The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

Connery was, is, and will ALWAYS be, THE James Bond. I do not believe there are Bond fans out there that think otherwise. In order to perpetuate the saga, different actors were chosen. Craig is a 'clean break' from the reality of yesterday, and there are those that believe the 'future' of the franchise lies in storylines of Bond's 'past', no less. A Puzzling paradox? Indeed.

[stockslivevan]

I don't see what's wrong with exploring Bond's character. Bond isn't the only major character to receive a reboot.

[Captain Nash]

Good post bj, and yes it's true.
So long as James Bond does continue though. On that we can all agree I think.
But can you forsee a time when Bond has reached the end?
And please leave the CR / Craig hate type comments out.
For a change we all seem able to debate and discuss in an orderly and friendly manner. I don't know about you, but I prefer it.
Let's keep up the good posting.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

From what I read, if Brosnan was kept and Casino Royale was going to be used, it would have Brosnan consider quitting MI6 and settle down with Vesper in retirement, or along the lines. But that was a brief thought of Purvis and Wade that never went beyond.

If Brosnan worked on Casino Royale exactly like Craig it wouldn't have worked IMO. That would be like asking Mickey Mouse to change like Batman. It was already bad enough in The World is Not Enough with each scene having Brosnan have a personality change. At one scene he's cold blooded and blunt like Timothy Dalton, one scene later he's jolly like Roger Moore.

And Brosnan simply can't pull off being a tough. He's fine in comedic stuff like Remmington Steele which makes sense why Americans then saw him as a good Bond contender because Moore was comedic and so Brosnan would seem likely to continue that trend. The only thing Brosnan had going for him was looks, but even I think he's too much of a pretty boy to play Bond. You can compare his youthful looks to Craig's rugged looks but that doesn't seem fair anyway. Brosnan is a youthful looking man, far more youthful looking than Connery in Dr. No too.

Bond should look rugged yet handsome. Connery, Dalton, and Craig fit the bill, for me. Even Roger Moore, if he truly wanted to, might have pulled off a tougher Bond. The scenes in Octopussy with him talking to Ourlov proved it, but that was only a brief moment in a series of jolly like attitudes.

I agree that Pierce Brosnan could not have done the same Casino Royale in 2006 because of the young Bond element. It did not work with 40 year Craig either. But, Brosnan should have done his FYEO style Bond in 2004.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Bond should look rugged yet handsome. Connery, Dalton, and Craig fit the bill, for me. Even Roger Moore, if he truly wanted to, might have pulled off a tougher Bond. The scenes in Octopussy with him talking to Ourlov proved it, but that was only a brief moment in a series of jolly like attitudes.

I watched Goldfinger last night and the gap between Connery and Craig is so comical it's just ridiculous. Connery wanders around looking lean, tall, suave, and devastatingly handsome, permanently amused at himself, dispensing quips, not taking anything that seriously. How Connery can be compared to DC's lip-wobbling, weird looking, kitchen-sink 'Bond' is beyond me.

I agree Mr 007. I do get the feeling that Daniel Craig will loosen up a little in Quantum.

[bjmdds]

Good post bj, and yes it's true.
So long as James Bond does continue though. On that we can all agree I think.
But can you forsee a time when Bond has reached the end?
And please leave the CR / Craig hate type comments out.
For a change we all seem able to debate and discuss in an orderly and friendly manner. I don't know about you, but I prefer it.
Let's keep up the good posting.

As long as an entity remains profitable there will be no reason to end it. Given the HUGE success of the Bourne spy series, there seems to be an endless thirst to watch these genre spy films, and Bond is the top attraction. Once Craig vacates the role, we can see what direction Eon charts. What puzzles me is MGW's recent comment that after QOS he plans on taking a well deserved rest. After the 3 year hiatus from 1974-1977, Eon made Bond films every 2 years until 1989. After the 6 year hiatus from 1989-1995, Eon made 4 Bond films in 7 years. Why make only 2 Bond films after a 4 year hiatus, from 2002-2006, and then take another break, unless they plan on re-evaluating Craig's continuing in the role after just 2 films?

[stockslivevan]

I agree that Pierce Brosnan could not have done the same Casino Royale in 2006 because of the young Bond element. It did not work with 40 year Craig either. But, Brosnan should have done his FYEO style Bond in 2004.

That's actually what I meant, and that wouldn't work, IMO. FYEO went a new direction and should have gone with a new Bond (Timothy Dalton, who was perfect for that year). I'm glad EON didn't make the same mistake twice by bringing back Brosnan.

[Kristatos]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

Imagine Steve Ditko in 1962 saying "I've got this great idea for a new character. He's a sassy teenager who can climb up walls and shoot webs from his hands. I think I'll call him Superman". It wouldn't be any worse than Haggis and Craig's usurpation of an established character.

[bjmdds]

Agree. Craig's Bond is a generic representation of a rich ESTABLISHED history of what Bond is all about, from his look, to his mannerisms, etc., and that is the core of the controversy. Many like reinventing Bond;however, some find it belittles it's essence.

[katied]

I most definitely have cooled on DC since seeing CR for the first time(and the many times after that).I blame this place.You've been a "bad" influence on me

[The Sweeney]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

But I would argue that this isn't a `new' character at all. This character is a lot closer to the original Fleming novels than what we have seen during the Moore/Brosnan years. You could say that character was the imposter, if you are more a fan of the novels like myself.

