›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…100101103105106…190

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 155</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The theory that James Bond is not a man but a code destroys our adoration for Fleming's spy.</b></font>

    Agreed 1000%. A theory conjured up by ignorant minds who can't simply accept that the timeline simply fluctuates and morphs.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    @Volante: you said it, sir!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Fully agree. A completely unsupported theory that has no credence in the Bond world. It is only something for trolls to use and get a rise out of their audience. Anyone that thinks this is true hasn't seen the films and more importantly doesn't understand what Fleming intended with his creation.
  • marymossmarymoss
    edited September 2012 Posts: 176
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 155</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The theory that James Bond is not a man but a code destroys our adoration for Fleming's spy.</b></font>

    I disagree. I like the code name idea. I know it's not true. Officially, I just think of each new actor as rebooting the series. However, in my own mind, I like the idea of Roger M's Bond working under two different M's or Bernard Lee's M working with three different Bond's. It brings a continuity to the MI6 that I find appealing. Plus, it accounts for the Bonds having different personaities.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    AGREE!!!!!!!!!!! Enough said really!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited September 2012 Posts: 14,568
    Agreed. Also, I doubt his wife Tracy would have wanted a code for her last name. Besides, why would he need a codename when he can just introduce himself to supervillains using his real name- and still get the upper hand? This is part of what makes Bond so cool.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    I feel this theory is nothing but a sad trick to satisfy continuity buffs. It's a way of introducing continuity in a series that hardly values one.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I feel this theory is nothing but a sad trick to satisfy continuity buffs. It's a way of introducing continuity in a series that hardly values one.

    Exactly this!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I feel this theory is nothing but a sad trick to satisfy continuity buffs. It's a way of introducing continuity in a series that hardly values one.

    Bingo.

    I feel that QoS' justification of an Italian actor playing a Frenchman by putting in a reference to his "code name" was just unnecessary. They stripped down everything else including "Bond, James Bond" and left in this gobbledeegook?
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    The biggest argument against the code name is the Young Bond offical prequels! It's a stupid suggestion that people without the ability to see continuity. So I agree!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    echo wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I feel this theory is nothing but a sad trick to satisfy continuity buffs. It's a way of introducing continuity in a series that hardly values one.

    Bingo.

    I feel that QoS' justification of an Italian actor playing a Frenchman by putting in a reference to his "code name" was just unnecessary. They stripped down everything else including "Bond, James Bond" and left in this gobbledeegook?

    EXACTLY! @echo

    Why did we need that horse bugger? Mathis was a perfectly satisfying character until they de-fleming-inized him entirely by smoking up this code name stuff right before the character dies! This doesn't serve the story at all anymore. At this point it's nothing but redundant confusion. Killing off Mathis was a move I struggled with at first but could learn to accept. However, now I'm left with questions. Am I supposed to like this character? How true was his 'friendship' with Bond? Who were his people? ...
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited September 2012 Posts: 13,355
    The best part is we'll never know. No reason given to us would ever be good enough anyway.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 155</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The theory that James Bond is not a man but a code destroys our adoration for Fleming's spy.</b></font>

    Agreed 1000%. A theory conjured up by ignorant minds who can't simply accept that the timeline simply fluctuates and morphs.

    Absoutely spot on. Its a retarded idea dreamed up to cater for the most cretinous members of the public who are incapable of divorcing an actor from a character.

    As far as I'm concerned Maibaum came up with it in brainstorming session in OHMSS pre production and Cubby and Harry quickly decided if was utter bullsh*t and thats it.

    The very fact that Tamahori voiced his support for the theory in 02 should be enough to tell you that if you subscribe to it you are an utter moron.

    I dont even know why we are still discussing it - next thesis please.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    Agree. That nonsense doesn't even deserve the rank of "theory", even if the timeline of the movies is a little messy.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    At the time of OHMSS EON were going to rationalize Bond's actor change with him getting plastic surgery. I would take THAT over this dumbfounded theory.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited September 2012 Posts: 14,568
    Not to mention grafting in an Aussie sounding voice box.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    DarthDimi wrote:
    echo wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I feel this theory is nothing but a sad trick to satisfy continuity buffs. It's a way of introducing continuity in a series that hardly values one.

    Bingo.

    I feel that QoS' justification of an Italian actor playing a Frenchman by putting in a reference to his "code name" was just unnecessary. They stripped down everything else including "Bond, James Bond" and left in this gobbledeegook?

