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

12021232526190

Comments

  • Posts: 5,745
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Whether he was pushed or jumped, the fact remains it was for the good of the series
    It's not a fact just because you say it is.

    Actually, financially it is a fact. :P
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 401
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Whether he was pushed or jumped, the fact remains it was for the good of the series
    It's not a fact just because you say it is.

    Actually, financially it is a fact. :P
    And artistically it isn't at all. Why the hell do you care how much it makes? You're not getting any of that money. I care about what kind of film I'm getting, not how much money it makes.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Whether he was pushed or jumped, the fact remains it was for the good of the series
    It's not a fact just because you say it is.

    Actually, financially it is a fact. :P
    And artistically it isn't at all. Why the hell do you care how much it makes? You're not getting any of that money. I care about what kind of film I'm getting, not how much money it makes.

    Calm down, did I say I care? I was just saying it is a fact that they've made more sense. And.. actually.. more money in their hands means more money towards the next film.. so it is good for me (as long as I like the current films, which I do)
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 5,634
    I'll rephrase it and add it was 'for the good of me as a James Bond enthusiast'

    That's better if not more appropriate

    Ok, Craig was not the finished article in Casino Royale, why I even took issue with hair colors and eyes and physique, but looking past that, and we have to eventually, in the part of the James Bond role it was like a return to Connery early days or Dalton even, but Craig still has some way to go to even match those names, one decent outing doesn't provide you with great status
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 030</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Whatever the reason to let Brosnan go after DAD, he still had at least one more Bond film in him.</b></font>

    I'm still mourning the fact that Dalton had at least 2 more Bond films in him but was denied that opportunity.

    Unlike many, I actually liked Brosnan best as the older, more haggard Bond in DAD. However, 4 with him was plenty.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Just out of interest what does make DAD better than Royale?
    John Cleese is in it as Q. Other than that, not much. I also like the Ice Palace as a setting.

    So breathtakingly groundbreaking.... 8-|
    Because Casino Royale wasn't just following in Batman's footsteps with the "gritty reboot" idea or anything. James Bond hasn't been trendsetting since the 1960's.

    Oh please. We'll compare Bourne to Bond all day, but now we're throwing Batman into the mix to try and fail at servicing an opinion on CR. You may not like CR, but at least it made advances in the character of Bond instead of having years of ruined potential that was the Brosnan era, culminating in a final shotgun in the mouth suicide in the form of DAD. Some don't like a serious Bond, and that's fine, but the times we are in demand it. People praise Sean's films only to hate on Dan's, when Dan's era is a throwback to Sean, the closest we've had since Tim left. CR and QoS explore Bond and his physical and emotional pain, while DAD had a chance to toy with Bond psychologically affected by his 14 months of torture that he should have been able to escape from anyway! The film had the chance to see Bond freeze up on the job from his impaired psyche, but no no no. The Brosnan era never branched out or took risks up until then, so why bloody start now?!

    I don't buy this idea Craig is a throwback to Connery. He is very different. People forget how much humour there was in the Connery films. There's a misconception that Sean was 'serious' and Roger was a clown, but the differences weren't as great as people make out. Certainly they upped the camp quota for Roger but it was already well established in the series. Craig's Bond lacks the ease, grace and wit of Connery's Bond. I can't totally work out yet if that's deliberate - like they want to portray him as a diamond in the rough - but I sincerely hope that Craig's Bond gets to grow up in Skyfall. He needs to leave M(ummy) at home and get out there, get laid, and kick some evil a**.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I'm sure Brosnan could have made another without his age being too much of an issue, whether the film would have been any good or not is another story!

    I have always found it quite amusing though that Brosnan thought his leaving the series would always be in his control, he would always mention in interviews that Roger made one too many and that he would no when to stand down etc, funny how things turn out!
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Give me Roger's 'one too many' any day over DUD.
  • Posts: 4,762
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 030</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Whatever the reason to let Brosnan go after DAD, he still had at least one more Bond film in him.</b></font>

    Oh indeed definitely! I'd say TWO more! Moore was 58 by AVTAK, and Brosnan was, if I remember correctly, 50 by DAD, so if he had gone the way of Roger Moore, we would have had him until 2010! That would have been really awesome! I'd say let him do Nightfire and Everything or Nothing as his last two. Even if NF had its roots set in YOLT and MR, let's face it, Nightfire is both of those movies done right!
  • Dr_Metz wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Whether he was pushed or jumped, the fact remains it was for the good of the series
    It's not a fact just because you say it is.