[Captain Nash]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

But I would argue that this isn't a `new' character at all. This character is a lot closer to the original Fleming novels than what we have seen during the Moore/Brosnan years. You could say that character was the imposter, if you are more a fan of the novels like myself.

Very true Sweenster, Bond as a character is really a point of view of the individual. Some of us like different actors more than others. That's a matter of opinion. Over the years the Bond character has been changed so much, for example Flemings Bond was never qualified to go into space, though he nearly did in YOLT and then actually did in MR. This to me is too far in the ott direction or to sci-fi for me. Though I do enjoy YOLT and MR. I've often said I believe all the actors playing Bond have shown Bondian traits, but it's more the film makers that should be blamed for changing Bond, not the actors, (though they should carry a certain amount of the blame to) The directors, producers and story / screenwriters deserve most of the blame for messing around with Bond. I think the change from DAD to CR is a reflection of EON listening to the fans. Whilst it made alot of money, DAD pushed the boundaries of how far Bond could go in that direction. Kind of like MR going into space, then FYEO placing Bond firmly back on the ground. It's just part of the Bond cycle.

[Terry]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

Imagine Steve Ditko in 1962 saying "I've got this great idea for a new character. He's a sassy teenager who can climb up walls and shoot webs from his hands. I think I'll call him Superman". It wouldn't be any worse than Haggis and Craig's usurpation of an established character.

Spot on. James Bond is not some gibbering, blubbing average Joe.

[bjmdds]

I most definitely have cooled on DC since seeing CR for the first time(and the many times after that).I blame this place.You've been a "bad" influence on me

What is THE one thing that you have changed on Katied, his look, the reboot concept, his mannerisms, his stature, or something else?

[bjmdds]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

But I would argue that this isn't a `new' character at all. This character is a lot closer to the original Fleming novels than what we have seen during the Moore/Brosnan years. You could say that character was the imposter, if you are more a fan of the novels like myself.

The 'imposter' is what drove a 44 year CINEMATIC franchise though. Most who are not pleased with Craig's selection and the new 'emphasis' on character development, are fans of a multi-decade experience. My only regret is that Connery did not do CR in 1962, as it should have been done. To repeat a Broccoli quote from 2 years ago:"Doing book 1, as film 21, makes NO sense, but it is fun". Eon got away with it once. With this now supposed OTT wild action ride of QOSTBM, people such as yourself, the 'literary set', may not be pleased with the film. We will see what Craig's second film brings out in all of us.

[bjmdds]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

But I would argue that this isn't a `new' character at all. This character is a lot closer to the original Fleming novels than what we have seen during the Moore/Brosnan years. You could say that character was the imposter, if you are more a fan of the novels like myself.

Very true Sweenster, Bond as a character is really a point of view of the individual. Some of us like different actors more than others. That's a matter of opinion. Over the years the Bond character has been changed so much, for example Flemings Bond was never qualified to go into space, though he nearly did in YOLT and then actually did in MR. This to me is too far in the ott direction or to sci-fi for me. Though I do enjoy YOLT and MR. I've often said I believe all the actors playing Bond have shown Bondian traits, but it's more the film makers that should be blamed for changing Bond, not the actors, (though they should carry a certain amount of the blame to) The directors, producers and story / screenwriters deserve most of the blame for messing around with Bond. I think the change from DAD to CR is a reflection of EON listening to the fans. Whilst it made alot of money, DAD pushed the boundaries of how far Bond could go in that direction. Kind of like MR going into space, then FYEO placing Bond firmly back on the ground. It's just part of the Bond cycle.

What really annoyed me in DAD was the ending flying burning plane sequence. How long could a real scenario have lasted? The opening sequence leading up to Bond's dunking torture was fine. The last 2/3 of the film was it's downfall to most on these forums, YET, the film did BIG numbers with the general public. We here, on the forums, are the cinematical Bond surgeons, who cut and slice and dissect the films to the nth degree, and I love that;however, the average moviegoer could care less about such trivia. Yet, they determine the film's success or failure.

[The Sweeney]

I personally thought Craig did the biggest and boldest step with the Bond role. He really made it his own, with no regard for what went before. Reinventing the character you could say. I felt for the first time watching CR that I was finally getting a sense of a character, and not a personality in a suit walking around with a big grin, a knowing nod, wink and smile, sending the whole thing up.

This Bond didn't feel like the same Bond in DAD, AVTAK, LALD, OHMSS, TLD or even Dr. No.

And there's the rub. Some of us liked Bond as he has been for nearly half a century, and resent him being killed off in favour of this interloper. if you want to create a new character, then do so, don't ride the coattails of the second most successful franchise in movie history (after Star Wars).

Imagine Steve Ditko in 1962 saying "I've got this great idea for a new character. He's a sassy teenager who can climb up walls and shoot webs from his hands. I think I'll call him Superman". It wouldn't be any worse than Haggis and Craig's usurpation of an established character.

Spot on. James Bond is not some gibbering, blubbing average Joe.

Spot on. I agree too, and thankfully we didn't see this kind of Bond in CR either....

[Terry]

You must give me the name of your oculist.

[katied]

I most definitely have cooled on DC since seeing CR for the first time(and the many times after that).I blame this place.You've been a "bad" influence on me

What is THE one thing that you have changed on Katied, his look, the reboot concept, his mannerisms, his stature, or something else?

People will hate on me for this but DC,IMHO,has AGED(and not well.)Even Pierce looks better than him,belly and all

[The Sweeney]

You must give me the name of your oculist.