Will EON Blow it?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

thelordflasheart wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

JBFan626 wrote:

Also, what do you guys think of the critique that both the poster and the trailer really don't show or tell us anything about the film? Is this a bad sign?

That's a great sign. I want to be surprised.

Agreed - it's great to not have spoilers and as @echo said it's very obviously (well, maybe to everyone but the author at TheGoldenEye) intentional.

"Moreover, since the founding of the Craig dynasty, the series has actually worsened, drifting in slow decline—creatively, existentially, and even in stature..."

Huh? They really lost me at this point. Many people (including me) think that the series is at a creative high and that its "stature" is quite good. Existentially? What do they even mean by that?

The fact that they say "the Craig dynasty" (WTF?) makes me think that they're unhappy with the casting of a certain actor...

Don't think they used existentially correctly there, and obviously they are taking out their hatred of Dan in the role out, and calling everything dealing with him as garbage.

SaintMark

The article still representes a view that is build on arguments which you might agree or disagree with.
But once again because somebody dislikes the direction of the franchise he/she is put down as Craig-hater so his arguments are void.

ANd the Craig dynsasty has gotten a fraction of the hate that the Brosnan dynasty has gotten here lately. Where some folks cannot even behave in an appriciationthread.

And indeed I agree Craig does look old and tired in the Bond23 trailer. But perhaps that is the aim of the movie.

echo

SaintMark wrote:

But once again because somebody dislikes the direction of the franchise he/she is put down as Craig-hater so his arguments are void.

I don't see how someone argues that Craig looks too old while praising FYEO as one of his top three. If anyone looked old, it was Moore.

DarthDimi

If people should have learned one thing from Casino Royale, it's that looks can be so deceiving... Remember: oh no, a blonde Bond? oh no, Craig is an ugly man, women won't like him. Oh no, Craig has MUSCLES! Those were weird days.

SaintMark

echo wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

But once again because somebody dislikes the direction of the franchise he/she is put down as Craig-hater so his arguments are void.

I don't see how someone argues that Craig looks too old while praising FYEO as one of his top three. If anyone looked old, it was Moore.

I like FYEO too and yes Roger Moore looked old, but his movies cannot be compared with Craig. It is the gentleman Bond vs the Tug Bond.

Like I said he does look old, but perhaps that is the aim of the coming movie. Perhaps he is tired from his escapades or something.

But you are nitpicking the article does contain some stuff that has value. I do worry about the lack of location work that used to be soemthing special in the Bond franchise.

Getafix

SaintMark wrote:

echo wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

But once again because somebody dislikes the direction of the franchise he/she is put down as Craig-hater so his arguments are void.

I don't see how someone argues that Craig looks too old while praising FYEO as one of his top three. If anyone looked old, it was Moore.

I like FYEO too and yes Roger Moore looked old, but his movies cannot be compared with Craig. It is the gentleman Bond vs the Tug Bond.

Like I said he does look old, but perhaps that is the aim of the coming movie. Perhaps he is tired from his escapades or something.

But you are nitpicking the article does contain some stuff that has value. I do worry about the lack of location work that used to be soemthing special in the Bond franchise.

I agree, regardless of the pro/anti Craig dispute, this guy raises genuine fears and doubts about the direction of the series. I think it is a bit of an existential crisis. During the Brosnan era they sort of tried to hark back to the Moore period and make out nothing had changed and that Dalton and TLK had never existed. Meanwhile the cold war had ended and very real questions needed to be raised about who Bond is and how he is relevant in todays's post-ideological and post-colonial world. Of course it was Bourne who very directly dealt with all these issues, by turning the spy action hero into a reluctant combatant in a morally ambiguous war being waged by a state with which he had little or nothing in common. As revealed in another thread recently, Barbara Brocolli and Sony were responding directly to Bourne when they cast Craig and decided to go in a new direction. Since then we've had lovey dovey and heartbroken Bond, and rogue Bond on a mission for revenge and resolution. So far, so familiar.

But to what extent is the new direction really working for Bond and to what extent are we getting a slightly unconvincing and confused character emerging? Perhaps the new Bond Craig is giving us is fine, but personally I find it all a bit awkward.

SaintMark

Getafix wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

echo wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

But once again because somebody dislikes the direction of the franchise he/she is put down as Craig-hater so his arguments are void.

I don't see how someone argues that Craig looks too old while praising FYEO as one of his top three. If anyone looked old, it was Moore.

I like FYEO too and yes Roger Moore looked old, but his movies cannot be compared with Craig. It is the gentleman Bond vs the Tug Bond.

Like I said he does look old, but perhaps that is the aim of the coming movie. Perhaps he is tired from his escapades or something.

But you are nitpicking the article does contain some stuff that has value. I do worry about the lack of location work that used to be soemthing special in the Bond franchise.

