Goldeneye vs. Casino Royale

00Beast

Agent007391 wrote:

Renard wasn't exactly a highlight of that film, either. And I just found Elektra to be annoying.

I liked both Renard and Elektra, and thought that they made a good duo in villainy. Elektra came up with the plan, and Renard carried it out without question, even costing himself his own life. The backstory kidnapping behind both of them was complex but provided a good explanation of where they stood during the events of TWINE.

DoubleOhhSeven

I just find it very telling that Brosnan was the only Bond not asked to come back. They offered a then ridiculously high sum of 2 million dollars to Connery to return for LALD but he refused. Lazenby, who was supposidly difficult to work with was still offered a 7 picture deal. Th Living Daylights was written with Moore in mind with the hopes that they could convince him to appear for an unprecedented 8th time at age 59. EON fought to get Dalton to star in GE at 51 but he himself resigned. And now supposidly EON wants Craig for 5 more films. See what I mean? EON doesn't like to constantly switch Bond actors. Once one is established they like to keep them for as long as possible. In Moore's case that even became a disadvantage. If they were willing to put up with an arrogant Lazenby for 14 more years just imagine how much Brosnan must've pissed them off to break their own trend and not ask an actor to return.

Getafix

DoubleOhhSeven wrote:

I just find it very telling that Brosnan was the only Bond not asked to come back. They offered a then ridiculously high sum of 2 million dollars to Connery to return for LALD but he refused. Lazenby, who was supposidly difficult to work with was still offered a 7 picture deal. Th Living Daylights was written with Moore in mind with the hopes that they could convince him to appear for an unprecedented 8th time at age 59. EON fought to get Dalton to star in GE at 51 but he himself resigned. And now supposidly EON wants Craig for 5 more films. See what I mean? EON doesn't like to constantly switch Bond actors. Once one is established they like to keep them for as long as possible. In Moore's case that even became a disadvantage. If they were willing to put up with an arrogant Lazenby for 14 more years just imagine how much Brosnan must've pissed them off to break their own trend and not ask an actor to return.

interesting observation. i hadn't realised brossa was more of a UA imposition than EON choice. he sucked but i guess he kept the show on the road. the 90s and early 2000s were such a missed opportunity for bond. musically and stylistically there was the chance to do something amazing but what we got was dross. i feel with cr and qos we are now only just getting back to point wher dalton left off. that's almost two wasted decades.

actonsteve

Getafix wrote:

. the 90s and early 2000s were such a missed opportunity for bond. musically and stylistically there was the chance to do something amazing but what we got was dross. i feel with cr and qos we are now only just getting back to point wher dalton left off. that's almost two wasted decades.

i call it the interregulum. The period that can be avoided. To me the Bonds jump between Licence to Kill and Casino Royale.

There are good aspects to Brozzers period ie Dr Kaufman, Electra, most of Goldeneye but they dont hold a candle to the powerhouse Bond eras either side.

BAIN123

For me the REAL step backwards was TND. GE has some fun, memorable characters played by decent actors, action that was well directed and some good dialogue.

TND - other than a few good scenes - really does feel like a film for teenagers. Even Brozza himself thought that the film "wasn't up to speed".

TWINE is a bit better in my mind because, while it's flawed, it at least tries harder to tell a story.

Then there's DAD.

I like Dalton's films but I'm not sure if I'd call them "powerhouse" either. Apparently Dalton wasn't too fond of LTK.

Agent007391

BAIN123 wrote:

Then there's DAD.

The biggest problem of any era.

DarthDimi

Agent007391 wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Then there's DAD.

The biggest problem of any era.

It's just Connery's YOLT or Moore's MR. Perhaps the Craig era will face a similar project at one point. ;-)

Agent007391

I just hope it's not Skyfall. Because there goes his option for a fourth film at that point.

actonsteve

DarthDimi wrote:

Agent007391 wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Then there's DAD.

The biggest problem of any era.

It's just Connery's YOLT or Moore's MR. Perhaps the Craig era will face a similar project at one point. ;-)

I am afraid not.

