Controversial opinions about Bond films

1234235237239240707

Comments

  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    @bondjames

    talking to my 18 to 20 year old students certainly does not give me hope for the future when it comes to Bond. Most only know Craig and some even call themselfes fans but have not seen the movies past Goldeneye or even The World is not Enough.

    Whenever I show the clips from Brosnan and Dalton movies and some of Moore they have a laugh at that "funny looking old stuff".

    Although the Dalton clips make them go uuhh and ahhh of admiration for the stunts.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    @bondjames Me neither regarding Connery. Was a nice try though!

    And we will see whether he gets to do one more. Barbara may want him, but the former head of Sony Amy Pascal wanted Idris Elba in her email leaks. That means that it must have been under serious discussion and Craig's reluctance could squeeze the thumbs.

    And there is the pressure from the studio and public of finally casting a black actor in the role. Comes back to the PC culture and the Bond franchise has to navigate this carefully or the racist stick will be pointed at them.

    Me, I am in favour of a black actor taking on the role. So much for Craig's unwise comment about Bond being "White Man Porn". More like Trump than he realises in terms of unguarded comments.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @LordBrettSinclair, any fan who hasn't watched a Roger Moore Bond film (let alone a Connery classic) is unworthy of the term imho. The campiness of the old films won't likely go down well with younger folks once they've watched a Craig entry. We don't see it that way, since most of us started off by watching a Brosnan, Moore or Connery film before we saw a Craig one. That raises an interesting question however. ie. whether the seriousness of the Craig Bond films have forever spoiled the older films for younger fans (especially given most people like the Bond they see first best).

    @acoppola, I was shocked to hear that Pascal was contemplating Elba. I can only hope she was joking. If it in fact was a play for PC then that's really quite sad, and I'm glad she's no longer involved with Bond (although she apparently was close to Babs and also supported Craig's casting).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Can we cut the trump shit on here? We have two threads for that crap that I avoid.

    +1.

    Still waiting for some non-waffle.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    @LordBrettSinclair, any fan who hasn't watched a Roger Moore Bond film (let alone a Connery classic) is unworthy of the term imho. The campiness of the old films won't likely go down well with younger folks once they've watched a Craig entry. We don't see it that way, since most of us started off by watching a Brosnan, Moore or Connery film before we saw a Craig one. That raises an interesting question however. ie. whether the seriousness of the Craig Bond films have forever spoiled the older films for younger fans (especially given most people like the Bond they see first best).

    @acoppola, I was shocked to hear that Pascal was contemplating Elba. I can only hope she was joking. If it in fact was a play for PC then that's really quite sad, and I'm glad she's no longer involved with Bond (although she apparently was close to Babs and also supported Craig's casting).

    She was and it is easy to find as there are many sources on the internet with the story that came from the leaks. Applying logic here : if Moneypenny can be played by a British black actress than they are going to have to seriously consider a black Bond at some point and sooner rather than later.

    Perhaps there are better choices than Elba, but he is the strongest British contender as his fame is on the rise as is his popularity with the public.

  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    @bondjames

    Yes I think young guys who have seen only Craig will have difficulty watching the older movies. In my opinion, (not want to sound like putting stick to Craig or whatever term it was I got accused) direction of Bond was wrong with QOS and Skyfall, now young people think Bond is a revenge one-man against all kind of characters like Bruce Willis in Die Hard for example.
    But who can argue with success? So I think in future Bond will rely only on monetary success. One movie that will make "only" 600 million and still make some profit could endanger series because will be seen as failure. Up to 1989 that was never thinkable that Bond would stop because of too less revenue.

    *sorry for my sketchy English, still learn, French is my first language. When alone, nobody help me with grammar and stuff...
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Can we cut the trump shit on here? We have two threads for that crap that I avoid.

    It was raised in context to the future of the franchise and the political climate we are in. It certainly was not a political discussion.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,198
    @bondjames

    Yes I think young guys who have seen only Craig will have difficulty watching the older movies. In my opinion, (not want to sound like putting stick to Craig or whatever term it was I got accused) direction of Bond was wrong with QOS and Skyfall, now young people think Bond is a revenge one-man against all kind of characters like Bruce Willis in Die Hard for example.
    But who can argue with success? So I think in future Bond will rely only on monetary success. One movie that will make "only" 600 million and still make some profit could endanger series because will be seen as failure. Up to 1989 that was never thinkable that Bond would stop because of too less revenue.

