Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post Reply
katied

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by katied »

Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:Daniel Craig coming back for a third outing four years after making one of the worst movies ever.
I can't disagree with that one.And from the looks of it, it'll be just bad as the last.
User avatar
shaken not stirred
Agent
Posts: 721
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:23 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Goldeneye, the spy who loved Me, the world is not enough, goldfinger, live and let die.
Favorite Movies: Iron man,Iron man 2, avengers, goldeneye, dark city, back to the future, live and let die.

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by shaken not stirred »

Daftest moment...the fact that he's still even back and put in another film after 4 years when Dolton was given the boot for the similar reaction from his last film but guess it's due to him being babs pet (her precious :P).

When are smeagul junior (cregg) and smeagul senior (babs) gonna leave.
Bond....James bond....Rest in peace (1964-2002)
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

Bond and Vesper falling in love seems to be one the top picked worst moments, and I have to agree. I actually had an easier time believing Jaws and Dolly falling in love in Moonraker. A couple of other things that I found ridiculous that haven't been mentioned are:

- The washroom fight scene in the beginning of Casino Royale. I don't know, but I just find Craig beating up a scrawny hippie-looking man while destroying the washroom to be kind of absurd.

- Pointless chatter in Casino Royale. Throughout the film, there would be moments of useless talking that really didn't add anything to the plot. Instead of all that pointless chatting, they should have taken the time to introduce the characters of Q and Moneypenny. But that would have been too logical and Bond-like, which is clearly what they weren't going for.
Image
User avatar
James
OO Moderator
OO Moderator
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:14 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Favorite Movies: George A Romero's Dawn Of The Dead
Silent Running
Harold and Maude
Location: Europe and Outer Space

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by James »

I was channel hopping the other month and Quantum of Solace was on. I'd forgotten the bit where "Bond" is on the motorbike. (1) He's going so slowly it's almost comical (2) He's a bit wobbly as if Craig can't ride a motorbike at all (3) He drives up to a chain link fence in full view and spies on the villains but they don't see him! What a stupid stupid stupid depressing ridiculous film.
"I can't do that superhero stuff" Daniel Craig
User avatar
carl stromberg
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Defence
Posts: 4446
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:15 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me
Favorite Movies: Amicus compendium horror films
It's a Gift
A Night At The Opera
The Return of the Pink Panther
Sons of the Desert
Location: The Duck Inn

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by carl stromberg »

The daftest and most unbelievable moment has to be at the start of his two films when it says Albert R Broccoli's Eon Productions Presents Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond.
Bring back Bond!
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

The gunbarrel at the end of Quantum Of Solace. Not only was it an a$$-backwards thing to do, but Craig comes walking out like he has to go to the washroom, then turns around and fires what sounds like a toy dart gun.
Image
User avatar
shaken not stirred
Agent
Posts: 721
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:23 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Goldeneye, the spy who loved Me, the world is not enough, goldfinger, live and let die.
Favorite Movies: Iron man,Iron man 2, avengers, goldeneye, dark city, back to the future, live and let die.

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by shaken not stirred »

carl stromberg wrote:The daftest and most unbelievable moment has to be at the start of his two films when it says Albert R Broccoli's Eon Productions Presents Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond.
That's a joke in itself, bet some people now think hey fleming must've known craig and said he was the one that he based bond on when it never was but if you say that elsewhere you'll get called a troll, or whatever else comes to mind.

Why can't this pretentious era of crap bond films just end already and go back to the old formula, get better writers like they used to, they never rebooted after diamonds are forever, moonraker, octopussy so why do it now it shows nothing but a real lack of faith from the people in charge, it's not like batman which always has reason to be rebooted, I could never take a new timeline of bond seriously, especially wiping away 40...ah what's the point beep this franchise today :cuss: .
Bond....James bond....Rest in peace (1964-2002)
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

shaken not stirred wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:The daftest and most unbelievable moment has to be at the start of his two films when it says Albert R Broccoli's Eon Productions Presents Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond.
That's a joke in itself, bet some people now think hey fleming must've known craig and said he was the one that he based bond on when it never was but if you say that elsewhere you'll get called a troll, or whatever else comes to mind.