    EXACTLY! @echo

    Why did we need that horse bugger? Mathis was a perfectly satisfying character until they de-fleming-inized him entirely by smoking up this code name stuff right before the character dies! This doesn't serve the story at all anymore. At this point it's nothing but redundant confusion. Killing off Mathis was a move I struggled with at first but could learn to accept. However, now I'm left with questions. Am I supposed to like this character? How true was his 'friendship' with Bond? Who were his people? ...

    To be honest I don't really care for that line, I just don't take it seriously. Mathis is Mathis, codename or not, it doesn't matter. Bond is one person.

    Nobody ever questions why Biggles can be an air-ace in 1918 as well as in 1945. Nobody questions Buck Danny flying in WWII and in the eighties as well. Just because Bond, as a secret agent, has a number attached to him doesn't make his name a code either.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 156</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Brosnan should have been given his Casino Royale.</b></font>
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Agree. This way, CR isn't an origin story and not a reboot, which would be better imo, and Brosnan gets another film! \:D/

    Saying that though, I'm not sure why they decided to make CR an origin story in the first place. Craig was 38, bit old for a rookie, so it just seems pointless imo. @DarthDimi future thesis there maybe? CR didn't need to be a reboot/origin story?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I would have liked to see it but the trend of tougher, harder films, meant a change of lead may have been the only way for such a film to work. Brosnan seemed too attached to the Bond EON needed to get away from. No doubt though, Brosnan had another two in him and I would have quite liked to see them.
  • marymossmarymoss
    Posts: 176
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 156</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Brosnan should have been given his Casino Royale.</b></font>

    Agree wholeheartedly!! He definately had one more film in him. I don't like how he was so uncerimoniously dumped just because of his age. One last film as his swan song would have been nice.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Brosnan's time was up with DAD. To have gone with a 5th Brosnan film, would be the same if Connery had done LALD. I don't think CR should have been a reboot (imo Bond should not have been rebooted whatever the film) but I also don't think that Brosnan could have made any more Bond films.

    Thesis 156: Disagree
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    I agree but it should have been a sequel to GE. After DAD, Brosnan wouldn't have felt fit enough for a film like CR IMO.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    That's a tough one. I guess I'd agree he should have had a more serious effort to go out on than DAD, but at the same time 4 was enough to convince me another actor with a better grip on the character was needed. As far as actually getting CR, never, I'd disagree. He could have never nailed that considering he was struggling with the easier roles. Craig has twice his acting chops and an actor of that skill level was needed.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Disagree: Had they have kept PB? Then they would not have made CR? That movie would have been made like it was? With a recasting of the lead role.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Disagree, I would rather have seen Brosnan in his FYEO after DAD.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    SaintMark wrote:
    Disagree, I would rather have seen Brosnan in his FYEO after DAD.

    Wow, good point, @SaintMark! A mo(o)re down-to-earth plot, a human Bond rather than a superhuman Bond and a physically less demanding yet intellectually strong adversary? I can see where you are coming from. To be fair, I hadn't thought about it but now that you mention it, I can fly with it.

  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    SaintMark wrote:
    Disagree, I would rather have seen Brosnan in his FYEO after DAD.

    Good call - I was about to say the same thing! I would have loved a 5th Brosnan, but not CR
  • VolanteVolante
    Posts: 774
    I disagree, purely because CR is excellent as it is. Though it's a shame that Brosnan got such a poor send off in DAD, his time was up and we got one of the best Bond films in Craig's CR as a result.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    What? , Brosnan back for Casino Royale again?. Why can't people let this lie

    Thesis is as far off as Dinosaurs for me. In other words, I can't go along with it

    For the last time, Brosnan should of quit at the end of the last century on a high after the success of The World Is Not Enough. By 2002 had aged significantly for me, a bit like Connery and Moore towards the end of their respective tenures but maybe not quite so much. Craig was chosen in 2005, he did a great job in his debut, and would of had him every time in the part in retrospect, instead of if they had decided to stay with Brosnan and make what would of been an ill advised fifth release. Maybe I just can't look beyond that. If not Royale, then some other title, bottom line is, Brosnan was simply a bit too inappropriate for the part by a certain time, just as Connery was after '65 and Moore after '81
Sign In or Register to comment.