    *sorry for my sketchy English, still learn, French is my first language. When alone, nobody help me with grammar and stuff...

    The difference between the protagonist in Die Hard and the last two Bond films is minimal.

    PS: Vous parlez très bien anglais, il ne faut pas être inquiet ;).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @acoppola, yes, I know it was in the leaks. It was shocking nonetheless. He's a very good actor, and highly charismatic, but too old for the job now imho. I'd prefer Bond remain white personally. Not a racist position however & I'm certainly not a Fleming purist - I just think the pool of qualified Bond actors is so small as it is, and it will be even smaller if one looks at a subset. It's also a matter of tradition. Having said that, if there is a black actor out there who is so far ahead of the pack, I wouldn't be averse to it, but he would have to be exceptional.

    @LordBrettSinclair, your English is fine to me. I don't think the series will ever really be endangered, outside of some issues with the studio rights etc. There will always be Bond films, because it's one of the most bullet proof franchises there is. The only issue is what Bond film we get. It's interesting to read your comments, because I realize SF & SP were very successful in Switzerland, and so I can imagine that Craig has a massive following there. I am curious to know what younger British and American folks think about Craigs' films in relation to Connery/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    @bondjames

    Yes I think young guys who have seen only Craig will have difficulty watching the older movies. In my opinion, (not want to sound like putting stick to Craig or whatever term it was I got accused) direction of Bond was wrong with QOS and Skyfall, now young people think Bond is a revenge one-man against all kind of characters like Bruce Willis in Die Hard for example.
    But who can argue with success? So I think in future Bond will rely only on monetary success. One movie that will make "only" 600 million and still make some profit could endanger series because will be seen as failure. Up to 1989 that was never thinkable that Bond would stop because of too less revenue.

    *sorry for my sketchy English, still learn, French is my first language. When alone, nobody help me with grammar and stuff...

    Bond was put on hold after 1989 not because of LTK, which performed better outside the USA. They were in planning a third film, when an issue came to light about the rights of the Bond franchise. It required a court case, and no film could go into production until the case was resolved.

    MGM was up for sale and the Bond franchise was included as a sweetener is what went down in essence. Cubby Broccoli said that this would endanger the future of the franchise. There is a whole chapter about this in his book.

    LTK made back its budget almost five times.

    Here is something about it http://007today.blogspot.co.uk/2006/08/why-six-year-gap-between-license-to.html

  • Posts: 16,204
    It is sad to me that so many current fans of the Craig films reject the notion of looking at at the earlier Bonds. Rebooting the franchise with CR, in a way I believe alienated the other films in that younger audiences often simply won't watch them. I've spoken to many young adults who won't watch anything made before they were born.
    Those who grew up on SF, when looking at FRWL, or FYEO simply won't understand why Q isn't a computer genius hipster. The new era redefined all the major characters for the current times. I personally feel it will date the Craigs by the next decade or so whereas to me, the Cubby era films were more timeless.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @ToTheRight, we haven't seen a successor to the Craig reboot era yet. It will be interesting to see how he is accepted, given there is such a large new fanbase who have only really known this timeline. Many of the Craig era fans are very passionate about his tenure and his films. I've never really thought about this before (being a pre-Brosnan era fan) but the changing of the guard (when it eventually arrives) will be an interesting one to watch.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    @acoppola, yes, I know it was in the leaks. It was shocking nonetheless. He's a very good actor, and highly charismatic, but too old for the job now imho. I'd prefer Bond remain white personally. Not a racist position however & I'm certainly not a Fleming purist - I just think the pool of qualified Bond actors is so small as it is, and it will be even smaller if one looks at a subset. It's also a matter of tradition. Having said that, if there is a black actor out there who is so far ahead of the pack, I wouldn't be averse to it, but he would have to be exceptional.

    @LordBrettSinclair, your English is fine to me. I don't think the series will ever really be endangered, outside of some issues with the studio rights etc. There will always be Bond films, because it's one of the most bullet proof franchises there is. The only issue is what Bond film we get. It's interesting to read your comments, because I realize SF & SP were very successful in Switzerland, and so I can imagine that Craig has a massive following there. I am curious to know what younger British and American folks think about Craigs' films in relation to Connery/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan.

