for a "ladykiller" like the older Bonds...)

Just my two cents...

P.S. Bond will be a father in the new movie (allegedly a 5-year old daugther with the Lea Seadoux character as mother). Maybe that will mean a shift back to a more grounded, empathic Bond?

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tom

[pahonu]

7 hours ago, IzzyFan99 said:

My thoughts exactly. People also seem to give Craig credit for things Dalton was doing back in the late 80s. 

Die Another Day wasn't great, but at least it actually resembled a Bond film. I'm not quite sure what Quantum of Solace was.

I completely agree that Dalton changed the character before Craig.  All the actors change the character, of course, but his was a significant departure and people weren’t ready for it then, I think.  Craig’s portrayal seems to appeal more to today’s audience, if not long-time Bond fans. 
 

Quantum of Solace was a very odd story as well, part of the collection of short stories, titled For Your Eyes Only.  It was basically a morality tale told at a dinner party about a relationship?!?!?  It was the only one of the five stories I didn’t care for.  Unusually for Fleming, it was quite slow and boring.  Thankfully they used nothing but the title for the film or it would have been worse.  Moore’s A View to a Kill also just used the title of the short story from that collection. Octopussy was a story told in a similar manner as Quantum of Solace but about a past spy caper and somewhat more interesting. 

Another story, The Hildebrand Rarity, gave us the character of Milton Krest and his yacht the Wavekrest in Dalton’s Licence to Kill.  It was nothing like the story though, which is basically a murder mystery involving the titular fish species.  It was a decent story, though not a spy story.

I won’t even get started on The Spy Who Loved Me novel!

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by pahonu

[Robbie C.]

I think people often overlook the fact that Bond was also based on an existing literary franchise. Many of the Connery movies were grounded because Ian Fleming was still alive and took a hand in some aspects of the writing. Moviegoers also expected at least some connections between the books they had read and what they saw on screen. There were (in my view) failed attempts over the years to recreate the Bond literary franchise (although the novelizations of the Moore Bonds were actually pretty good, but those aren't the same as the attempts in the '80s and beyond to 'reboot' Bond in novels). In my viewing I've noticed Bond tends to 'ground' better when the plot strays back to the roots of Bond (and Brosnan in particular wanted to play Bond like that...hence his squabbles with the studio and eventual replacement).

Vice, on the other hand, was grounded in two competing visions.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Robbie C.

[Vincent Hanna]

It would be cool if they did proper adaptations of the books set in the 50s/60s. It'd be kinda like the Agatha christie Poirot mini-series but release them theatrically every 6 months or so.

But if they did then they'd have to give up their billion dollar blockbuster movies for awhile. Star Trek has a similar problem where the studio wants to do big epic blockbusters that appeal to the masses and the fans just want a little TV show about a space ship exploring our galaxy and finding cool stuff.