Quantum of Solace Appreciation Thread- We Found a Better Place to Meet

1293032343570

Comments

  • Posts: 15,231
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Craig looks a LOT older than he actually is.He is not ageing well at all.He would be wise to call it a day after his fifth film in which he will no doubt look like hes in his sixties.

    Regarding QOS, i think Calvin Dysons review of it on youtube is the most accurate assessment of the film.Bear in mind that he does like Craig and CR and thinks QOS is by far the worst Bond film ever made.

    Craig looks younger now than he did during Skyfall, and happier too. He seems alot more relaxed, not paranoid like he was for the first two. So you have an actor that is comfortable in the role and millions of people around the world that want to see him play Bond. It would be madness not to throw money at him for AT LEAST one more.

    I think the same. I am not sure he will do 26, but he should do 25.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 1,596
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I don't see DC looking old. Looks fine to me.

    Whenever people say this I can't tell if they're serious. Keep in mind, I'm a really big fan of him in the role, so I'm not bashing him, but Craig looks old. You're not allowed to use that airbrushed-to-death teaser poster either.

    His well worn face has always made the dude look older than he actually is. He's got that craggy, lined face, and he's getting that gobble gobble chin that comes once one hits age 50, regardless of physical shape. He aged tremendously between QOS and SF, but he looks like he's plateau'd a bit. Doesn't look much older now than he did when SF was released.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    From what I've seen, the boat ride on the Thames and a few of the Italian locations.
    He looks perfectly fine to me, ( to others he may look old) hope he does at least one more. ;) maybe two. :D
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 1,596
    I hope they go back to a 2-year schedule. I think he should "hang up the Tux" after B25, but that's just me. I like that he looks a bit old, thought that gave his SF performance more weight and he makes it work for him. He plays the fatigue and world weariness nicely, similar to Connery in DAF. Completely different performances, but there are some similar undercurrents, I think.

    I'm sure I'll be eating my words if the next Bond they cast turns out to be a disaster and my opinion here is well documented in the forum annals.
  • Posts: 15,231
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I don't see DC looking old. Looks fine to me.

    Whenever people say this I can't tell if they're serious. Keep in mind, I'm a really big fan of him in the role, so I'm not bashing him, but Craig looks old. You're not allowed to use that airbrushed-to-death teaser poster either.

    His well worn face has always made the dude look older than he actually is. He's got that craggy, lined face, and he's getting that gobble gobble chin that comes once one hits age 50, regardless of physical shape. He aged tremendously between QOS and SF, but he looks like he's plateau'd a bit. Doesn't look much older now than he did when SF was released.

    I think he looks younger than SF, for whatever reason.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SaintMark wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    QoS is the underrated gem that LTK used to be. When people look back on Craig's six film tenure they will think more favourably of Craig's second outing.
    3:-O

    I like the sound of that.

    I had to look form my anti depression pills. three more movies sweet deity of some sorts.....

    ;)

    lol :))
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Getafix wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 When I left the cinema after seeing SF I was breathtaken at the epic spectacle I had just seen, and when I got home it was, oh around 11pm, I was so excited and pumped up I decided to watch CR and QOS back to back before sleeping, and I was struck at the true badassery of Craig, I said to myself 'what on earth didn't I like before?'. Craig's acting, Eva Green, the cinematography, the action scenes, the Arnold soundtracks... they all felt wonderful to me.

    That's extremely great to hear, @DaltonCraig007, and while my feelings on the Moore era haven't improved as exponentially, there was still a big change than went on in regards to my opinion of the era recently.

    While rereading some of my earliest posts I made on this forum a few years back, I almost choked on my tongue at the sheer pompousness of some of my statements. I reeked of a Connery fanboy off the handle, and seemed to hate any Bond actor or Bond film that didn't live up to his golden four during his era, sparing only Craig's films in my onslaught. And, because Moore's era was so different from the brutal, calculating Bond I'd loved in Connery's take on the character, it was an easy target for my then naive mind.

    A year or so after those tirades I did a run through of the Moore era, giving them a second chance after hearing members such as yourselves washing the films in glory. Sure enough, over time my opinion of the era went from "they're rubbish," to "they've got their moments." I enjoyed the macabre tension and supernatural flair of LALD, the epic scale and exotic visuals of TSWLM, and a more earnest and hardened Bond in FYEO, amongst other things. The cinematography popped, the stunts were in a class of their own, and the opening title songs are for my money, the best of the series in consistency.