    @bondjames Ironically Craig paved the way for this. By his controversial casting, they are now more in a position to cast anyone. Craig is not the ideal of what Fleming intended, or the classically handsome blueprint of the Bond of yesteryear. But, it made billions.

    And just like the studio took the risk of dropping Brosnan to cast Craig, despite popularity, they may apply the same strategy again.

    Just an observation nonetheless.



  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    acoppola wrote: »
    I teach mostly 18-20 year old guys.
    I often use Bond in my lecture and the young guys who have only seen Daniel Craig as Bond are always surprised to see Brosnan and Dalton and often notice how different they look in general to Craig.
    I think for the mainstream young audience it doesn't matter if Bond is tall dark haired handsome or medium height blonde and very muscular, they would accept Jason Statham as Bond. With time Bonds identity will be lost if next actor is again totally different to Mr Fleming's vision!

    They would accept Jason Statham. I agree with the passage of time, Bond will be watered down to nothing like what Fleming intended.

    The way things are going and how they are adding in aspects that were never there before, perhaps in 30 years time we will have a Bond wrestling with his sexuality and how he wanted to be a girl. Not as far fetched when Blofeld is now his step-brother!





    Have you ever read the books. Apart from the blonde hair and not being 6 ft, Craigs portrayal especially in CR is very close to Fleming. And as for the other comments Bond will never be gay, bald or non white as it isn't commercially viable anyhow.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Do we have any evidence, other than a couple of anecdotes on this forum, that 'so many current Craig fans reject the notion of looking at the earlier Bonds'? Seems a stretch to me that a film grossing $1bn and a sequel grossing $800m were watched in the majority by people who have not seen the early Bond flicks.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    RC7 wrote: »
    Do we have any evidence, other than a couple of anecdotes on this forum, that 'so many current Craig fans reject the notion of looking at the earlier Bonds'? Seems a stretch to me that a film grossing $1bn and a sequel grossing $800m were watched in the majority by people who have not seen the early Bond flicks.

    I know a few people whose knowledge of Bond doesn't go past anything earlier than the Brosnan era, but at the same time, it's a false assumption to think, as you said, that a majority of the $2 billion total gross of the last two Craig installments were from casual moviegoers who haven't seen any of the other films.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    suavejmf wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    I teach mostly 18-20 year old guys.
    I often use Bond in my lecture and the young guys who have only seen Daniel Craig as Bond are always surprised to see Brosnan and Dalton and often notice how different they look in general to Craig.
    I think for the mainstream young audience it doesn't matter if Bond is tall dark haired handsome or medium height blonde and very muscular, they would accept Jason Statham as Bond. With time Bonds identity will be lost if next actor is again totally different to Mr Fleming's vision!

    They would accept Jason Statham. I agree with the passage of time, Bond will be watered down to nothing like what Fleming intended.

    The way things are going and how they are adding in aspects that were never there before, perhaps in 30 years time we will have a Bond wrestling with his sexuality and how he wanted to be a girl. Not as far fetched when Blofeld is now his step-brother!

    Have you ever read the books. Apart from the blonde hair and not being 6 ft, Craigs portrayal especially in CR is very close to Fleming. And as for the other comments Bond will never be gay, bald or non white as it isn't commercially viable anyhow.

    Can anyone smell that? The sweet scent of salience.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    suavejmf wrote: »
    acoppola wrote: »
    I teach mostly 18-20 year old guys.
    I often use Bond in my lecture and the young guys who have only seen Daniel Craig as Bond are always surprised to see Brosnan and Dalton and often notice how different they look in general to Craig.
    I think for the mainstream young audience it doesn't matter if Bond is tall dark haired handsome or medium height blonde and very muscular, they would accept Jason Statham as Bond. With time Bonds identity will be lost if next actor is again totally different to Mr Fleming's vision!

    They would accept Jason Statham. I agree with the passage of time, Bond will be watered down to nothing like what Fleming intended.

    The way things are going and how they are adding in aspects that were never there before, perhaps in 30 years time we will have a Bond wrestling with his sexuality and how he wanted to be a girl. Not as far fetched when Blofeld is now his step-brother!





