BOND POLLS 2017: Craig stays or leaves? Choose one of the four options [RESULTS, page 12]

17891012

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.
    I'm not worried about C impacting the Bond franchise. It's a very unique entity (even though EON has been trying to lessen its uniqueness with this 'direct continuity timeline' stuff which I object to) with significant brand retention 'stickiness'. As I've said countless times before, it's all about execution. Keep the stories standalone (with loose continuity) and focus on making the best film you can, with a decent plot, a credible threat, and intense suspense, glamour, inimitable British style and class. That's the winning ticket. Bond has to find its niche and it has to be one that the competitors cannot touch. They need to dig deep and find out what that is (I hope they are doing that right now).

    Renner in Bourne and Affleck as Bat failed because they were very poorly executed. Renner is no Damon and anyone with half a brain should have realized that. He's really more of an ensemble guy. He can't carry an action film.

    Affleck is a bit overrated as an actor imho. He seems to be better behind the scenes. Having said that he also followed Nolan and Bale, which meant he was doomed from the get-go.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job, but you wrap all of the DC universe on Batman. All of that had nothing to do with Ben, which you seemed to be making a comparison to. He's one of the only reasons folks have any interest in what DC are doing, where if they wait out long enough they'll get more Batman films from his universe.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!
    I think your concern is valid but it hinges on how revolutionary one (including the general public) finds the Craig era. Is it comparable to Nolan and Bale's work with the Bat, or Bourne (which was a Damon creation as much as it was a Greengrass/Liman one)? I really don't think so. Others may differ on this opinion.

    Bond is Bond. It has a 50+ year consistent history & heritage. The choices aren't just Craig era vs. Brosnan era only. There is all that came before too. Bond is bigger than Craig or Brosnan and can easily survive option C), as long as EON invests completely.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If Bond is bigger than the actor, then the actor in a Bourne vehicle must be minuscule in comparison. Even when Matt came back they couldn't save that ship, and hopefully they've learned to leave things alone with that series, as the protagonist is far too limited and tedious to build a franchise around anyway. Even three movies was pushing it, frankly.

    Some say the Craig era is built up too much or given too much credit, but I think the same is true for Bourne then. Interesting films, at times, sure. But not my definition of game-changing that will constantly be remembered. The formula they were working from was stale in just five year's time, and they couldn't replicate it even when given years to do something interesting.

    Nolan's influence will be argued not to be anything by some, as this forum is full of people who don't like him, but at the very least he deserves credit for helping to present one of the only good villains in modern filmmaking and influencing so much of what came immediately after through just one movie in 2008. That's revolutionary, on the grand scale.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The point is there was never continuity or a Bond 'universe' previously. You can watch any of the earlier eras in any order and it makes bugger all difference. And this why Bond has seen off other alleged 'competition'. Once you start telling a story over several films you inevitably come to the end of that story at some point.

    By getting on board the concept of a 'universe' and linked stories EON have made a rod for their own backs. It's fine for the Dark Knight trilogy or Bourne trilogy but those sets of films were self contained narratives. The problem stems with trying to carry on a story that has finished, such as with Bourne. Legacy was a lame film anyway but smacked of desperation (and wasn't helped that Renner is about as charismatic a leading man as Rory Kinnear) and Jason Bourne really had no reason to exist because the story had been concluded.

    The big mistake of the Craig era was making QOS a sequel. That was like putting out to sea with no binoculars and not enough lifeboats. But even then they seemed to have got away with it. The Vesper arc had been completed and SF was business as usual. But of course once you cross the line and set the conditions for disaster with QOS don't be surprised when you hit an iceberg with SP and go down with all hands.

    And here we all are dying of hypothermia in the middle of the Atlantic.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Bourne was revolutionary in 2002. It changed the game for the genre (and most notably, for Bond). However it was associated completely with Damon, just as Mission Impossible is with Cruise at present. Jason Bourne didn't do well because it didn't move the needle. It was just a rehash of the past. They needed to do more after being away for so long, and they didn't. I disagree that they can't move forward. There are many ways to take the Bourne franchise forward, but they need to be fully invested in it. They're not, and Damon is getting older. They will need to reboot if they are to go forward. Perhaps it's best to just let it lie, unless they adapt the novels.

    Bond transcended the actor 44 years ago when Moore made LALD a global success. Bond is the story. Not the actor.

    That's the difference.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Bourne was revolutionary in 2002. It changed the game for the genre (and most notably, for Bond). However it was associated completely with Damon, just as Mission Impossible is with Cruise at present. Jason Bourne didn't do well because it didn't move the needle. It was just a rehash of the past. They needed to do more after being away for so long, and they didn't. I disagree that they can't move forward. There are many ways to take the Bourne franchise forward, but they need to be fully invested in it. They're not, and Damon is getting older. They will need to reboot if they are to go forward. Perhaps it's best to just let it lie, unless they adapt the novels.

    Bond transcended the actor 44 years ago when Moore made LALD a global success. Bond is the story. Not the actor.

