Why DCinB: The Answers you're looking for

[Jedi007]

Even though how James Bond should look is important, I could try getting past that and just see how the character is portrayed. However, in the new Bond film Casino Royale, there are just so many issues besides the looks that were not properly dealt with. This is the compilation of issues I have against the new film. These issues have been discussed and debated for many times but go on if you feel like answering and posting in this thread. It would be nice if this thread gets sticky for the benefit of anti-anti-CRaigers who thinks we don’t like the new Bond just because he’s blonde.

The Obvious: The Looks
I will not say more than that Ian Fleming wants Bond to look like a fifties-movie star, and as paco chaos had once said, it’s a doubt that a Steve McQueen look-alike is what Ian Fleming has in mind.

Setting and Background
Each Bond incarnation is always modern, up-to-date, and contemporary. The setting and time of each incarnation depends on the current condition of the world they are in. However, unlike the new Bond, the previous five incarnations manages to keep what Ian Fleming intended his character to be: an agent from the Cold War Era. Even Brosnan, the modern Bond of the past five, is made a Cold War agent as he was present in the last year of the Cold War Era before moving on his present time, nine years later. There’s really no big deal if the new Bond is not made a Cold War agent at all since he’s set in the modern times. However, his incarnation and the new film is presented to us the beginning of it all, a lame excuse of the people behind this film to save themselves from trying hard to explain why a sophisticated refined man suddenly turned into a half-Terminator, half-Rambo, Jackie Chan wannabe. As a “Bond Begins” film, they could have made at least a subtle reference to Bond belonging to Cold War, maybe not a Cold War with the dates but maybe a fictional Cold War as the condition of his fictional world (state of tension between countries short of armed conflict).

The new Bond doesn’t also feel like he belongs with the previous incarnations and set of films. The other twenty films may not be made to belong in the same continuity (as each one of them appears to be stand-alones), however, each incarnation are made to be one and the same. How? It’s like one same game being played by different players and in different time. Connery’s James Bond is already a veteran agent in Dr, No, so does all incarnation that follows after his. Lazenby’s Bond marries Tracy, so does the other Bonds. They even got the same M and Q (in Brosnan’s case, his lady M is new to MI5). And all of them are Cold War agents, as what was intended by Fleming. The new Bond film erases these very important events in the cinematic Bond’s life.

Characters
I do not have a problem with a lady M, and Dame Dench made a good job for being Bond’s superior of a different gender. However, the problem once more lies with the film being presented as “Bond Begins”. Bond doesn’t have a lady M in the beginning. Brosnan’s lady M is never the first, and that’s why there’s no problem with his version. I do not have also a problem with Wright as Leiter, but that’s not how Fleming wrote that character.

The Most Important: Characterization
James Bond is sophisticated, refined, and polished, despite the violence and ruthlessness of his job. And that’s what separates him from other cold-blooded assassins, street thugs and mad murderers. All throughout these new film, the new Bond never showed this side.

The Film and the Critics
Flemingesque? Real? As long as Bond is in the films, he would never stay real and he would keep doing impossible things an ordinary man can’t do. Bond running tirelessly is not real; so does able to breathe underwater for more than five minutes. Stupidly blowing up an embassy like a terrorist Flemingesque? The issues I’ve mentioned above also shows how far the new Bond is from the real Flemingesque Bond.

[James]

I think you make some interesting points. For me the films should change and be different but Bond should be a constant. I didn't see James Bond in Casino Royale anywhere unless that gloomy sourpuss who looks like a plumber was supposed to be James Bond. If he was it was all lost on me.

[Captain Nash]

Nothing new here then. Yet another thread going over the same old BS.
And why do you think this needs to be a sticky?

[Jedi007]

Like I've said this is just a compilation, this has been debated already and this is for the benefit of the newcomers to this site.

[Jermaine76]

Nothing new here then. Yet another thread going over the same old BS.
And why do you think this needs to be a sticky?

Well...I would like to read it. I've only been on this site for two weeks now and I've never seen a discussion anywhere about Bond's Cold War roots. So right now Nash, do you have any comment on his post? I look forward to Sweeney's comments also.

[Oddjob]

My attitude to Bond is that I'm not bothered by a reboot or a reset of the series. It may well have been time to overhaul the franchise.

