Continuity Issues

Post by **James** » Tue May 29, 2007 6:56 pm

This is a period that you can either accept, or wait untill you see a Bond film again

.

I'll wait until they make another Bond film again with James Bond in it

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue May 29, 2007 7:35 pm

James wrote:
This is a period that you can either accept, or wait untill you see a Bond film again
.

I'll wait until they make another Bond film again with James Bond in it

Well luckily you won't have long to wait. November 2008 isn't that far off.....

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Tue May 29, 2007 8:11 pm

The Sweeney wrote: Well luckily you won't have long to wait. November 2008 isn't that far off.....

That remains to me seen.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue May 29, 2007 8:15 pm

Jermaine76 wrote:
The Sweeney wrote: Well luckily you won't have long to wait. November 2008 isn't that far off.....
That remains to me seen.

To you maybe....

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Tue May 29, 2007 8:39 pm

The Sweeney wrote:To you maybe....

Me and a rack of others too. On 11/8/2008. Craig better step up or he'll get that "OVERRATED" chant like they do at college basketball games.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue May 29, 2007 8:47 pm

Jermaine76 wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:To you maybe....
Me and a rack of others too. On 11/8/2008. Craig better step up or he'll get that "OVERRATED" chant like they do at college basketball games.

That depends on whether he receives the same amount of praise as he did for CR. If he does, then your rack will be in the minority again...

Post by **James** » Tue May 29, 2007 9:42 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
James wrote:
This is a period that you can either accept, or wait untill you see a Bond film again
.

I'll wait until they make another Bond film again with James Bond in it
Well luckily you won't have long to wait. November 2008 isn't that far off.....

Maybe in the next film Brosnan could be in the shower and we find out the last Bond film was a dream by Moneypenny.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Tue May 29, 2007 11:23 pm

Yeah that would be funny.

Or you could learn to accept that Daniel Craig IS James Bond at the moment.
Bond is back 11/08.
If you're going to be fair, you can wait to make your decision then.

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Tue May 29, 2007 11:33 pm

Captain Nash wrote:Yeah that would be funny.
Or you could learn to accept that Daniel Craig IS James Bond at the moment.
Bond is back 11/08.
If you're going to be fair, you can wait to make your decision then.

I'll accept Craig as 007 when he and the people behind the scenes make James Bond the way he's suppose to be and not try to imitate Rambo, Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Solid Snake and a few others. You're right, I should be fair and wait until after Bond 22 comes out and then make an opinion. The funny part of all of this is that I want to root for Craig, but he hasn't shown me anything to root for. Mix the seriousness of the new Bond with the old school elements from 1962-2002 and we got a good movie before us. Instead of right now where we have a "real bond" advertised to us, but this guy can run through walls, jump from crane to crane like Jackie Chan and can take a six inch long nail shot from a nail gun to the back and not be phased by it.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:29 am

Jermaine76 wrote:
Captain Nash wrote:Yeah that would be funny.
Or you could learn to accept that Daniel Craig IS James Bond at the moment.
Bond is back 11/08.
If you're going to be fair, you can wait to make your decision then.
I'll accept Craig as 007 when he and the people behind the scenes make James Bond the way he's suppose to be and not try to imitate Rambo, Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Solid Snake and a few others. You're right, I should be fair and wait until after Bond 22 comes out and then make an opinion. The funny part of all of this is that I want to root for Craig, but he hasn't shown me anything to root for. Mix the seriousness of the new Bond with the old school elements from 1962-2002 and we got a good movie before us. Instead of right now where we have a "real bond" advertised to us, but this guy can run through walls, jump from crane to crane like Jackie Chan and can take a six inch long nail shot from a nail gun to the back and not be phased by it.

I recall the other Bond's doing far more outlandish things that what Craig did in CR.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:21 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
Jermaine76 wrote:
Captain Nash wrote:Yeah that would be funny.
Or you could learn to accept that Daniel Craig IS James Bond at the moment.
Bond is back 11/08.
If you're going to be fair, you can wait to make your decision then.
I'll accept Craig as 007 when he and the people behind the scenes make James Bond the way he's suppose to be and not try to imitate Rambo, Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Solid Snake and a few others. You're right, I should be fair and wait until after Bond 22 comes out and then make an opinion. The funny part of all of this is that I want to root for Craig, but he hasn't shown me anything to root for. Mix the seriousness of the new Bond with the old school elements from 1962-2002 and we got a good movie before us. Instead of right now where we have a "real bond" advertised to us, but this guy can run through walls, jump from crane to crane like Jackie Chan and can take a six inch long nail shot from a nail gun to the back and not be phased by it.
I recall the other Bond's doing far more outlandish things that what Craig did in CR.

I was going to say, you've obviously not seen all the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan Bond films then Jermaine. I still don't see the problem with running through a dry wall either.

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Wed May 30, 2007 7:16 pm

Captain Nash wrote: I was going to say, you've obviously not seen all the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan Bond films then Jermaine. I still don't see the problem with running through a dry wall either.

I'll admit that I'm nick-picking when it comes to the running through a wall thing. I do remember saying "BS" when Brosnan jumped off the motorcycle and dove into the falling plane in GoldenEye. Other than that, I don't remember any other off the wall moments. I know there are some, but just don't remember right now.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed May 30, 2007 7:48 pm

Jermaine76 wrote:
Captain Nash wrote: I was going to say, you've obviously not seen all the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan Bond films then Jermaine. I still don't see the problem with running through a dry wall either.
I'll admit that I'm nick-picking when it comes to the running through a wall thing. I do remember saying "BS" when Brosnan jumped off the motorcycle and dove into the falling plane in GoldenEye. Other than that, I don't remember any other off the wall moments. I know there are some, but just don't remember right now.