    Actually, financially it is a fact. :P
    And artistically it isn't at all. Why the hell do you care how much it makes? You're not getting any of that money. I care about what kind of film I'm getting, not how much money it makes.

    Artistically it's also a fact. CR was better recieved than GE and miles ahead of TND, TWINE, and DAD. I know you're gonna say we don't know what we're talking about and you do but majority rules in this case. Craig's films are regarded as being better.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 031</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>'Surrender' should have replaced Crow's Tomorrow Never Dies for the OT.</b></font>
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    I sense I'm going to be in the minority on this one, but I preferred Crow's Tomorrow Never Dies. It felt more original.
  • I agree. Surrender was much better.
  • Posts: 1,407
    Crow's song wasn't terrible. But Surrender was by far the better song. But I feel that this would be more of a debate if a MUCH worse song was chosen instead. But again. Crow's song isn't terrible, it's just not as good as Surrender
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited February 2012 Posts: 28,694
    YES! 'Surrender' any day over that droll, lifeless, and melancholy Crow led crap storm.
  • Posts: 1,310
    I've always thought Sheryl Crow's theme wasn't too bad. But 'Surrender' is the better song for sure and should have been picked instead.
  • Posts: 1,856
    TND is given more slack then needed. While surrender is a good song I don't think it's title song material.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I have always quite liked TND by Sheryl Crow, looking at it now it's probably the last half decent theme song in the series for quite some time?
  • Posts: 11,189
    SJK91 wrote:
    I've always thought Sheryl Crow's theme wasn't too bad. But 'Surrender' is the better song for sure and should have been picked instead.

    Pretty much my thoughts. Sheryl Crow's is ok but Surrender is far better.
  • Posts: 5,745
    I don't believe it suited Brosnan's Bond, nor the film well, but it definitely had a higher quality than the Crow song.

    It has the classic Connery sound.. and would suit the Craig storyline better, what with the intensity of the song.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Thesis 30, 31

    Yes and yes!

    TND is a strong song, but Crow was the wrong singer.
  • Posts: 11,425
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 031</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>'Surrender' should have replaced Crow's Tomorrow Never Dies for the OT.</b></font>

    100% agree. Surrender is a quality tune. TND is by far Brozza's best film and if they'd included this song at the start I might actually have rated it as 'not bad'.
  • Posts: 940
    Yes, agree. I rate it highly.

    Bond themes should be about the song sounding right, not the name of the artist.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Yes, it's one of the best Bond songs written. What a waste to not have this for the film's title sequence. Yet EON said no due to it being Lang - stupid move and one of many made with Tomorrow Never Dies.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Surrender was a fantastic song which was a missed opportunity IMO. I read that the alleged reason for it not being the title song was? That it was not long enough for the credits?!!! Which i find incredible?

    A real shame! For some reason its like they crave a number one musical hit for Bond? Why? He is the number one film hero! Lets just get the best song for Bond instead of the artiste!
  • edited February 2012 Posts: 940
    RogueAgent wrote:
    I read that the alleged reason for it not being the title song was? That it was not long enough for the credits?!!! Which i find incredible?

    I think it was more to do with them wanting to attract a bigger, more commercially attractive artist. Not the right decision though.

    Edit- I guess the comment you made was in reference to the 'reason' they gave us.

  • Posts: 12,526
    probablt was? But fully agree that it was a mistake to not go with Surrender for the title song.
  • Posts: 940
    This is what it would have been like. Much better.



  • Posts: 12,526
    slyfox wrote:
    This is what it would have been like. Much better.



    Great work Slyfox, watching them credits to that piece of music so took me back to 1997 with a smile on my face! Thank you!
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 031</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>'Surrender' should have replaced Crow's Tomorrow Never Dies for the OT.</b></font>

    This is like saying Oliver Hardy should of replaced Orson Welles in The Third Man :-<

    Crow gave us one of the last truly fine (main) Bond themes amid some other garbage crap entries since that time, and with Kleinman's title designs also adding some enjoyment it all adds up to an entertaining intro. More often than not as soon as the film ends I just switch off and Lang doesn't even get a look in, never really enjoyed it. Crow has the best music here by a long chalk and deserves her place as the main theme artist
Sign In or Register to comment.