DAD cannot even attempt to achieve the pinnacles in filmaking the other two are. Craigs got quite alot of sway over Eon nowadays I cant see him agreeing to 'Yo Mamma' or invisible cars can you?

BAIN123

I doubt Craig will do a MR/DAD type flick. Part of me would find it a laugh to see him in that sort of adventure but I doubt that will happen.

The invisible car was actually the LEAST of DAD's problems.

Agent007391

Yes. DAD was also plagued by a crap villain, a crap henchman, an especially crap henchwoman, a stupid plot involving diamonds and lasers (it didn't work in the early 70s, why in God's name did they think it'd work in 2002?!), a lousy Bond girl (though better than Christmas Jones in each and every way), and, of course, an ejector seat. (Though this last one isn't really a problem, I just wanted to finish like Q would.)

Getafix

DarthDimi wrote:

Agent007391 wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Then there's DAD.

The biggest problem of any era.

It's just Connery's YOLT or Moore's MR. Perhaps the Craig era will face a similar project at one point. ;-)

Heresy! YOLT is an all time high. Pure cinematic gold dust. Where would austin powers and dr evil be without that movie? but seriuosly, i love that film and even MR has good parts.

BAIN123

Agent007391 wrote:

Yes. DAD was also plagued by a crap villain, a crap henchman, an especially crap henchwoman, a stupid plot involving diamonds and lasers (it didn't work in the early 70s, why in God's name did they think it'd work in 2002?!), a lousy Bond girl (though better than Christmas Jones in each and every way), and, of course, an ejector seat. (Though this last one isn't really a problem, I just wanted to finish like Q would.)

Miranda Frost wasn't too bad. Rosamund Pike is an elagant actress who is more than capable.

00Beast

BAIN123 wrote:

Agent007391 wrote:

Yes. DAD was also plagued by a crap villain, a crap henchman, an especially crap henchwoman, a stupid plot involving diamonds and lasers (it didn't work in the early 70s, why in God's name did they think it'd work in 2002?!), a lousy Bond girl (though better than Christmas Jones in each and every way), and, of course, an ejector seat. (Though this last one isn't really a problem, I just wanted to finish like Q would.)

Miranda Frost wasn't too bad. Rosamund Pike is an elagant actress who is more than capable.

Yeah, Miranda Frost was the good part of Die Another Day. It's villains like Gustav Graves, Zao, and Mr. Kil that ruined the movie!

BAIN123

Mr Kil (shudders)

00Beast

BAIN123 wrote:

Mr Kil (shudders)

Hahaha. For all the genious behind the Bond movies, Mr. Kil provides us with an accurate picture of just how desperate the directors were for new ideas!

BAIN123

00Beast wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Mr Kil (shudders)

Hahaha. For all the genious behind the Bond movies, Mr. Kil provides us with an accurate picture of just how desperate the directors were for new ideas!

I'd say the opposite. It shows they weren't even trying.

staggfury

GE brought me into the franchise as a fan as CS brought me into a re-envisioned (post Bourne) incarnation of Bond . Both films were notable within their era as more serious approaches in exposition of the character and subject . I believe throughout the entire Bond film run that the features all have had the potential and often do fall to being parodies of themselves . As Brosnin's successive interpretations seemed to do (through little fault of his own) . Hopefully the 50th anniversary ( think DAD) and a "more fun" Bond will not repeat this trend and we will have something other than initial reboots as favorite films .

staggfury

Addressing the specific subject of this thread . Casino Royale was the better of the two and (in my opinion) the best of all Bond films to date . It's biggest flaws being the initial chase scene which was too long and at times pushed the suspension of disbelief . And secondly , a conclusion protracted to the point of almost becoming the fourth act . Other than that nothing was gratuitous while still giving us the staple scenes expected from Bond . Another key was the avoidance of gadgetry (the big hokeyism of the franchise) . The film also , benefited from a return to special effects as opposed to the current industry standard of too large and over used digital or digitally enhanced effects (that is what really hurt DAD the most) .