    Moore's Bond now holds a place in my heart not only as one of the most roguishly charming 007s right up there with Sean's, but also the most cultured of the lot. I love hearing his Bond go on and on about the cultures of the many places he's visiting, expounding his vast knowledge of everything from the best drinks and foods to extremely esoteric factoids that could only become known by a man who'd lived in up everywhere he went. And with Moore's Bond, you really do get the feeling of a man who has been everywhere and experienced all the treats the world had on offer. I'd love to see a Bond in our more modern age that shows off such knowledge every once in a while like Sean was known to do every once in a while and which Moore capitalized on during his era.

    Great post!

    I've always said if you can't enjoy a good Rogering, well, one way or the other, you're buggered.

    The Moore movies are about pure unadulterated enjoyment.

    And great tunes as well. Feel sorry for those who are unable to feel pleasure from Sir Rog. There must be something wrong with them as it's definitely not due to any inadequacy in the Roginator's performance.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    Hey I did the same thing, but having gone back I realised I really love Octopussy. Locations/Story the faberge egg. Louis Jourdan as Kamal in his collar jacket brings back memories of Dr No.

    I have gone back to all Bonds I love most first outings TLD, Goldeneye but apart from that I struggle with Brosnan and Dalton for all Rodgers faults he had real screen presence and delivered the whitty lines well. Brosnan and Dalton seemed to be trying to be too serious to distance from what Moores Bond had become. But after watching each film on a cycle every Friday night for two years. Connery and Craig keep me hooked, they can be whitty, they have incredible screen presence, they both walk like Panthers and ooze Bond Swagger.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Connery and Craig do indeed top the Bond list for all your reasons stated. You have taste.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 When I left the cinema after seeing SF I was breathtaken at the epic spectacle I had just seen, and when I got home it was, oh around 11pm, I was so excited and pumped up I decided to watch CR and QOS back to back before sleeping, and I was struck at the true badassery of Craig, I said to myself 'what on earth didn't I like before?'. Craig's acting, Eva Green, the cinematography, the action scenes, the Arnold soundtracks... they all felt wonderful to me.

    That's extremely great to hear, @DaltonCraig007, and while my feelings on the Moore era haven't improved as exponentially, there was still a big change than went on in regards to my opinion of the era recently.

    While rereading some of my earliest posts I made on this forum a few years back, I almost choked on my tongue at the sheer pompousness of some of my statements. I reeked of a Connery fanboy off the handle, and seemed to hate any Bond actor or Bond film that didn't live up to his golden four during his era, sparing only Craig's films in my onslaught. And, because Moore's era was so different from the brutal, calculating Bond I'd loved in Connery's take on the character, it was an easy target for my then naive mind.

    A year or so after those tirades I did a run through of the Moore era, giving them a second chance after hearing members such as yourselves washing the films in glory. Sure enough, over time my opinion of the era went from "they're rubbish," to "they've got their moments." I enjoyed the macabre tension and supernatural flair of LALD, the epic scale and exotic visuals of TSWLM, and a more earnest and hardened Bond in FYEO, amongst other things. The cinematography popped, the stunts were in a class of their own, and the opening title songs are for my money, the best of the series in consistency.

    Moore's Bond now holds a place in my heart not only as one of the most roguishly charming 007s right up there with Sean's, but also the most cultured of the lot. I love hearing his Bond go on and on about the cultures of the many places he's visiting, expounding his vast knowledge of everything from the best drinks and foods to extremely esoteric factoids that could only become known by a man who'd lived in up everywhere he went. And with Moore's Bond, you really do get the feeling of a man who has been everywhere and experienced all the treats the world had on offer. I'd love to see a Bond in our more modern age that shows off such knowledge every once in a while like Sean was known to do every once in a while and which Moore capitalized on during his era.

    Great post!

    I've always said if you can't enjoy a good Rogering, well, one way or the other, you're buggered.

    The Moore movies are about pure unadulterated enjoyment.

    And great tunes as well. Feel sorry for those who are unable to feel pleasure from Sir Rog. There must be something wrong with them as it's definitely not due to any inadequacy in the Roginator's performance.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    Hey I did the same thing, but having gone back I realised I really love Octopussy. Locations/Story the faberge egg. Louis Jourdan as Kamal in his collar jacket brings back memories of Dr No.

    I have gone back to all Bonds I love most first outings TLD, Goldeneye but apart from that I struggle with Brosnan and Dalton for all Rodgers faults he had real screen presence and delivered the whitty lines well. Brosnan and Dalton seemed to be trying to be too serious to distance from what Moores Bond had become. But after watching each film on a cycle every Friday night for two years. Connery and Craig keep me hooked, they can be whitty, they have incredible screen presence, they both walk like Panthers and ooze Bond Swagger.