    That's the difference.

    True, although you tend to forget one thing. For the Bond franchise it was equally difficult to sell the '2nd actor playing the lead role. George Lazenby wasn't accepted by the big audiences and people didn't buy Bond without Connery in the late 1960's. So inevitably the Bond franchise did have its own precarious moment when Bond didn't transcend the actor...yet.

    Makes me very curious though what will happen when Cruise leaves the role in M:I :-). Because the 2nd actor playing the leading role in that franchise....will have the weight of the world on his shoulders.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The point is there was never continuity or a Bond 'universe' previously. You can watch any of the earlier eras in any order and it makes bugger all difference. And this why Bond has seen off other alleged 'competition'. Once you start telling a story over several films you inevitably come to the end of that story at some point.

    By getting on board the concept of a 'universe' and linked stories EON have made a rod for their own backs. It's fine for the Dark Knight trilogy or Bourne trilogy but those sets of films were self contained narratives. The problem stems with trying to carry on a story that has finished, such as with Bourne. Legacy was a lame film anyway but smacked of desperation (and wasn't helped that Renner is about as charismatic a leading man as Rory Kinnear) and Jason Bourne really had no reason to exist because the story had been concluded.

    The big mistake of the Craig era was making QOS a sequel. That was like putting out to sea with no binoculars and not enough lifeboats. But even then they seemed to have got away with it. The Vesper arc had been completed and SF was business as usual. But of course once you cross the line and set the conditions for disaster with QOS don't be surprised when you hit an iceberg with SP and go down with all hands.

    And here we all are dying of hypothermia in the middle of the Atlantic.
    I agree with you. There was 'loose' continuity but it wasn't essential to bone up on a prior entry before watching a more recent one. Yes, QoS was the mistake in retrospect. Bond was Bond at the end of CR and they should have moved forward with a standalone from there, rather than making a whole film which essentially raped The Bourne Supremacy 'solace' arc.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?

    I think I explained it quite well.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    That's a shame. They're great films but I'd hate being forced to watch all of them in a row every single time I was in the mood for one of them. Sometimes it's great just to pop in GF or YOLT and unwind.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,757
    Given the choices, A. And for the remaining options with strict clarifiers, I'd go back to A.
    I'm ready for all the possibilities, but it makes sense to keep Craig and not ignore what just happened in SPECTRE. And I'd prefer the same cast return as M, Moneypenny, and Q with the next Bond actor. Maybe two.

    Me, I can watch the new films in any order similar to the first 20. They stand on their own perfectly fine, and how the last film "fits" with Craig's first is also good for me. And it's easy to see the same Bond character through all the films, both timelines, all actors. Meaning it's Bond, the Casino Royale story establishes the character, so every Bond from Connery to Craig has that built in whether or not it was shown with them on screen.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?

    I think I explained it quite well.

    If you leave out OHMSS, that is.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    That's a shame. They're great films but I'd hate being forced to watch all of them in a row every single time I was in the mood for one of them. Sometimes it's great just to pop in GF or YOLT and unwind.

    I wouldn't say it's a shame, they are just strengthened when experienced together, and it's always a great excuse to watch them over again. Watching Dr. No and having Bond's murder of the villain being the thing that drives the plot of From Russia with Love has more immediate power when you're watched the first movie ahead of it to get that fresh context. In much the same token it's thrilling to watch how Bond increasingly sets off Blofeld and SPECTRE's associates from Thunderball to Diamonds Are Forever with his antics, a feeling you can't get if you randomly pop one in. Their connectivity is a greater strength for the experience than not, for me.
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?

    I think I explained it quite well.

    If you leave out OHMSS, that is.

    That isn't even that script's biggest act of logic gymnastics, but you're right.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    I'm sure it definitely benefits from watching them straight through, but it's not that pivotal that I'd need to do so every time. It's the same thing with CR/QoS - makes for a great double bill, but I can just as easily watch them solo.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm sure it definitely benefits from watching them straight through, but it's not that pivotal that I'd need to do so every time. It's the same thing with CR/QoS - makes for a great double bill, but I can just as easily watch them solo.

    If we don't watch them all 24 (26) in a row, we're all gonna DIE :-D!

    Just kidding....
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm sure it definitely benefits from watching them straight through, but it's not that pivotal that I'd need to do so every time. It's the same thing with CR/QoS - makes for a great double bill, but I can just as easily watch them solo.

    You are a better man than I, @Creasy47. But I'm also the type of person that doesn't watch my favorite films all the time; I like to savor them, and watching the 60s films or Craig films in a marathon every year or so is a great way to revisit them without staling their impact.

    I don't want to turn into poor @Birdleson. ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm sure it definitely benefits from watching them straight through, but it's not that pivotal that I'd need to do so every time. It's the same thing with CR/QoS - makes for a great double bill, but I can just as easily watch them solo.

