›

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

1…174175177179180…190

Comments

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Disagree. Kanaga's/Mr. Big's character was running a crime wave and drug operation throughout two countries. The man couldn't do it by himself.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    While Live and Let Die does not really rank too high for me, mainly because of its overwhelming 70s TV drama feel which has not aged well at all, I dont think my mind would have gone to "too many villainous characters". I mean, there is really only one villain per sé, Kananga, and I dont feel Rosie even qualifies as the requisite female villain. That leaves a handful of henchmen, principally Tee Hee, which is par for the course.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2015 Posts: 18,281
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think it has the strongest line-up of villains aside from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Not too many at all. I love it that every black person in the Universe, aside form two, are in on the conspiracy to get Bond.

    Yes, and they are individual characters who are much more interesting than that crowd of henchmen from SPECTRE we got in the previous films which became dull after a while.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    While Live and Let Die does not really rank too high for me, mainly because of its overwhelming 70s TV drama feel which has not aged well at all, I dont think my mind would have gone to "too many villainous characters". I mean, there is really only one villain per sé, Kananga, and I dont feel Rosie even qualifies as the requisite female villain. That leaves a handful of henchmen, principally Tee Hee, which is par for the course.

    What I love about LALD is that even small villains get shining moments and are distinctive from one another. Even in far superior Bond movies, too many henchmen become interchangeable, or merely a face in the background.
  • ChangChang
    Posts: 107
    Yaphet Kotto was the MVP of Live and Let Die. He made the movie.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    Disagree. All of the small villains have their own characteristics and get their moments. They're developed well. That film, From Russia With Love, and GoldenEye have the best villain ensembles.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    In fact, I think we need a proper "villain ensemble" Bond movie, where even minor villainous characters have their moment.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    In fact, I think we need a proper "villain ensemble" Bond movie, where even minor villainous characters have their moment.

    SPECTRE could be it, perhaps?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    In fact, I think we need a proper "villain ensemble" Bond movie, where even minor villainous characters have their moment.

    SPECTRE could be it, perhaps?

    Maybe. it certainly already has a number of villains played by actors with striking appearances, so that is a good sign.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2015 Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 319</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>So far, the Craig Bond has been rather monogamous.</b></font>
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    "Fairly monogamous". What an expression. Is that something you say to your wife?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Do you have another suggestion, @Thunderfinger? "Rather monogamous"?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Do you have another suggestion, @Thunderfinger? "Rather monogamous"?

    Yes, you can try that on her. Good luck, buddy.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2015 Posts: 24,183
    You're being difficult, @Thunderfinger. ;-)
    The whole point is that the Craig Bond was monogamous in some movies though not in all. Therefore: 'rather' monogamous. I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. :-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Hehe, why not call him "less polygamous" ?
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I'll move the discussion along.

    I would agree with the theory. When with Vesper, he didn't mess around. He's only been in very brief interludes before and since. But not during. Craig is unlike Lazenby, who set his schedules with angels while being involved with Tracy.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    I would agree, although it was more circumstantial than anything else.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Agree.

    A few dalliances here and there, but Craig seems relatively restrained compared to the others.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    Well, to be honest he's more like a serial monogamist.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Agree with the thesis mostly. CR was about Vesper, QOS was about revenge and their was only the Fields encounter, and Skyfall was Severine and the mystery woman when Bond was MIA.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Very true @Ludovico. As Dominic Greene said "Everything he (Craig) touches withers and dies".
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    agreed and his women all are rather forgetable too, but perhaps that is my personal taste.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    There's certainly been less emphasis on "bed hopping" in the Craig era but he's still been about a bit.

    1. CR - Solange and Vesper
    2. Fields
    3. Girl on beach and Severine

    So DISAGREE.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    I do think Craig's Bond is closer to the novels' Bond this way.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    There's certainly been less emphasis on "bed hopping" in the Craig era but he's still been about a bit.

    1. CR - Solange and Vesper
    2. Fields
    3. Girl on beach and Severine

    So DISAGREE.

    Doh!! I forgot about Solange!
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Turn in your man card.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    There have been standard numbers of girls, but the themes of the movies are different. the second half of CR (it really is like two mini-movies spliced together) was all about his love for Vesper, and while he did get with Fields in QoS, the loss of Vesper still hung over everything he did. By Skyfall, he was mostly back to normal, and SPECTRE (are we capitalizing that or not?) looks to continue the trend, although I've not read any spoilers.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    We wouldn't be questioning this if it wasn't for the 60s and 70s take on Bond when he seemed to sleep with every girl he met. In Roger's time the writers simply had Bond snog every woman he shared a scene with. It saved coming up with worthwhile dialogue.

    I would say that compared to my life (for example) Craig's Bond is doing ok. :-)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Kerim wrote: »
    Very true @Ludovico. As Dominic Greene said "Everything he (Craig) touches withers and dies".

    He is doing fine compared to the Cartwrights.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Well basically beeing monogamous means going for one partner during a certain time, right? in that case Craig has been completely monogamous (there you go @Thunders, he's as safe as can be). Solange died before he met Vesper, and so on and so forth. And then still, one uses those terms only when a relationship becomes serious, right? Or is that just my louzy standards?
Sign In or Register to comment.