    Only Connery walks like a panther. I love DC, but he isn't even close to the
    natural virility of Connery.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 1,596
    Indeed. Craig is great, but Connery will always be Bond. His screen presence in those first four films is towering. He destroys the other actors in terms of swagger, charisma, and the ability to mix suave charm with lethality.

    I know I'm always quick to defend certain Bond actors, or Bond films, and I don't often talk about Connery. As much as I love other actors, though, it's really not even close as to who I'd pick for #1. I suppose, thank God, most people appreciate him as much as I do so I don't feel the need to come to his defense.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    Indeed. Craig is great, but Connery will always be Bond. His screen presence in those first four films is towering. He destroys the other actors in terms of swagger, charisma, and the ability to mix suave charm with lethality.

    I know I'm always quick to defend certain Bond actors, or Bond films, and I don't often talk about Connery. As much as I love other actors, though, it's really not even close as to who I'd pick for #1. I suppose, thank God, most people appreciate him as much as I do so I don't feel the need to come to his defense.

    It's impossible to compare Connery and Craig.

    Connery is an icon, a knight, the man who put Bond on the map. He was perfect for the times.

    Craig is the skilled thespian, the physical specimen, the multi-dimensional Bond. He is perfect for the times.

  • Posts: 1,596
    Why is it impossible to compare them? I have and I do compare them, and I find Connery the superior Bond. They've both played the same on screen role, which means they are very easy to compare - hardly "impossible."

    Craig is a great actor, and a great Bond as well. I'm not denying that.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    QoS is the underrated gem that LTK used to be. When people look back on Craig's six film tenure they will think more favourably of Craig's second outing.
    3:-O

    Yep!
  • Posts: 12,523
    I think so far Craig's had an amazing run - CR is my favorite Bond film ever, I enjoy most of QoS (at least a Top 15 entry for me), and SF is my second favorite Bond film. Both QoS and LTK are great, gritty Bond films imo; definitely two of the most underrated by the general public.
  • Posts: 1,596
    Most everyone I talk to enjoys LTK quite a bit. QOS, not so much, but I have a few movie loving friends who defend it arduously. And then others who join me in criticizing it.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Daniel Craig is aging very well. He's not gonna be the grandpa bond
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I think DC has an advantage over someone like PB, or RM, or even SC, because he was never chosen for his looks, and he has always looked somewhat aged from the start (only a good haircut saves him imho - which is what they did so well in CR & QoS but not so well in SF).

    So even if he ages further, it won't be such a big deal. He had lines on his face and looked scraggly imho all the way back in 2005 when he was introduced on the boat with long hair. So what's a few more lines or creases?

    Age affects someone like PB or RM much more because they started with such model looks (in fact, I thought PB aged dramatically between GE, when he looked like a kid with the long hair, and TND. We know RM aged dramatically during his tenure - he started off looking like a kid too in LALD, and ended like a senior citizen in AVTAK).
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 7,507
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think DC has an advantage over someone like PB, or RM, or even SC, because he was never chosen for his looks, and he has always looked somewhat aged from the start (only a good haircut saves him imho - which is what they did so well in CR & QoS but not so well in SF).

    So even if he ages further, it won't be such a big deal. He had lines on his face and looked scraggly imho all the way back in 2005 when he was introduced on the boat with long hair. So what's a few more lines or creases?

    Age affects someone like PB or RM much more because they started with such model looks (in fact, I thought PB aged dramatically between GE, when he looked like a kid with the long hair, and TND. We know RM aged dramatically during his tenure - he started off looking like a kid too in LALD, and ended like a senior citizen in AVTAK).


    Connery aged quite dramatically too in those nine years from DN to DAF. His looks in those films are hardly comparable. Daniel Craigs aging in the same nine year span from CR to Spectre production is significantly better. He looks almost as good to me now as he did in Casino. Brosnans aging in the seven years from 95 to 02, is also far more dramatic if you ask me. And another factor in Craigs favor is that he at least has kept himself very much in shape physically. Le Chiffre was very correct in his compliments of Craigs fitness...

    One could speculate that Craigs aging might be a problem come 2020 and a possible sixth film… if you really feel the need too… but it only boils down to speculation. And his aging is definitely no problem as of now.
  • Posts: 11,425
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I don't see DC looking old. Looks fine to me.

    Whenever people say this I can't tell if they're serious. Keep in mind, I'm a really big fan of him in the role, so I'm not bashing him, but Craig looks old. You're not allowed to use that airbrushed-to-death teaser poster either.