    You are a better man than I, @Creasy47. But I'm also the type of person that doesn't watch my favorite films all the time; I like to savor them, and watching the 60s films or Craig films in a marathon every year or so is a great way to revisit them without staling their impact.

    I don't want to turn into poor @Birdleson. ;)

    I'm the same way with a lot of my favorite films. It's only the Bond series that I'm terrible at "savoring" and watch any chance I get. Though to be fair, I've only seen one or two of them in the last six months. Starting up a Bondathon once I get this upgraded TV.
  • Posts: 7,401
    I also cant do this Bondathons as i like to savour watching them. Bank Holiday this weekend here in Ireland so i will most likely watch one. Preferably a Dalton!
    I also cant do that 'Bond comments while you watch' thread as i cant be stopping every other scene to write about it!.Too distracting!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I have a Bondathon every decade or so.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I go through the films every once a year or so, except for my favourites which I only watch very infrequently, as they are special experiences which must be relished and savoured.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.

    Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.

    Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    What s wrong with Watchmen?

    (Keep it under 10 000 words)

    One of the best adaptations of any genius comic book.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?

    I think I explained it quite well.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.

    Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.

    Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.

    No, that's I am Legend, right?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?

    I think I explained it quite well.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.

    Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.

    Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.

    No, that's I am Legend, right?

    That was really, really stupid.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.

    Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.

    Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.

    Obviously you haven't. Otherwise you might realize it yourself.
    In fact it's the multi layered storytelling in watchmen that makes it such a fantastic, almost humbling experience.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What s wrong with Watchmen?

    (Keep it under 10 000 words)

    One of the best adaptations of any genius comic book.

    It's fine, and I enjoy it. But film of the century? A pretty bizarre and hilarious comment to make when we're not even two decades in and better films by more talented people have been made.

    Most of the glory of Watchmen I give to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Snyder did fine, and in fact changed some things that work better than in the book, but the original source will always be the most rich and interesting, as it must be.
    I don't know about other fans, but I can never watch the 60s films separately, except for maybe Goldfinger, because they are connected. From Russia with Love is a sequel to Dr. No, and continuity is kept from the SPECTRE arc from Thunderball through to Diamonds. If I don't watch them in order it feels criminal, even more so if I watch You Only Live Twice and watch an earlier film after. You just can't do it; it's madness.

    Eh?

    I think I explained it quite well.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.

    Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.

    Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.

    No, that's I am Legend, right?

    @Mendes4Lyfe, I assume this is another moment where you're trying to be both cheeky and clever? I think you're going to need a bit more practice yet, mate. A lot more. You're not going to stop folks like me from making you and Turner the butt of a lot more jokes with sorry attempts like that. ;)

    You'd be better off trying to "retort" me with a film I've actually given high kudos to, rather than I Am Legend. I love the movie and think it has a lot to offer and teach, but I don't think any film at this point is worthy of being called the film of the anything, and certainly not century. I think we've got a few too many pseudo-Eberts around here.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't remember how I voted back then, but I'd go for C today.

    I know. you've been pretty clear about the C-option all along;-). And let's face..that might still happen. Nothing has been confirmed yet by EON with regard to Daniel Craig.

    My biggest worry with option C, especially with regard to the long production gaps (3 to 4 years)? That the Bond franchise slowly will become less recognizable, less of the market leader and trendsetter within the spy-/action genre. I think a reboot is very risky. We know what happened to the Batman-franchise when Ben Affleck became Batman/Bruce Wayne and when Jeremy Renner got the lead part in the Bourne franchise. In the latter case it actually hurt the Bourne-franchise severely.

    @Gustav_Graves, Affleck is actually one of the few things people seem excited about when it comes to the DC films. The reason there was an outcry when he stepped down to direct was because they really wanted to see his vision. Folks like me don't like this Batman for how the character has been written, but even I will readily admit that for who this Batman is, Ben played quite well. I've never heard massive criticism or even minor criticism, and when reviews came out it was a common practice to read, "this movie was garbage, but I liked Ben and Wonder Woman."

    The Bourne comparison really doesn't make sense to make. Renner wasn't rebooted as Bourne, nor was the series reset to appear unconnected to the first three. The continuity was quite clear. The problem with that movie wasn't Renner or the choice to do a Bourne-less film, it was because the film was limp, hollow, and injected a super serum into what was a grounded spy thriller series. If the execution was up to snuff maybe it would've soared higher, though they shouldn't have tried in the first place if that's all they could do.

    I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.

    I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.

    Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.

    I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!

    The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job ....

    I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.

    Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.

    Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.

    Obviously you haven't. Otherwise you might realize it yourself.
    In fact it's the multi layered storytelling in watchmen that makes it such a fantastic, almost humbling experience.

    It's alright, sure. And had the rich tapestry of Moore and Gibbons to pull from. I'd give the film more points if it was original, but I would expect Snyder to at least make a serviceable film from such an ample source of storytelling as the comic.

    But I don't intend to turn this into another dick measuring contest, especially over something like Watchmen which is a hill I'm indifferent about dying on.
Sign In or Register to comment.