I'd just like to add, that he wasn't 40 when he did CR, but he certainly looked it.carl stromberg wrote:I don't mind a reboot; but keeping Dench on and having a 40 year old man as a confused, raw young Bond early on in his 00 career is just daft.
I do like most of the Brosnan films. My problem with the OTT scenes in Casino Royale had to do with the fact that it gave the film a very jigsaw feeling. In fact one of the reasons I don't hate DAD is that I resigned myself to the fact that the film was defintely going to be an OTT film through and through. it's just the windsurfing scene that made me cringe.The Sweeney wrote:I agree with this. However, can you imagine the uproar from other Bond fans if the film didn't have any of these big action scenes in either. I don't think many would have been happy. It's the one thing people have come to expect from a Bond movie.paco chaos wrote:...that we had some very OTT stunt sequences, showed a very sad lack of faith that the film could work without such trappings.
I take it you don't like The Brosnan films much then for this same reason?
No, but they could still make Bond a Cold War agent in a modern world, like they did with Brosnan, then to make things closer to what Fleming intended, they should have trashed Dench. Maybe if they've done that then I wouldn't mind if Bond looks more like Red Grant than Bond himself.Difficult to do this with CR being the first novel, and the first time Bond ever falls in love (until OHMSS). If EON wanted to do CR the way you wanted it, were they supposed to make this story follow on after DAD?
You must be confused, Sweeney. I thought CR's about realism. Oh my, I think I'm also confused too...And to me we see this in CR. No ordinary man can jump off cranes, jump on buses, crash through flames, survive a severe car crash or torture, win a multi-million pound card game while remaining unruffled, kill 2 huge men with swords, shoot down 4 or 5 men in Venice and destroy an entire building, remain cool and composed while bullets fly around him, etc.
I see the films not based on the novels a continuation of Fleming's story, like the non-Fleming books, so how can it be closer to a novel when it's not based on any of the books?A Bond film can be close to a novel if it follows the story as close as it can,
But we have a lady M, a Leiter who looks like Sharky from another incarnation, and a Bond who looks...the characters in the novel try to remain as close as they can, incidents in the novel try to remain as close as they can, the overall tone of the novel is tried to be replicated on-screen.
. And we have a modern setting instead of a Cold War feel.But James Bond killing a guy with bare hands like a thug in the bathroom, crashing through a wall and blowing up an embassy like a stupid terrorist happened in the novels? And that's what you call cool and refined?What never happen in the books was witty, embarrassing Carry On one-liners, OTT action, silly comedy, invisible cars, underwater cars, Bond walking around all day in suits (he often wore casual, comfy outfits), double-taking pigeons, ridiculous gadgets, etc.
Uh, no they can't. Unless they want to start making these films period pieces, there is no way they can keep James Bond a cold war agent or of the past. It was already barely believable with Brosnan being a so called "relic of the Cold War" so to have an actor born in the 60s or 70s and be presented as the "relic of the Cold War" would be just as rediculous as having Tom Hanks play an ex-Nazi soldier in a 2007 setting.Jedi007 wrote:No, but they could still make Bond a Cold War agent in a modern world, like they did with Brosnan.Difficult to do this with CR being the first novel, and the first time Bond ever falls in love (until OHMSS). If EON wanted to do CR the way you wanted it, were they supposed to make this story follow on after DAD?
I thought CR is based on the novel. You've confused me now, Jedi....Jedi007 wrote: I see the films not based on the novels a continuation of Fleming's story, like the non-Fleming books, so how can it be closer to a novel when it's not based on any of the books?
I thought I said earlier the latter half of the film was like the novel, not the first half, which those scenes you have just mentioned are from. And yes, I would call the opening action sequences cool. Refined, maybe not - but I can live with that if it means we don't see Bond straightening his tie under water during an action scene.Jedi007 wrote:
But James Bond killing a guy with bare hands like a thug in the bathroom, crashing through a wall and blowing up an embassy like a stupid terrorist happened in the novels? And that's what you call cool and refined?
I am referring to films not based on any of Fleming's books.I thought CR is based on the novel. You've confused me now, Jedi....
Then CR IS NEVER and the future Bond films WILL NEVER BE A TRUE FLEMINGESQUE work if that is the case, just like the other incarnation (Maybe except Dalton --- he is the prefect Flemingesque Bond). And as long as James is in the films, he WILL NEVER BE REAL and he will keep doing impossible things an ordinary cannot do. So, those who are saying that CR is "Flemingesque" and "real" are wrong.So unless there will be a period piece James Bond film, HE WILL NEVER BE A COLD WAR AGENT EVER AGAIN.
You just mentioned that Dalton was the perfect Fleming Bond.Jedi007 wrote: Then CR IS NEVER and the future Bond films WILL NEVER BE A TRUE FLEMINGESQUE work if that is the case, just like the other incarnation (Maybe except Dalton --- he is the prefect Flemingesque Bond). And as long as James is in the films, he WILL NEVER BE REAL and he will keep doing impossible things an ordinary cannot do. So, those who are saying that CR is "Flemingesque" and "real" are wrong.
