›

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

1…3940424445…190

Comments

  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Perhaps, but evolve too much and you'll lose part of the fanbase.

    That's what happens all the time really, people growing out of a favourite franchise or hobby, or simply becoming more casual about it. Trick is to not lose them entirely. And that Bond has managed remarkably well. Us old fans bitch and wail but we still go to see each new film. I've known fans who can't stop crying their eyes out how wrong they get Bond in the movies. But the same people not only come back to each new film, they even watch the flicks ad nauseam to better bitch and moan. Especially the films they don't like.

    No, fanbase is really its own hell, can't live with Bond films, can't live without them. Much harder is it to get the casual moviegoers to the theatres in the future. Lots of talk about first weekend BO and how that destines a flick's fate, hit or miss. See that John Carter film right now, already considered a flop. People demand something special, extraordinary if they are to spend their money at the cinema. Bond has to keep up with that to create a new experience with every flick. Without evolvement that's just not possible.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    WVPoef wrote:
    DaltonCraig007

    You will say anything to be controversial.
    Your like my 16 year old nephew arguing that sky is pink...

    If you think this is DC being controversial, you should participate in discussions about TMWTGG being the worst of the Bonds. ;-)

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    DarthDimi wrote:
    WVPoef wrote:
    DaltonCraig007

    You will say anything to be controversial.
    Your like my 16 year old nephew arguing that sky is pink...

    If you think this is DC being controversial, you should participate in discussions about TMWTGG being the worst of the Bonds. ;-)

    Don't get me started ! ;)
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited March 2012 Posts: 14,585
    THESIS 055- Darwinian theory: the Bond series has to evolve or it dies.

    Agree. It must adapt to its' environment or face extinction.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Yep. It always has and always will.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Agree. The decision to set each film in contemporary times and keep Bond basically ageless demands evolution. The end of the Cold War was a particular challenge for Bond; GE acknowledging that overtly was a wise move.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    Yes, Ever heard of Goldfinger,On Her Majesties Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, GoldenEye or Casino Royal?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 055</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Darwinian theory: the Bond series has to evolve or it dies.</b></font>

    Pretty obviously affirmative. If a series can change for either good or bad, it will at least get another reincarnation, another evolution. Stagnant projects grow old, and even negative change is still change, ie. Goodbye to Terence Young, The Moore era, Brosnan era's missed oppurtunities, no Laz in DAF, and so on. Positive changes pick it up and keep it above water and with public interest strong, ie. Terence Young at the helm, Sean's golden four, Tim brings back some Fleming to the series, Moore and Brosnan each bring in fans in large numbers respectively, Dan proves the press wrong. So, yes, Bond must evolve to survive, but one can say that of any film series. The series that adapted to the times lived on, while those who remained stagnant were but a fickle speck in cinema. Bond is the very portrait of adaptation, with the cultures of the world that are apparent in every decade that are strongly implemented in the films, ie. the clothing, the cars, the fear of Russia in the 60s, the pop culture names, and so forth.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    On thesis 54: I think it was a combination of things. A great story! An impressive debut for DC in my opinion and also the controversy around DC's appointment!

    On thesis 55: We all have to evolve to survive! Whether thats in the real world or fictional? In terms of Bond? Surely he has already proved this by us all about to celebrate 50 years of the movies!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Is die too strong a word though?, It's not like James Bond would perish if you will, if the series doesn't evolve as you put it. Not saying evolution in Bond is not the way forward, ideally it's appropriate and quite right if anything else. But if I really think about it, maybe if Bond was not to fully evolve, it would not necessarily be the death of the series at any given time. Put it another way - James Bond has to move with the times, Yes, that is true. But if it fails to do so I can't buy into the fact such a worst case scenario of 'end of Bond' would occur. Well that's how I feel about it
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    If the franchise didn't evolve and one day a new outing would be a massive flop at the box office, even that wouldn't put the franchise in danger as EON would simply change actor and/or change the direction of the franchise... IMO only a string of box office flops would kill Bond... and that only for a short/long period of time as after a few years the demand for a new film will rise again.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    I agree. All great things have to change with the times. Otherwise they get left behind.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Just think what the series would look like if all 23 films had been set in cold war sixties with Bond battling Spectre and Blofeld. Would that have been enough to keep it going half a century?
  • MrEonMrEon
    Posts: 278
    But will Eon end Bond and hang up his holster!?
    After DC is done, will BB & MGW feel that the series has gone far enough and finish on, lets say Bond 25!?? :-((
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,718
    MrEon wrote:
    But will Eon end Bond and hang up his holster!?
    After DC is done, will BB & MGW feel that the series has gone far enough and finish on, lets say Bond 25!?? :-((

    Not a chance !! With the amount of money each Bond film earn nowadays, there's no way EON or MGM/Sony would give up earning $500+ millions every 2 years. The demand it too high for them to end the franchise.

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I always wondered if this would ever happen once the 7th actor to play 007 was announced? But as DC says above! Its too much of a money spinner to stop! Which suits me and all of us on here just fine! :D
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    RogueAgent wrote:
    I always wondered if this would ever happen once the 7th actor to play 007 was announced? But as DC says above! Its too much of a money spinner to stop! Which suits me and all of us on here just fine! :D

    Agreed. If Craig were deemed unsuccessful, like Dalton's figures, I'm sure they'd end it with him. But considering they're making more money than God right now, I think they'll keep going. ESPECIALLY if they hook another big name like Fassbender, Cavill, etc.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2012 Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 056</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Dubbing Ursula's voice in DN was a good thing.</b></font>
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Agreed. It helped in understanding the dialogue, and when we get her in that bikini all is forgiven!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Agreed. I don't really have a problem with actors being dubbed. The only time it stuck out like a sore thumb was with Lazenby in OHMSS.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Agree. A heavy accent might have turned off early '60s audiences and then where would Bond be?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    They should have dubbed Eva Green too !!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    They should have dubbed Eva Green too !!

    Really? She's got a sexy voice.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,718
    BAIN123 wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    They should have dubbed Eva Green too !!

    Really? She's got a sexy voice.

    Not with that dodgy annoying accent she had in CR.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2012 Posts: 13,355
    Yes, it was the right move. Along with the dubbing of all the other girls in the first 11 films by Nicky van der Zyl.
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    They should have dubbed Eva Green too !!

    Really? She's got a sexy voice.

    Not with that dodgy annoying accent she had in CR.

    Quite true!
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 056</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Dubbing Ursula's voice in DN was a good thing.</b></font>

    Disagree. Even though she was accused of sounding like a "Dutch comic", I rather like her Swiss throaty voice which audiences got to hear the next year in "Four For Texas" and later in the 1967 CR spoof.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited March 2012 Posts: 12,837
    54- Agree but at the same time its important bond doesn't forget its roots and remembers to be a bond film. Don't go over the top with the change.

    55- Either voice would work fine.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Disagree, she looked and sounded sexier in CR'67.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Hmmmm, you know I'm ashamed to say I have no idea what Ursula actually sounds like! I've seen her in recent interviews but that hardly counts....
    I have not seen CR'67- she's not dubbed in that? I will have to finally sit down and watch it. I bet she has a hot accent!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I kind of go with the above, I've seen Casino Royale 1967 but viewings are very few and far between, for whatever reason Andress was voiced over, whenever you watch Dr No you never really notice it, but we spend so much time actually looking at Ryder we don't always tend to listen her speaking, concentrate merely on the appearance, she sounded fine, dubbed or not, it never really bothered me

    Sort of torn between thesis, it was neither necessary but I don't mind, so I'll say Yes this time
Sign In or Register to comment.