    Have you ever read the books. Apart from the blonde hair and not being 6 ft, Craigs portrayal especially in CR is very close to Fleming. And as for the other comments Bond will never be gay, bald or non white as it isn't commercially viable anyhow.

    I have read the books and Craig certainly gulps down alcohol like the Bond of the books. But I do not visualise Craig when imagining Bond. Craig is too thuggish and the theme of Bond not liking killing is certainly something that does not apply to Craig.

    Never be gay? I am not so sure, judging by how gay issues are being promoted in the media.

    I read they are considering doing a superhero film, where the hero is gay. It is not as far fetched as you think.

    It would be like saying thirty years ago that M could never be a woman!

    And it was unviable to think a black man could be elected as President of the USA, but it happened. So a black Bond is just a matter of time.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @acoppola, there was a reason they took such a risk in 2006 (reboots were all the rage opening the door to this sort of thing, they had an origin story to tell, and they seemed to be drifting without direction). Critically and financially the decision was hugely successful, so it's difficult to argue with it, even if may have dated prior entries for some and even if the Bond actor cast doesn't fit the filmic template of old.

    They are in a different position now arguably, and if many new fervent fans only know the Craig era (as has been reported here), then there is of course a possibility that we get someone more in his mold as his successor, whenever that may be. Perhaps the rumours of someone like Hardy aren't so off the mark.

    I've always said I'd personally prefer a return to someone more in the classic filmic physical mold, but I don't suppose EON cares what I think.

    EDIT: I agree with you on changes being possible in the Bond universe. It's only a matter of time. What is considered unthinkable today will be acceptable 20 years from now. Such is the way of things
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Do we have any evidence, other than a couple of anecdotes on this forum, that 'so many current Craig fans reject the notion of looking at the earlier Bonds'? Seems a stretch to me that a film grossing $1bn and a sequel grossing $800m were watched in the majority by people who have not seen the early Bond flicks.

    I know a few people whose knowledge of Bond doesn't go past anything earlier than the Brosnan era, but at the same time, it's a false assumption to think, as you said, that a majority of the $2 billion total gross of the last two Craig installments were from casual moviegoers who haven't seen any of the other films.

    I've never met anyone British who hasn't seen Connery or Moore in a Bond film. Bank Holidays = Bond on TV in England. The notion RC7 mentions above is (as he suggests) pure bollocks!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Do we have any evidence, other than a couple of anecdotes on this forum, that 'so many current Craig fans reject the notion of looking at the earlier Bonds'? Seems a stretch to me that a film grossing $1bn and a sequel grossing $800m were watched in the majority by people who have not seen the early Bond flicks.

    I know a few people whose knowledge of Bond doesn't go past anything earlier than the Brosnan era, but at the same time, it's a false assumption to think, as you said, that a majority of the $2 billion total gross of the last two Craig installments were from casual moviegoers who haven't seen any of the other films.

    I've never met anyone British who hasn't seen Connery or Moore in a Bond film. Bank Holidays = Bond on TV in England. The notion RC7 mentions above is (as he suggests) pure bollocks!

    You lot easily forget that I'm an American. Now, being British and knowing someone who refused to watch the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton installments? I'm certain that's against the law.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    main problem is this, Craig looks nothing like Bond

    this is what Bond looks like and the other four came close at least in some regards, not Craig, thats main problem

    daltonBond_zpsd1wqbmmn.jpg

    also performance in CR is not more Fleming than Brosnan in TWINE or any other more seriously toned Bond movie.

    But I get, there are some very passionate Craig fans, that is ok, I'm very passionate about Moore, I understand perfectly.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    @acoppola, there was a reason they took such a risk in 2006 (reboots were all the rage opening the door to this sort of thing, they had an origin story to tell, and they seemed to be drifting without direction). Critically and financially the decision was hugely successful, so it's difficult to argue with it, even if may have dated prior entries for some and even if the Bond actor cast doesn't fit the filmic template of old.

    They are in a different position now arguably, and if many new fervent fans only know the Craig era (as has been reported here), then there is of course a possibility that we get someone more in his mold as his successor, whenever that may be. Perhaps the rumours of someone like Hardy aren't so off the mark.

    I've always said I'd personally prefer a return to someone more in the classic filmic physical mold.