However, what I do not agree with is the casting of the charmless and odd looking Daniel Craig as James Bond. I was agaisnt that when his name appeared in tabloids early in 2005 and nothing since, including the film, has changed my mind.

[Skywalker]

My attitude to Bond is that I'm not bothered by a reboot or a reset of the series. It may well have been time to overhaul the franchise.

However, what I do not agree with is the casting of the charmless and odd looking Daniel Craig as James Bond. I was agaisnt that when his name appeared in tabloids early in 2005 and nothing since, including the film, has changed my mind.

Welcome to the forum Oddjob. I look forward to seeing your views on all Bond related issues.

[The Sweeney]

The Obvious: The Looks
I will not say more than that Ian Fleming wants Bond to look like a fifties-movie star, and as paco chaos had once said, it’s a doubt that a Steve McQueen look-alike is what Ian Fleming has in mind.

Good post, Jedi. You are probably right. Fleming wouldn't have wanted a McQueen type, but then again, he didn't initially want Sean Connery either. Thank heavens it was Cubby who made the decision for casting, and not Fleming.

Setting and Background
Each Bond incarnation is always modern, up-to-date, and contemporary. The setting and time of each incarnation depends on the current condition of the world they are in. However, unlike the new Bond, the previous five incarnations manages to keep what Ian Fleming intended his character to be: an agent from the Cold War Era. Even Brosnan, the modern Bond of the past five, is made a Cold War agent as he was present in the last year of the Cold War Era before moving on his present time, nine years later. There’s really no big deal if the new Bond is not made a Cold War agent at all since he’s set in the modern times. However, his incarnation and the new film is presented to us the beginning of it all, a lame excuse of the people behind this film to save themselves from trying hard to explain why a sophisticated refined man suddenly turned into a half-Terminator, half-Rambo, Jackie Chan wannabe. As a “Bond Begins” film, they could have made at least a subtle reference to Bond belonging to Cold War, maybe not a Cold War with the dates but maybe a fictional Cold War as the condition of his fictional world (state of tension between countries short of armed conflict).

We'ver talked about this in other threads. You have an issue with this, I don't.

The new Bond doesn’t also feel like he belongs with the previous incarnations and set of films. The other twenty films may not be made to belong in the same continuity (as each one of them appears to be stand-alones), however, each incarnation are made to be one and the same. How? It’s like one same game being played by different players and in different time. Connery’s James Bond is already a veteran agent in Dr, No, so does all incarnation that follows after his. Lazenby’s Bond marries Tracy, so does the other Bonds. They even got the same M and Q (in Brosnan’s case, his lady M is new to MI5). And all of them are Cold War agents, as what was intended by Fleming. The new Bond film erases these very important events in the cinematic Bond’s life.

We've talked about this in other threads too. I personally watch each Bond film as a stand-alone, and not a continuation of the series (OHMSS, Blofeld issue being an obvious one that springs to mind). You obviously don't, so this bothers you. It doesn't bother me.

Characters
I do not have a problem with a lady M, and Dame Dench made a good job for being Bond’s superior of a different gender. However, the problem once more lies with the film being presented as “Bond Begins”. Bond doesn’t have a lady M in the beginning. Brosnan’s lady M is never the first, and that’s why there’s no problem with his version.

Some people have an issue with M being played by Dench again. I am not one of them, because like I said above, I don't look at the Bond films as a continuation. To me, they are all stand alone.

The Most Important: Characterization
James Bond is sophisticated, refined, and polished, despite the violence and ruthlessness of his job. And that’s what separates him from other cold-blooded assassins, street thugs and mad murderers. All throughout these new film, the new Bond never showed this side.

Craig wasn't refined at the beginning of the film, but I thought this changed as the film went along. The casino scenes to me showed Bond being as refined as he is in the novels (yes, even the `get the girl out' bit - Bond often attempted to suddenly kill one of his victims if he thought there was no other way).

The Film and the Critics
Flemingesque? Real? As long as Bond is in the films, he would never stay real and he would keep doing impossible things an ordinary man can’t do. Bond running tirelessly is not real; so does able to breathe underwater for more than five minutes. Stupidly blowing up an embassy like a terrorist Flemingesque? The issues I’ve mentioned above also shows how far the new Bond is from the real Flemingesque Bond.