    His well worn face has always made the dude look older than he actually is. He's got that craggy, lined face, and he's getting that gobble gobble chin that comes once one hits age 50, regardless of physical shape. He aged tremendously between QOS and SF, but he looks like he's plateau'd a bit. Doesn't look much older now than he did when SF was released.

    Well said, and I totally agree. What planet are people on who claim he hasn't aged? Even @Germanlady, who is officially DC's biggest fan (ever) acknowledges that he's aged.

    I think it's shame we had such a long gap between QoS and SF. And I also think it's a shame SF played on DC's age, when we should have been getting a full-on Bond at his prime movie. If they wanted to address Bond's age, there's an obvious time and place to do that - in DC's last movie.

    Any way, I think DC's looking much better in SP than he was in SF (which is obviously deliberate), but he's aged massively since CR and QoS. I'm expecting he'll do one more after SP and that'll be it. 5 is a good innings. He could have made it 6 if we hadn't had the nonsense around the delays. If he does make a 6 (which is far from being impossible), then that would be a good time to really play on the ageing Bond thing.
  • Posts: 1,596
    @Getafix Yeah, I think most of us wish we got another Bond film in 2010 before they went with the "old dog, new tricks" theme. However, I actually think SF made that work, because it ended up with a veteran, yet rejuvenated, Bond ready for more adventures with the new MI6 staff.

    But yeah, would love it if they'd get back to a 2-year release schedule.
  • Posts: 11,425
    @Getafix Yeah, I think most of us wish we got another Bond film in 2010 before they went with the "old dog, new tricks" theme. However, I actually think SF made that work, because it ended up with a veteran, yet rejuvenated, Bond ready for more adventures with the new MI6 staff.

    But yeah, would love it if they'd get back to a 2-year release schedule.

    I'm reasonably happy with a 3 year schedule. Seems more realistic. But 2 would be great. Don't want 4 years though - that's way too long.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    Skyfall would have been 100% fantastic if it were more of a short film alongside a more traditionally structured Bond film. My biggest complaint about it is that it's too much a 50th Anniversary Tribute film rather than just an objective entry into the franchise. Having said that I still think it's brilliant.

    This is the wrong thread, I realize. Just a reaction to @ThighsOfXenia's post.
  • Posts: 1,596
    I personally think it works well as "another entry into the franchise" as well as a "50th Anniversary tribute film," but that's just my opinion of course. @NickTwentyTwo

    As for being off-topic, we're still discussing Craig and this is an extension of a conversation concerning QOS (which, as much as everyone loves talking about it, will be the focus again very soon) so I don't think we've been too naughty.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    As others have noted before, if Bond discovered goons in that underwater lake that he had to take out, along with a bit of a temporary base of operations, that would have made it a PERFECT movie.
    There, back on topic.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    That's totally fair, I think it's just me selfishly wanting more Bond than what's reasonable! I certainly think, personally, that it stands up with the best of the films in the franchise.
    QoS, IMO, had some incredible set pieces. The hotel, the aircraft dogfighting, the walk through the desert, Perla das la Dunas (SP?) I thought were all brilliant to look at.
  • Posts: 1,394
    chrisisall wrote: »
    QoS is the underrated gem that LTK used to be. When people look back on Craig's six film tenure they will think more favourably of Craig's second outing.
    3:-O

    Yep!

    Nope!

  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    As others have noted before, if Bond discovered goons in that underwater lake that he had to take out, along with a bit of a temporary base of operations, that would have made it a PERFECT movie.
    There, back on topic.

    Yes, I thought that from the first time I saw it in the cinema. When they parachute down into the underground cavern, there should have been goons driving dumper trucks etc - and the film should have ended with those underground reservoirs being blown up and the water gushing back out into the surrounding villages.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    Getafix wrote: »
    should have ended with those underground reservoirs being blown up and the water gushing back out into the surrounding villages.
    Yes. Then the snowy coda.
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    should have ended with those underground reservoirs being blown up and the water gushing back out into the surrounding villages.
    Yes. Then the snowy coda.

    Yes, that would have been fine. And then Bond bedding Camille! ;)
  • Posts: 7,507
    Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    As others have noted before, if Bond discovered goons in that underwater lake that he had to take out, along with a bit of a temporary base of operations, that would have made it a PERFECT movie.
    There, back on topic.

    Yes, I thought that from the first time I saw it in the cinema. When they parachute down into the underground cavern, there should have been goons driving dumper trucks etc - and the film should have ended with those underground reservoirs being blown up and the water gushing back out into the surrounding villages.

    Wow, I think even Tamahori would have been proud of such cheesy outlandishness! ;))
Sign In or Register to comment.