    I doubt they will change course from the new direction. I would love a return to the classical Bond world in the true sense of the word. But, our culture is anything goes as long as it makes money. Some misinterpret my words.

    The most popular music is filled with filthy lyrics - with attitudes to women that make Bond look like a paragon of virtue- with lowest-denominator appeal. And that lowest-denominator is your future Bond audience.



  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    not only youth go watch Bond that is for sure.

    Spectre sold over million tickets in Switzerland with population of 8 million. Go figure. Also went three times and folks in my age group (40) or younger.
  • Posts: 16,204
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ToTheRight, we haven't seen a successor to the Craig reboot era yet. It will be interesting to see how he is accepted, given there is such a large new fanbase who have only really known this timeline. Many of the Craig era fans are very passionate about his tenure and his films. I've never really thought about this before (being a pre-Brosnan era fan) but the changing of the guard (when it eventually arrives) will be an interesting one to watch.

    Absolutely! This is one of the few times in the series' history that it feels anything could happen. Considering the amount of effort spent introducing the characters of M, Q Moneypenny, etc it would seem kind of weird to have another actor inhabit Craig's universe. Who knows what type of direction Eon will go?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2017 Posts: 5,131
    No. Brits who don't know about Bond say that Dalton is bland and Lazenby was a flop.....but they've usually still seen the films. The general consensus of the casual Brit fan on Connery is that he is 'regarded as' best, whilst light hearted Moore is only the favourite among 80' kids......this is not fact, just my general experience with the Brit public.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    main problem is this, Craig looks nothing like Bond

    this is what Bond looks like and the other four came close at least in some regards, not Craig, thats main problem

    daltonBond_zpsd1wqbmmn.jpg

    also performance in CR is not more Fleming than Brosnan in TWINE or any other more seriously toned Bond movie.

    But I get, there are some very passionate Craig fans, that is ok, I'm very passionate about Moore, I understand perfectly.

    As @accopola so eloquently put it, look is just a part of it, it's what you do with the character.

    This sort of thing will happen again, maybe not next time, but it will, and I suggest you adjust accordingly or accept that you'll be sitting out another era. Personally I've only heard the 'Craig isn't Bond' line from casual fans. Readers of Fleming get him.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    "readers of Fleming get him" - that is quite a assumption...

    so not liking Craig much means I am only casual fan, thats quite funny actually, worse....I can do without Brosnan as well, so probably not fan at all...

    But even so, I love GE and SP, think put both in my Top 10 even now.

    CR I like fine, mostly because my favorite French actress Eva Green plays main part and movie in general is quite good.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    main problem is this, Craig looks nothing like Bond

    this is what Bond looks like and the other four came close at least in some regards, not Craig, thats main problem

    daltonBond_zpsd1wqbmmn.jpg

    also performance in CR is not more Fleming than Brosnan in TWINE or any other more seriously toned Bond movie.

    But I get, there are some very passionate Craig fans, that is ok, I'm very passionate about Moore, I understand perfectly.

    That is my massive problem with Craig and I tried desperately to overlook it, but to no avail. Shallow? No. I just prefer an Aston to a pick-up truck in the looks department.

    We judge women harshly and to exacting standards of beauty. Why should men be different? And beauty is something in the eye of the beholder, but what models do advertising agencies use to sell a luxury product?

    Thanks for that! Appreciated as a Dalton fan. Moore is great too in his own way.

  • Posts: 16,204
    main problem is this, Craig looks nothing like Bond

    this is what Bond looks like and the other four came close at least in some regards, not Craig, thats main problem

    daltonBond_zpsd1wqbmmn.jpg

    also performance in CR is not more Fleming than Brosnan in TWINE or any other more seriously toned Bond movie.

    But I get, there are some very passionate Craig fans, that is ok, I'm very passionate about Moore, I understand perfectly.

    Always liked that illustration of Bond. The haircut actually looks similar to a Fleming's own style, IMO. Imagine if Tim had his cut like that.
    Considering the media hyping names like Elba, Gillian Anderson, etc etc
    I think I'll make a controversial opinion that I'd love it if Eon would find an actor that matches Fleming's description. I'd say all six actors each have had various element's of Fleming's Bond. But it would be interesting to see someone who really looks like that Bond- even down to three inch scar and blue single breasted suits over a short sleeved shirt. Probably have to find someone under the radar for that, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.