Why can't this pretentious era of crap bond films just end already and go back to the old formula, get better writers like they used to, they never rebooted after diamonds are forever, moonraker, octopussy so why do it now it shows nothing but a real lack of faith from the people in charge, it's not like batman which always has reason to be rebooted, I could never take a new timeline of bond seriously, especially wiping away 40...ah what's the point beep this franchise today :cuss: .
This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Reboots should only be necessary when a series is in big trouble, which wasn't the case for Bond. I'm so sick of hearing people say that the classic Bond formula is not longer suitable, and how they keep using Die Another Day as a security blanket to justify that fact. Moonraker was an outlandish film, and the producers simply carried on and made For Your Eyes Only afterwards, there was no rebooting or reinventing. And if the classic Bond formula is so dated and not suitable for today, then why are people getting excited for simple classic Bond elements returning in Skyfall? Why are there people complaining about this new direction, and want classic Bond to come back?

As I've said before, the classic Bond formula wasn't the problem, Barbara and Michael just couldn't do the math. The slogan for the Atari Jaguar ads was "Do The Math." Barbara and Michael should be forced to watch this Atari Jaguar ad repeatedly, until they break down and admit that they were wrong, not the formula:
Image
User avatar
Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry
OO Moderator
OO Moderator
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:06 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Moonraker
Goldfinger
The Spy Who Loved Me
Favorite Movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crazy For Christmas, The Empire Strikes Back, League of Gentlemen (1960's British film), Big Trouble in Little China, Police Academy 2, Carry On At Your Convenience, Commando, Halloween III: Season of the Witch,
Location: Terra

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry »

The Saint 007 wrote:
shaken not stirred wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:The daftest and most unbelievable moment has to be at the start of his two films when it says Albert R Broccoli's Eon Productions Presents Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond.
That's a joke in itself, bet some people now think hey fleming must've known craig and said he was the one that he based bond on when it never was but if you say that elsewhere you'll get called a troll, or whatever else comes to mind.

Why can't this pretentious era of crap bond films just end already and go back to the old formula, get better writers like they used to, they never rebooted after diamonds are forever, moonraker, octopussy so why do it now it shows nothing but a real lack of faith from the people in charge, it's not like batman which always has reason to be rebooted, I could never take a new timeline of bond seriously, especially wiping away 40...ah what's the point beep this franchise today :cuss: .
This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Reboots should only be necessary when a series is in big trouble, which wasn't the case for Bond. I'm so sick of hearing people say that the classic Bond formula is not longer suitable, and how they keep using Die Another Day as a security blanket to justify that fact. Moonraker was an outlandish film, and the producers simply carried on and made For Your Eyes Only afterwards, there was no rebooting or reinventing. And if the classic Bond formula is so dated and not suitable for today, then why are people getting excited for simple classic Bond elements returning in Skyfall? Why are there people complaining about this new direction, and want classic Bond to come back?

As I've said before, the classic Bond formula wasn't the problem, Barbara and Michael just couldn't do the math. The slogan for the Atari Jaguar ads was "Do The Math." Barbara and Michael should be forced to watch this Atari Jaguar ad repeatedly, until they break down and admit that they were wrong, not the formula:

The classic Bond formula lasted for 40 years, but the Craig reboot ran out of steam in it's second movie.
Image
User avatar
The Sweeney
003
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:21 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: OHMSS, GF, LTK, CR, FRWL
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
Location: Underneath a Mango Tree....

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Sweeney »

The Saint 007 wrote: This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Reboots should only be necessary when a series is in big trouble, which wasn't the case for Bond. I'm so sick of hearing people say that the classic Bond formula is not longer suitable, and how they keep using Die Another Day as a security blanket to justify that fact. Moonraker was an outlandish film, and the producers simply carried on and made For Your Eyes Only afterwards, there was no rebooting or reinventing. And if the classic Bond formula is so dated and not suitable for today, then why are people getting excited for simple classic Bond elements returning in Skyfall? Why are there people complaining about this new direction, and want classic Bond to come back?
There had been talk of reboots over the years, even during Cubby's reign. FYEO was a massive change of direction after the outlandish Moonraker (the DAD of its day), returning Bond to its roots, relying heavily on Fleming material for the storyline (something that had been ignored for years since OHMSS), getting rid of the gadgets and making the film more down-to-earth. I also recall they were looking for a new Bond for FYEO, before Moore finally came back.