I do not say that just being a cold war agent is what determines a Bond version being Flemingesque; it's just one of those things that made up the Flemingesque Bond. As you can see from my other posts I'm concerned with the characters like having a lady M, a Sharky-look-alike Leiter. Most importantly I'm concerned with new Bond being too violent and ruthless without his refined side which is present in the true Fleming Bond. Maybe at least in this new incarnation, they could have a subtle reference to Bond being a cold war agent, not a Cold War in the 1980s but maybe a fictional cold war since everything about Bond is fictional (in CR's case, a fictional terrorist group, not the real Al-qaeda.) For example, in Brosnan's case, he was an agent in the last years of the Cold War Era (1986) before being moved into the present, 9 years later (1995).So you think having Bond involved in a cold war instead of fighting terrorism makes it Flemingesque, but if the cold war is not involved, then it no longer becomes Fleming? Is this all that matters to you, Jedi? A cold war? That it was makes it Fleming? Nothing else? Characterisation, events from the books, characters from the book? If EON use them but change the enemies motives, then its no longer Fleming?
I really don't see how background information on a Cold War really determines if you like CR or not. It just looks like you are splitting hairs.Jedi007 wrote: I do not say that just being a cold war agent is what determines a Bond version being Flemingesque; it's just one of those things that made up the Flemingesque Bond. As you can see from my other posts I'm concerned with the characters like having a lady M, a Sharky-look-alike Leiter. Most importantly I'm concerned with new Bond being too violent and ruthless without his refined side which is present in the true Fleming Bond. Maybe at least in this new incarnation, they could have a subtle reference to Bond being a cold war agent, not a Cold War in the 1980s but maybe a fictional cold war since everything about Bond is fictional (in CR's case, a fictional terrorist group, not the real Al-qaeda.) For example, in Brosnan's case, he was an agent in the last years of the Cold War Era (1986) before being moved into the present, 9 years later (1995).
Are you telling me Craig isn't a strong enough thespian to play a person who can be refined.....?bjmdds wrote:And when Craig 'tries' to be a 'refined' Bond, that is when it could all fall apart.
Naaaa. There are plenty of Bond fans out there, not Craig fans (I'm first and foremost a Bond fan). The only way Bond 22 will fail, is if it resorts back to CGI effects, slapstick humour, laughable, embarassing one-liners, invisible cars and silly, highly implausable storylines. This has nothing to do whatsoever with Craig suddenly looking a bit more dapper, and starting to act a little more refined.bjmdds wrote:Craig as a 'refined' vs. 'wild card' Bond may not get the attention he did in CR. As a 'refined' Bond, he may drive away his fan base as Bond if they now find him more 'traditional',and even out of character, don't you think?
I'm just saying that they could have at least made a little reference to Bond being a Cold War agent, since CR is presented as a "Bond Begins" film, and that's how Fleming intended his character to be.I really don't see how background information on a Cold War really determines if you like CR or not. It just looks like you are splitting hairs.
No, I don't have a problem with a lady M in the Brosnan Era. As Zukovsky had said, "the new M is a lady", meaning there has never been a female M before and Brosnan Bond has a male M before Dench's M, as what was intended by Fleming. Unlike CR which is presented to us as "the beginning of Bond", and in the beginning, Bond has a male M, not a female M who appears to be the last one and the new of the Ms from the other incarnation.I understand your issues with a lady M (I take it you had similar issues with this during the Brosnan era) and a black Leiter, as these do not tally with the Fleming novels.
Lucky CR didn't flop then, as Craig is signed on for three films, and if it had tanked, we probably would have been treated to the sight of him being forced into a DAD-type movie. Shudder.The Sweeney wrote:The only way Bond 22 will fail, is if it resorts back to CGI effects, slapstick humour, laughable, embarassing one-liners, invisible cars and silly, highly implausable storylines.
But Casino Royale had slapstick humour, embarassing one-liners and silly implausible storylines. It's possible that there may be some poor effects again as Barbara Broccoli and her team are still in charge of Eon productions.The Sweeny Wrote:
The only way Bond 22 will fail, is if it resorts back to CGI effects, slapstick humour, laughable, embarassing one-liners, invisible cars and silly, highly implausable storylines.
So you think the Bond franchise needs to lose Barbara Broccoli?Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:But Casino Royale had slapstick humour, embarassing one-liners and silly implausible storylines. It's possible that there may be some poor effects again as Barbara Broccoli and her team are still in charge of Eon productions.The Sweeny Wrote:
The only way Bond 22 will fail, is if it resorts back to CGI effects, slapstick humour, laughable, embarassing one-liners, invisible cars and silly, highly implausable storylines.