There are faaaaar more outlandish things done in other Bond films and with the other actors that wasn't Flemingesque either. Why don't you have issues with those too?

At the end of the day, it appears (in a generalised sweeping statement kind of a way) that the majority right now are liking the new Bond and new approach. This is a mixture of Bond fans, Fleming fans, critics, the general movie-going public, and people that never really liked Bond films until now. But I would never expect EVERYONE to like the new approach, and so this forum is good for those of you who don't like the new changes. CR was never going to win absolutely everyone over - but there again, can any film?

[Jedi007]

Good post, Jedi. You are probably right. Fleming wouldn't have wanted a McQueen type, but then again, he didn't initially want Sean Connery either. Thank heavens it was Cubby who made the decision for casting, and not Fleming.

Sean Connery was a good looking movie star. And Cubby didn't hire Daniel Craig; I'm sure he wouldn't approve of him just like he did with Sean Bean.

We've talked about this in other threads too. I personally watch each Bond film as a stand-alone, and not a continuation of the series (OHMSS, Blofeld issue being an obvious one that springs to mind). You obviously don't, so this bothers you. It doesn't bother me.

Some people have an issue with M being played by Dench again. I am not one of them, because like I said above, I don't look at the Bond films as a continuation. To me, they are all stand alone.

Yes, we've already discussed this, but you still don't get the point. I'm going to repeat this again: it's like one game, played by different players. They have different approach on playing the game, but it is still the same game. I don't know whether Bond 22 will return to the same game I'm talking about, but in CR, it's a totally different game.

Let's take the example of lady M. GE is not connected to LTK; Bond of GE has a different M with Bond of LTK. However, in GE, it is still made that the lady M was new, and there was a Male M, just like in the previous movies. The past 20 films may not be connected to each other but important and specific events and characters that have been established in one film have been carried over to every new incarnation. In the new film CR, they've changed the tone of the story. I'm not against it but it's not the only thing they've changed, but also the face, the characters, and Bond's attitude!

Now, tell me, Sweeney, since you call yourself a Fleming Fan, you've got the books and knows everything about a Flemingesque Bond; How did Fleming wrote James Bond? Tell me everything, not just his attitude, traits, but as well his supporting characters, his nature of job, everything! And compare him with the new Bond.

[The Sweeney]

Sean Connery was a good looking movie star.

Yet Fleming didn't want to go with him. That was my point.

Yes, we've already discussed this, but you still don't get the point. I'm going to repeat this again: it's like one game, played by different players. They have different approach on playing the game, but it is still the same game. I don't know whether Bond 22 will return to the same game I'm talking about, but in CR, it's a totally different game.

I do get your point. But as I said before, this doesn't bother me - continuation in Bond films is non-existant IMO. Now, the question is, do you finally get my point?

Now, tell me, Sweeney, since you call yourself a Fleming Fan, you've got the books and knows everything about a Flemingesque Bond; How did Fleming wrote James Bond? Tell me everything, not just his attitude, traits, but as well his supporting characters, his nature of job, everything! And compare him with the new Bond.

Bond was very particular in what he wore, drank, ate, etc. Bond was quite introvert in the books, not overtly funny and witty, cracking one-liners at every given opportunity. Bond could be very gloomy on ocassions, sometimes quite a dark character. Bond often hated killing in cold blood (something you see in the PTS of CR in Craig's face after the kill, and also after the stair fight.) Bond got nervous before a torture scene (we see this in CR). Bond often awoke in hospital after a severe beating (we saw this in CR). Bond was a cold, ruthless, killing machine (we saw this in CR). Bond could suddenly get the urge to be reckless (we saw this in CR). Bond often smiled grimly to himself after rough justice (we saw this in CR at the airport).

On departure of the novels, M is now a woman in the films. So that has changed. Bond's hair colour has changed but IMO the face hasn't (Bond could be mistaken in the novels as looking like a villain himself). Felix Leiter didn't have a repartee with Bond in CR like he does in the books, maybe this will change in Bond 22. Felix also wasn't black in the books. Bond's job is still the same, only the villains backgrounds/motives are different.