DAF was a very different approach to OHMSS, two films that were made straight after each other.

I think Wilson also stated TLD was going to be a possible reboot at some stage during its development, and in terms of its direction, it was again a very different approach to Moore's films, so the formula has been shaken up from time-to-time. You can't tell me DAD/MR have the exact same formula as LTK, FRWL or OHMSS.
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

The Sweeney wrote:
The Saint 007 wrote: This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Reboots should only be necessary when a series is in big trouble, which wasn't the case for Bond. I'm so sick of hearing people say that the classic Bond formula is not longer suitable, and how they keep using Die Another Day as a security blanket to justify that fact. Moonraker was an outlandish film, and the producers simply carried on and made For Your Eyes Only afterwards, there was no rebooting or reinventing. And if the classic Bond formula is so dated and not suitable for today, then why are people getting excited for simple classic Bond elements returning in Skyfall? Why are there people complaining about this new direction, and want classic Bond to come back?
There had been talk of reboots over the years, even during Cubby's reign. FYEO was a massive change of direction after the outlandish Moonraker (the DAD of its day), returning Bond to its roots, relying heavily on Fleming material for the storyline (something that had been ignored for years since OHMSS), getting rid of the gadgets and making the film more down-to-earth. I also recall they were looking for a new Bond for FYEO, before Moore finally came back.

DAF was a very different approach to OHMSS, two films that were made straight after each other.

I think Wilson also stated TLD was going to be a possible reboot at some stage during its development, and in terms of its direction, it was again a very different approach to Moore's films, so the formula has been shaken up from time-to-time. You can't tell me DAD/MR have the exact same formula as LTK, FRWL or OHMSS.
I've already stated in another thread that the whole concept of Bond's beginning was considered for The Living Daylights, but Albert Broccoli objected it, saying that audiences wouldn't be interested in Bond just learning his job. The Bond series has constantly been through this up and down roller-coaster ride of being down-to-earth, and then suddenly going outlandish, over the course of its history. But even the more down-to-earth Bond films of the past still had a Bond feeing or vibe to them. There was Q and Moneypenny, villainous secret lairs, gadgets, cool stunts, traditional gunnbarrel/title sequence, and all of the other various elements people came to expect in a Bond film were all there for the most part. There were some changes over the years, but the basic formula or skeleton was pretty much the same. The Craig films feel very different, and not very Bond-like in my opinion. When the teaser trailer for Skyfall was first shown, people were commenting how they couldn't tell it was a trailer for a Bond film until they saw the 007 logo at the end. They said the trailer felt more like Batman than Bond. When I first watched Quantum Of Solace, I constantly had to keep reminding myself that I was watching a Bond film. The producers are reinventing the series to the point where you can barely recognize it anymore. What was the point of this young Q, for example? I personally didn't hear anyone complaining about Q, so why suddenly change him?

I believe Barbara and Michael hate making classic Bond, because it's too hard for them. Which is probably why they're trying to distance these rebooted Bond films from the older ones with pointless reinventing. If you want to make a more realistic spy thriller, then that's fine, but there are far better ways of doing it that still keep the Bond formula/feel intact. GoldenEye is a good example of bringing Bond into a new era. It was classic Bond with a modern twist. They should have continued to build up from that film, but the producers messed it up for Brosnan and the series, and then just gave up and threw away 40 years of cinematic history. They should have tried to get new writers, and perhaps take some more time to make these films, instead of trying to rush them out every two years.
Image
User avatar
The Sweeney
003
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:21 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: OHMSS, GF, LTK, CR, FRWL
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
Location: Underneath a Mango Tree....

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Sweeney »

The Saint 007 wrote:
I've already stated in another thread that the whole concept of Bond's beginning was considered for The Living Daylights, but Albert Broccoli objected it, saying that audiences wouldn't be interested in Bond just learning his job. The Bond series has constantly been through this up and down roller-coaster ride of being down-to-earth, and then suddenly going outlandish, over the course of its history. But even the more down-to-earth Bond films of the past still had a Bond feeing or vibe to them. There was Q and Moneypenny, villainous secret lairs, gadgets, cool stunts, traditional gunnbarrel/title sequence, and all of the other various elements people came to expect in a Bond film were all there for the most part. There were some changes over the years, but the basic formula or skeleton was pretty much the same. The Craig films feel very different, and not very Bond-like in my opinion. When the teaser trailer for Skyfall was first shown, people were commenting how they couldn't tell it was a trailer for a Bond film until they saw the 007 logo at the end. They said the trailer felt more like Batman than Bond. When I first watched Quantum Of Solace, I constantly had to keep reminding myself that I was watching a Bond film. The producers are reinventing the series to the point where you can barely recognize it anymore. What was the point of this young Q, for example? I personally didn't hear anyone complaining about Q, so why suddenly change him?

