This thread will focus on the positive aspects concerning Craig's tenure. That means no dooming and glooming allowed, save that for BJ's thread unless you want to make a "Why There is No Bright Side of Things - QOS worse than CR?" thread, but then again this is DCINB so I suppose that wouldn't be needed. Otherwise, what would the purpose of a positive thread be if it's like every other thread here?
Example:
I like the fact that Craig will be more slim in QOS this time, as shown in recent photographs like him at the premiere of Flashbacks of a Fool.
Another plus is that he'll be more suits this time, similar to the one he's sporting at that premiere.
stockslivevan wrote:This thread will focus on the positive aspects concerning Craig's tenure. That means no dooming and glooming allowed, save that for BJ's thread unless you want to make a "Why There is No Bright Side of Things - QOS worse than CR?" thread, but then again this is DCINB so I suppose that wouldn't be needed. Otherwise, what would the purpose of a positive thread be if it's like every other thread here?
Example:
I like the fact that Craig will be more slim in QOS this time, as shown in recent photographs like him at the premiere of Flashbacks of a Fool.
Another plus is that he'll be more suits this time, similar to the one he's sporting at that premiere.
#
I wont spoil the thread by stating about anything about Craig.
The positives were a more grouded story and less CGI, however the new film by the sounds of it will have more action which is lets face it what a Bond movie is about. I will expand on this Stocks, i need to brush up on the hype of the new film to garner what the synopsis is
katied wrote:Someone can't stand to see Craig dissed.
I said in this very thread at the start no doom and glooming since everyone can do that in every thread in this site, considering this site is DCINB. I'm trying to make a thread that focuses on the positive points only. Is there anything wrong with that Katied?
Always look on the bright side of Craig *whistles*
I will say this for him, I like the fact that, like Dalton and (IIRC) Lazenby, he does a lot of his own stunts. I think that gives a level of realism to the films that you don't get in films that rely heavily on stunt doubles, particularly the later Connery and Moore films where they were starting to show their age. It just looks silly when you see a long shot of a virile, athletic man and then it cuts to a close-up of an ageing Bond.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
Kristatos wrote:Always look on the bright side of Craig *whistles*
I will say this for him, I like the fact that, like Dalton and (IIRC) Lazenby, he does a lot of his own stunts. I think that gives a level of realism to the films that you don't get in films that rely heavily on stunt doubles, particularly the later Connery and Moore films where they were starting to show their age. It just looks silly when you see a long shot of a virile, athletic man and then it cuts to a close-up of an ageing Bond.
I love the fact that they once used a cardboard cutout to double for Sir Roger. Classic!
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
1) Bringing the films closer to the original books again, in terms of story, attitude and violence. This helped with CR being the most faithful novel adaptation since OHMSS. How this will be reflected in a non-Fleming story will be interesting to see.
2) The films suddenly becoming unpredictable. The casting of Craig was controversial, so were many elements of the film istelf. And now we have a controversial title for the new film, but its a Fleming title, so I'm happy.
3) Bond is seen as cool again. With Moore, Dalton and Brosnan, I never got the impression the franchise was seen as cool. The Moore films were too tongue-in-cheek, Dalton was not seen as a cool type of leading man, and Brosnan bordered on being old-fashioned, when compared to the likes of Damon and Pitt. With Craig, we have a McQueen type (the ultimate Cool King), and like him or loathe him as Bond, you can't help but notice how the media are portraying him as cool/sexy. He may not be as handsome as Brosnan, but this other element Craig has is creating a sense of cool/hip with the franchise again (not seen since Connery).
4) Bond is tough again. Seeing Craig beefed up, blood splattered, dirty, clothes ripped, scars galore. This is where Bond belongs, and how he should always have been. Not seen with a clean-cut face and not a hair out of place after getting into a scrap.
5) Shaking off the gadgets and OTT humour. This was my biggest problem with the Moore/Brosnan years. Hopefully during Craig's tenure, we won't be seeing much of these.
carl stromberg wrote:The Sweeney even praised Pierce Brosnan, saying he was more handsome than Daniel Craig.
Well Brosnan is the most handsome actor to play Bond, he's the Brad Pitt of the six actors, the pretty boy. Craig fits more with Connery and Dalton as one of the men of Bond, while Lazenby is the young aussie and Moore is the foppish uncle.
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
Otherwise, what would the purpose of a positive thread be if it's like every other thread here?