This departure from the novels is not enough to put me off. With you, it obviously is. But if you are so particular about issues like this, and by them not being exactly like the novels, I am truly amazed if you like the majority of the rest of the Bond films (especially Brosnan's and Moore's) as they were faaar more removed from the novels than the things I mentioned above.

[Jedi007]

I do get your point. But as I said before, this doesn't bother me - continuation in Bond films is non-existant IMO. Now, the question is, do you finally get my point?

The past 20 films may not be connected to each other but important and specific events and characters that have been established in one film have been carried over to every new incarnation.

Being a veteran cold war agent, death of Tracy, having a male M as his very first superior

Bond often hated killing in cold blood

Vesper: It doesn't bother you, killing those people.

Craig: I wouldn't be good at my job if it did.

Bond often awoke in hospital after a severe beating

DAD

Bond was a cold, ruthless, killing machine

So does all of the other incarnation.

Bond could suddenly get the urge to be reckless

So does in the other films.

[paco chaos]

Sean Connery was a good looking movie star.

Yet Fleming didn't want to go with him. That was my point.

but Connery fit the description from the books a whole lot more than Craig ever will. Movie star good looks, Dark hair. Tall. sure he didn't have grey blue eyes, but that is one difference out of many. plus Fleming description of Bond in Moonraker makes it sound as though he was tanned, much like Connery. whereas, Craig looks scorched red and in need of some number 50 sunblock.

[Skywalker]

Craig looks scorched red and in need of some number 50 sunblock.

He is a little on the pale side.

[James]

However, what I do not agree with is the casting of the charmless and odd looking Daniel Craig as James Bond. I was agaisnt that when his name appeared in tabloids early in 2005 and nothing since, including the film, has changed my mind.

Welcome to the only James Bond forum where you can say that without fear of being jumped on.

[bjmdds]

However, what I do not agree with is the casting of the charmless and odd looking Daniel Craig as James Bond. I was agaisnt that when his name appeared in tabloids early in 2005 and nothing since, including the film, has changed my mind.

Welcome to the only James Bond forum where you can say that without fear of being jumped on.

Nothing to date has changed many minds Oddjob, and that is why the debate will continue.

[Captain Nash]

The trouble is some of the time it's not a debate.
There are no winners or losers in this though. It's fine to discuss, but my mind has been made up, and I'm sure others has too. I like talking about and discussing Bond, but going over the same films and actors is plain boring. There are 22 films in the official series. 20 of which seem to get neglected quite often.

[Skywalker]

The trouble is some of the time it's not a debate.
There are no winners or losers in this though. It's fine to discuss, but my mind has been made up, and I'm sure others has too. I like talking about and discussing Bond, but going over the same films and actors is plain boring. There are 22 films in the official series. 20 of which seem to get neglected quite often.

The site is based on the general disapproval of Daniel Craig as Bond and you have to accept that. References to him and CR will always be a major part of this site. However, I agree that more discussion on the other Bond films and actors would be good.

[Captain Nash]

The site is based on the general disapproval of Daniel Craig as Bond and you have to accept that. References to him and CR will always be a major part of this site.

So when Craig leaves the role, the site disolves does it?
I'm fine with people not liking Craig, but do they really have to harp on about it forever more.
I get it already.
There's more to Bond than Daniel Craig and CR or his time in the role.
Nice to see you and other members can look past that Skywalker.

[Skywalker]

So when Craig leaves the role, the site disolves does it?

I guess that is up to the site owners. There can be no disputing that the forum has grown and now has a hardcore membership. I think most forum members need more than just Craig and CR to talk about.

I'm fine with people not liking Craig, but do they really have to harp on about it forever more.

It would be boring if all I did was continue to moan, as most people know my views on the subject already. I have no problem with new members venting their spleen though.
I get it already.

There's more to Bond than Daniel Craig and CR or his time in the role.
Nice to see you and other members can look past that Skywalker.

Happy to oblige Nash. Were all Bond fans at the end of the day. I think it's true to say the majority like to talk about all things Bond.

[Captain Nash]

D a m n straight.
Infact the forum has become so friendly, that carl and blowers have been missing in action the last few days. Nothing to moderate over.
Maybe a good old fashioned rant or dust up is required?