I believe Barbara and Michael hate making classic Bond, because it's too hard for them. Which is probably why they're trying to distance these rebooted Bond films from the older ones with pointless reinventing. If you want to make a more realistic spy thriller, then that's fine, but there are far better ways of doing it that still keep the Bond formula/feel intact. GoldenEye is a good example of bringing Bond into a new era. It was classic Bond with a modern twist. They should have continued to build up from that film, but the producers messed it up for Brosnan and the series, and then just gave up and threw away 40 years of cinematic history. They should have tried to get new writers, and perhaps take some more time to make these films, instead of trying to rush them out every two years.
I honestly believe had Babs and Wilson not had the fortune of their family inheritance, they wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes as movie producers. They are d**n lucky to have inherited a successful franchise.

CR and QoS have both been stripped of traditional elements (particularly QoS). With CR they got away with it, because reviewers found it a refreshing change of pace, but with QoS they took it a step too far, scrapping far too many traditional elements.

At least Babs & Co. have had the good sense to listen to the feedback, and decided to re-instate more of the traditional elements back in Skyfall, with a modern twist (younger Q, etc.)
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

The Sweeney wrote:
The Saint 007 wrote:
I've already stated in another thread that the whole concept of Bond's beginning was considered for The Living Daylights, but Albert Broccoli objected it, saying that audiences wouldn't be interested in Bond just learning his job. The Bond series has constantly been through this up and down roller-coaster ride of being down-to-earth, and then suddenly going outlandish, over the course of its history. But even the more down-to-earth Bond films of the past still had a Bond feeing or vibe to them. There was Q and Moneypenny, villainous secret lairs, gadgets, cool stunts, traditional gunnbarrel/title sequence, and all of the other various elements people came to expect in a Bond film were all there for the most part. There were some changes over the years, but the basic formula or skeleton was pretty much the same. The Craig films feel very different, and not very Bond-like in my opinion. When the teaser trailer for Skyfall was first shown, people were commenting how they couldn't tell it was a trailer for a Bond film until they saw the 007 logo at the end. They said the trailer felt more like Batman than Bond. When I first watched Quantum Of Solace, I constantly had to keep reminding myself that I was watching a Bond film. The producers are reinventing the series to the point where you can barely recognize it anymore. What was the point of this young Q, for example? I personally didn't hear anyone complaining about Q, so why suddenly change him?

I believe Barbara and Michael hate making classic Bond, because it's too hard for them. Which is probably why they're trying to distance these rebooted Bond films from the older ones with pointless reinventing. If you want to make a more realistic spy thriller, then that's fine, but there are far better ways of doing it that still keep the Bond formula/feel intact. GoldenEye is a good example of bringing Bond into a new era. It was classic Bond with a modern twist. They should have continued to build up from that film, but the producers messed it up for Brosnan and the series, and then just gave up and threw away 40 years of cinematic history. They should have tried to get new writers, and perhaps take some more time to make these films, instead of trying to rush them out every two years.
I honestly believe had Babs and Wilson not had the fortune of their family inheritance, they wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes as movie producers. They are d**n lucky to have inherited a successful franchise.

CR and QoS have both been stripped of traditional elements (particularly QoS). With CR they got away with it, because reviewers found it a refreshing change of pace, but with QoS they took it a step too far, scrapping far too many traditional elements.

At least Babs & Co. have had the good sense to listen to the feedback, and decided to re-instate more of the traditional elements back in Skyfall, with a modern twist (younger Q, etc.)
I personally think that GoldenEye was Brosnan's best. Tomorrow Never Dies and The world Is Not Enough were okay, but not as good as GoldenEye. I always said that Brosnan had way more potential than what was shown, and lately I've been seeing threads on other forums discussing that very same subject. People are slowly waking up and realizing that the producers really messed up badly with Brosnan. The Brosnan era did have some good moments, but considering how long he waited to get the role of Bond, I think Brosnan was short-changed. I honestly think if things would have went better for Brosnan, Craig would have had a harder time being accepted. I've always said that the main reason why Casino Royale gets so much praise, is because of Die Another Day's poor quality.