Agent007391

Getafix wrote:

DarthDimi wrote:

Agent007391 wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

Then there's DAD.

The biggest problem of any era.

It's just Connery's YOLT or Moore's MR. Perhaps the Craig era will face a similar project at one point. ;-)

Heresy! YOLT is an all time high. Pure cinematic gold dust. Where would austin powers and dr evil be without that movie? but seriuosly, i love that film and even MR has good parts.

No, an All Time High was Octopussy. ;)

Agent007391

BAIN123 wrote:

Agent007391 wrote:

Yes. DAD was also plagued by a crap villain, a crap henchman, an especially crap henchwoman, a stupid plot involving diamonds and lasers (it didn't work in the early 70s, why in God's name did they think it'd work in 2002?!), a lousy Bond girl (though better than Christmas Jones in each and every way), and, of course, an ejector seat. (Though this last one isn't really a problem, I just wanted to finish like Q would.)

Miranda Frost wasn't too bad. Rosamund Pike is an elagant actress who is more than capable.

Rosamund Pike isn't a bad actress, the part was bad. I'll say her and Karl Urban probably saved the Doom movie (apart from the awesome fps sequence).

Agent007391

BAIN123 wrote:

Mr Kil (shudders)

Now there's a name to die for.

Shark

GOLDENEYE, without a doubt. While it isn't based on Fleming material, it captures his spirit far more than CASINO ROYALE, which bastardises the novel.

Risico007

Shark wrote:

GOLDENEYE, without a doubt. While it isn't based on Fleming material, it captures his spirit far more than CASINO ROYALE, which bastardises the novel.

I disagree and Casino Royale was great and way closer to the novel then Goldeneye was too Moonraker (we all know parts of the novel was used in the film) Goldeneye bastardizes Moonraker


In fact Goldeneye for the Wii is more interesting then the film.... goldeneye for N64 was more better then the film.


Oh and Based on what info we know Goldeneye for Super Nintendo had better graphics then all of the CGI in die another Day.

Getafix

Shark wrote:

GOLDENEYE, without a doubt. While it isn't based on Fleming material, it captures his spirit far more than CASINO ROYALE, which bastardises the novel.

Cant believe any one actually thinks GE, which is appalling, is better than CR.

I recently came across the astonishingly impressive series of commentaries in haphazardstuff.com. I was amazed to discover that this reviewer has expressed scene by scene exactly why the Brosnan movies are so awful. Start with GoldenEye:

http://haphazardstuff.com/TheBrosnanAgeGoldenEye.html

This guy is brilliant. Should be given a chair in Bond studies somewhere.

00Beast

@Getafix: GoldenEye appaling? Wow, never heard that before!

Getafix

GE is a total dud from start to finish. Utter dross.

BAIN123

Getafix wrote:

Shark wrote:

GOLDENEYE, without a doubt. While it isn't based on Fleming material, it captures his spirit far more than CASINO ROYALE, which bastardises the novel.

Cant believe any one actually thinks GE, which is appalling, is better than CR.

I recently came across the astonishingly impressive series of commentaries in haphazardstuff.com. I was amazed to discover that this reviewer has expressed scene by scene exactly why the Brosnan movies are so awful. Start with GoldenEye:

http://haphazardstuff.com/TheBrosnanAgeGoldenEye.html

This guy is brilliant. Should be given a chair in Bond studies somewhere.

If you actually LISTEN to the review he doesn't say it's a dud. He says he likes it but it has its problems. He says at the end of the DAD review that it seemed like an encouraging start to an era which ended up disappointing.

DaltonCraig007

Getafix wrote:

Shark wrote:

GOLDENEYE, without a doubt. While it isn't based on Fleming material, it captures his spirit far more than CASINO ROYALE, which bastardises the novel.

Cant believe any one actually thinks GE, which is appalling, is better than CR

Never thought that people may not have the same opinion as you ? :-?

DarthDimi

Getafix wrote:

GE is a total dud from start to finish. Utter dross.

Care to back up this statement with actual arguments?