How about Dalton pulling a wheelie in a truck, or Brosnan beating the hell out of 7 guys without a scratch on him, or straighteneing ties under water and in tanks, or pretending to stop his heart beating after a 9 month torture ordeal and then jumping to life and kicking hell out of everyone in a hospital, or jumping off cliffs and surfing on bad CGI icebergs, or having dangerous lasers flying around everywhere and not being hit once, but instead saying `James, I'll be half the girl I used to be,' or driving around in invisible cars, or walking through 5 star Hong Kong hotels in Castaway-length beards and pyjamas and then after a quick shower and shave looking immaculate, or going through Venice on a gondola on wheels and being spotted by a double-taking pigeon, or being in a submarine Lotus Esprit and emerging from the water with a fish inside the car, or skying down a mountain on a chello case....I could go on!

Post by **carl stromberg** » Wed May 30, 2007 8:01 pm

But we were told that Craig was brought in because this was a very serious, stripped down take on James Bond. That's why someone who looks like Craig was chosen, because the more stereotypically "handsome" other actors did not have the skills to portray this Bond. Imagine my surprise when Casino Royale opened with a 2 hour daft action sequence. No my mistake - it was a humane character driven stupid action sequence where you thought Bond was in danger!

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:09 pm

carl stromberg wrote:But we were told that Craig was brought in because this was a very serious, stripped down take on James Bond. That's why someone who looks like Craig was chosen, because the more stereotypically "handsome" other actors did not have the skills to portray this Bond. Imagine my surprise when Casino Royale opened with a 2 hour daft action sequence. No my mistake - it was a humane character driven stupid action sequence where you thought Bond was in danger!

Just goes to show how people interprete films differently Carl. I had no problem at all with the opening action sequence, as it was done in a more realistic way (other than Bond suddenly getting a bulldozer). It was certainly more realistic than the speedboat scene in TWINE, and the hovercraft scene in DAD.

As for the second half of the film, I thought it was the most realistic Bond film to date.

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:24 pm

Couldn't they have made a stripped down Bond with a more Bondian/handsome actor? Why did they have to hire such a weird looking man for their reboot?

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Thu May 31, 2007 1:57 am

Terry wrote:Couldn't they have made a stripped down Bond with a more Bondian/handsome actor? Why did they have to hire such a weird looking man for their reboot?

Probably because he was cheap and available. Why give a better actor more money when you can just get a low budget dude to play Bond and give me less money?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu May 31, 2007 3:46 am

Jermaine76 wrote:
Terry wrote:Couldn't they have made a stripped down Bond with a more Bondian/handsome actor? Why did they have to hire such a weird looking man for their reboot?
Probably because he was cheap and available. Why give a better actor more money when you can just get a low budget dude to play Bond and give me less money?

Because they can hire an even better actor for less money, and give the franchise a much needed overhaul.
Brosnan could've done one more granted, but then what?
After GE it always seemed like they (EON) didn't know what to do next, and tacked together a story and some action scenes and there you go. Now TND, TWINE and even DAD were popular movies that made alot of money. But they were just average or acceptable films. With CR I feel the franchise has been rejuvenated. It's not better than the old series, but just a new spin on it. The character's still there, not to everyone okay, but many can still see James Bond.
Who knows what the future holds. After Daniel Craig retires from the role, maybe a more laid back and jovial Bond will return with helicopter in a suitcase fighting a villainous robot who has a lair in a hollowed out volcano.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:55 am

Jermaine76 wrote:
Terry wrote:Couldn't they have made a stripped down Bond with a more Bondian/handsome actor? Why did they have to hire such a weird looking man for their reboot?
Probably because he was cheap and available. Why give a better actor more money when you can just get a low budget dude to play Bond and give me less money?

When you say better actor....?

To me, Craig is the most versatile actor yet to play Bond (even more so than Dalton). If you look at the many varied and different roles he has played, it should tell you something. None of the other actors (including Connery) have played that amount of range before. I watched Craig in Enduring Love the other night and couldn't believe how good and natural his performance was in it.

Also, don't you realise now that EON's gamble has actually paid off. The boy's done good. He's won most fans and critics over, and managed to get himself nominated too, for the first time ever in the franchise history. Not bad for a `cheap' actor, eh?

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:35 am

Jedi007 wrote:
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 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).

A fictional Cold War? Why change the world events? James Bond has always been placed in a realistic world where fictional things happen. The only thing close to being a major fictional change was the fictional country in Licence to Kill and it should stay that way. It's much more interesting having Bond in the real world, referencing real events (cold war, energy crisis, 9/11) of their times. If they made a reference to Bond being an agent of a fictional Cold War it would have been too ambiguous and draw some confusion to if this is really a prequel or a reboot.

Beisdes, why does Bond NEED a cold war? Fleming wrote Bond as a cold war agent because it was relevent to the time he wrote it, the 1950s, a time when the cold war was occuring. That concept was able to adapt all the way into the 1980s but times have changed, Bond wouldn't be a Cold War agent forever. As I have said, he has outgrown such a limitation. Bond has become timeless.