But Quantum Of Solace really opened many eyes, including mine. When I first watched Casino Royale, I didn't care for it. Even after the second viewing, my thoughts remained the same. But I figured that now Craig's Bond has been introduced, perhaps his second Bond outing would go back to the tradition formula. I was wrong. Quantum Of Solace felt even less like a Bond film than Casino Royale did. I then realized that the producers got cocky with the success of the previous film, and now figure they can continue to distance these new films further from the old ones. After all, why would you want to back to something you hate making? But many people complained about Quantum's lack of Bond feel, which shows there are many that still care and want classic Bond. As I said before, if they want to make more down-to-earth Bond films, there are far better ways of doing it that has been demonstrated in the past.

As for this new Q, I still say they should have got someone a little older. The new Batman films have an old inventor, so I don't see why they need to suddenly get a younger Q. Someone in that position should look more experienced.
Image
User avatar
The Sweeney
003
Posts: 3388
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:21 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: OHMSS, GF, LTK, CR, FRWL
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
Location: Underneath a Mango Tree....

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Sweeney »

The Saint 007 wrote:
As for this new Q, I still say they should have got someone a little older. The new Batman films have an old inventor, so I don't see why they need to suddenly get a younger Q. Someone in that position should look more experienced.
Not sure on that. With the new high-tech digital age of smart phones and tablets, I'm guessing someone in Q's position may be a geeky engineer whizz-kid type.

I have more issues with a black Moneypenny, (assuming she is who we think she could be in Skyfall), the same way I have issues with a black Felix Leiter, and Craig having blonde hair.

This is not a racist issue, but down to the fact that these characters do not accurately resemble the characters as they were written in the books. Race, gender, hair colour, getting any of these wrong is a slap in the face to Fleming, IMO.

I know there is an argument that the producers are just updating and modernising the novels into film, that Felix and Moneypenny could be black had Fleming written the books today, but I think the producers are trying to be a little too PC in this approach, rather than simple modernisation.

Craig's hair colour is wrong for the part, but the biggest issue I have in Skyfall is how short his hair is. I never, ever pictured Bond being a skinhead.
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

The Sweeney wrote:
The Saint 007 wrote:
As for this new Q, I still say they should have got someone a little older. The new Batman films have an old inventor, so I don't see why they need to suddenly get a younger Q. Someone in that position should look more experienced.
Not sure on that. With the new high-tech digital age of smart phones and tablets, I'm guessing someone in Q's position may be a geeky engineer whizz-kid type.

I have more issues with a black Moneypenny, (assuming she is who we think she could be in Skyfall), the same way I have issues with a black Felix Leiter, and Craig having blonde hair.

This is not a racist issue, but down to the fact that these characters do not accurately resemble the characters as they were written in the books. Race, gender, hair colour, getting any of these wrong is a slap in the face to Fleming, IMO.

I know there is an argument that the producers are just updating and modernising the novels into film, that Felix and Moneypenny could be black had Fleming written the books today, but I think the producers are trying to be a little too PC in this approach, rather than simple modernisation.

Craig's hair colour is wrong for the part, but the biggest issue I have in Skyfall is how short his hair is. I never, ever pictured Bond being a skinhead.
Batman has some pretty high-tech weapons and gadgets as well, and the inventor is an older man. Even the scenes where he's demonstrating the weapons/gadgets to Batman, is kind of similar to the older Bond films. Many people loved the character of Q as he was, so I don't see why they should make him so nerdy. And if the modern Bond is supposed to be so politically correct, then they are basically going against that factor by saying older people are no good with computer technology.

The problem with this new casting of the characters is that they don't come close to resembling the ones from the older films, or even the books, as you mentioned. I actually posted a video review of Casino Royale in another thread, where the reviewer mentions how Bond and Felix Leiter don't resemble the characters of the older films. And if this rumour about Moneypenny turns out to be true, then her character will now be altered from her previous one. Yes, we did get a change with a female M, but Judi Dench is essentially just a female version of Bernard Lee's M. She fits the part pretty well, and closely resembles the character. You're also not the only one who doesn't like how Craig's hair looks in Skyfall. I've been seeing people complaining about Craig's hair being too short in other forums.