I agree, regardless of the pro/anti Craig dispute, this guy raises genuine fears and doubts about the direction of the series. I think it is a bit of an existential crisis. During the Brosnan era they sort of tried to hark back to the Moore period and make out nothing had changed and that Dalton and TLK had never existed. Meanwhile the cold war had ended and very real questions needed to be raised about who Bond is and how he is relevant in todays's post-ideological and post-colonial world. Of course it was Bourne who very directly dealt with all these issues, by turning the spy action hero into a reluctant combatant in a morally ambiguous war being waged by a state with which he had little or nothing in common. As revealed in another thread recently, Barbara Brocolli and Sony were responding directly to Bourne when they cast Craig and decided to go in a new direction. Since then we've had lovey dovey and heartbroken Bond, and rogue Bond on a mission for revenge and resolution. So far, so familiar.

But to what extent is the new direction really working for Bond and to what extent are we getting a slightly unconvincing and confused character emerging? Perhaps the new Bond Craig is giving us is fine, but personally I find it all a bit awkward.

Well said. O:-)

echo

Getafix wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

echo wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

But once again because somebody dislikes the direction of the franchise he/she is put down as Craig-hater so his arguments are void.

I don't see how someone argues that Craig looks too old while praising FYEO as one of his top three. If anyone looked old, it was Moore.

I like FYEO too and yes Roger Moore looked old, but his movies cannot be compared with Craig. It is the gentleman Bond vs the Tug Bond.

Like I said he does look old, but perhaps that is the aim of the coming movie. Perhaps he is tired from his escapades or something.

But you are nitpicking the article does contain some stuff that has value. I do worry about the lack of location work that used to be soemthing special in the Bond franchise.

I agree, regardless of the pro/anti Craig dispute, this guy raises genuine fears and doubts about the direction of the series. I think it is a bit of an existential crisis. During the Brosnan era they sort of tried to hark back to the Moore period and make out nothing had changed and that Dalton and TLK had never existed. Meanwhile the cold war had ended and very real questions needed to be raised about who Bond is and how he is relevant in todays's post-ideological and post-colonial world. Of course it was Bourne who very directly dealt with all these issues, by turning the spy action hero into a reluctant combatant in a morally ambiguous war being waged by a state with which he had little or nothing in common. As revealed in another thread recently, Barbara Brocolli and Sony were responding directly to Bourne when they cast Craig and decided to go in a new direction. Since then we've had lovey dovey and heartbroken Bond, and rogue Bond on a mission for revenge and resolution. So far, so familiar.

But to what extent is the new direction really working for Bond and to what extent are we getting a slightly unconvincing and confused character emerging? Perhaps the new Bond Craig is giving us is fine, but personally I find it all a bit awkward.

Your point is sound in that we haven't seen Craig's Bond on a wholly straightforward mission, although CR started out that way.

But on the other hand, Bourne and Bond are very different. Bourne is inward-looking: "Who am I? What has my government done to me?" and even though Bond touches on those issues in a duty vs. impulse way, Bond is more outward-looking and dealing with an external threat (terrorism), at least in CR and QoS.

bondsum

Shouldn't this thread be titled Will EON Blow it.... again? After all, the Brosnan dynasty is riddled with inconsistencies and major letdowns. None of the movies have been flops but that doesn't mean we liked what we saw after paying our admission price, which is no longer a reliable gauge to measure success by anymore.

But to answer the question, who knows whether EON wll blow it.... again? There could be many ways in which the franchise takes another backwards step and trots perilously down the same old road of explosions, bad stories, bad dialogue just like they did with DAD. Maybe Michael G. Wilson is sketching out a future where he gets to bring the franchise to it's knees again with a similar DAD story outline? I don't know and neither do you. We can only pray that MGW has no more inspired visions for Bond 24-26.

JBFan626

MGW is 70, I only see his involvement continue for probably for the next 2-3 films at most. Afterall, he did say he felt "exhausted" after QOS. So does that mean we'll see Barbara in full control, or will we see the torch passed to his son, who I've heard did a pretty bang up job as producer of one of the video games.

Barbara's got a daughter too, so perhaps we'll see the Broccoli-Wilson team continue on for years to come...

bondsum

JBFan626 wrote:

MGW is 70, I only see his involvement continue for probably for the next 2-3 films at most.

Amen to that... though I'm no fan of nepotism since it hasn't worked too well for Bond post Cubby.

Can't they involve Harry Saltzman's kids, they can't be any worse than Cubby's step-child and daughter?

echo

bondsum wrote:

JBFan626 wrote:

MGW is 70, I only see his involvement continue for probably for the next 2-3 films at most.

Amen to that... though I'm no fan of nepotism since it hasn't worked too well for Bond post Cubby.

Can't they involve Harry Saltzman's kids, they can't be any worse than Cubby's step-child and daughter?

Why would they? He sold his interest decades ago. It would be like bringing the former owners of your house in to remodel it.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

echo wrote:

bondsum wrote:

JBFan626 wrote:

MGW is 70, I only see his involvement continue for probably for the next 2-3 films at most.

Amen to that... though I'm no fan of nepotism since it hasn't worked too well for Bond post Cubby.

Can't they involve Harry Saltzman's kids, they can't be any worse than Cubby's step-child and daughter?

Why would they? He sold his interest decades ago. It would be like bringing the former owners of your house in to remodel it.

Yes, good example.