I just wish they would cast actors and actresses that are suitable for the specific roles. I only see these bizarre casting choices as a way of trying to further distance the new Bond films from the older ones.
Image
User avatar
Mazer Rackham
Q
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:50 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Thunderball
From Russia with love
Location: Eros

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by Mazer Rackham »

The Sweeney wrote: I honestly believe had Babs and Wilson not had the fortune of their family inheritance, they wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes as movie producers. They are d**n lucky to have inherited a successful franchise.

CR and QoS have both been stripped of traditional elements (particularly QoS). With CR they got away with it, because reviewers found it a refreshing change of pace, but with QoS they took it a step too far, scrapping far too many traditional elements.

At least Babs & Co. have had the good sense to listen to the feedback, and decided to re-instate more of the traditional elements back in Skyfall, with a modern twist (younger Q, etc.)
I actually agree with you on most of this.The key difference is Skyfall is stepping on the gas instead of throttling back to find a balance -the odd elements Craig requires for his "gritty" interpretation is being notched up. Babs and Mikey chose a poor Felix Leiter (and honestly poor villains and girls) just throwing in classic fixtures doesn't insure it's done correctly.

There is a lost story one MGW wrote and Cubby vetoed, QOS was originally supposed to be based (partially) on an this original idea by MGW. Which quickly fell to the wayside. It was also supposed to be some payback for MGM being such a good soldier during CR, he wasn't on board with Craig and Babs had to have his support.
"That f**king truck driver!" Ian Fleming
Skyblueal
New Recruit
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by Skyblueal »

Hi all,

Newbie here, not wanting to start any wars, but....

...When we're talking about proposterous scenes, the end of Goldeneye always comes to mind - Sean Bean falls 100+ feet to a metal surface and gets a slightly bloody nose. That was laughable...
Roger moore was my bond, although I do like (puts up shields) Craig's interpretation. I also heard Roger Moore on radio 2 the other day saying, according to him, "Craig was most definately the nearest to Iam Fleming's bond from the books". His words, not mine.
I personally like all of the bond actors, but felt Pierce Brosnan was turning the bonds into comedies, just my opinion.
User avatar
FormerBondFan
008
Posts: 6325
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:24 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible, Kingsman: The Secret Service and The November Man or any upcoming actioners starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good since it will help him expand his reputation as an actor especially in the action realm)
Favorite Movies: Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Star Trek
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Harry Potter
Middle-Earth
The Matrix
Mission: Impossible
The Mummy
Jurassic Park
Godzilla
Location: Southern CA

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by FormerBondFan »

Skyblueal wrote: I personally like all of the bond actors, but felt Pierce Brosnan was turning the bonds into comedies, just my opinion.
Actually, his intention was to make Bond darker, not the other way around. If anything, it's EON's problem, and the same goes with Purvis & Wade.
Image
User avatar
Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry
OO Moderator
OO Moderator
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:06 pm
Favorite Bond Movie: Moonraker
Goldfinger
The Spy Who Loved Me
Favorite Movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crazy For Christmas, The Empire Strikes Back, League of Gentlemen (1960's British film), Big Trouble in Little China, Police Academy 2, Carry On At Your Convenience, Commando, Halloween III: Season of the Witch,
Location: Terra

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry »

Welcome Skyblueal. :cheers:

As FBF says Brosnan was not turning the Bond movies into comedies as he had no control over the movies and wanted a more serious tone. Unlike Brosnan Craig gets to help write the scripts, choose the name of the movies, choose the director, the theme song.................
Image
User avatar
The Saint 007
0013
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:16 am
Favorite Bond Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Goldfinger, GoldenEye, For Your Eyes Only, Moonraker, Octopussy, Thunderball

Re: Worst/Daftest Moments of the Craig Era

Post by The Saint 007 »

Pretty much every Bond era has had some crazy moments, and the Craig era is certainly no exception. I'm tired of people saying how Craig's Bond films are more realistic, when there are quite a few outlandish moments, as well as times where Craig's Bond seems overpowered.
Image
Post Reply