keep the films serious and realistic.

245678

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694

    That's why I reckon there is scope for a film a little different - like one where James Bond "dies" (and the audience is led to believe as much) and the bulk of the film follows another Double-Oh agent sent to find out what happened (with Bond revealed to be alive and well at the end of the film, having staged his death as part of a wider plan) or even a film that follows a villain rather than Bond. There's talk that Blofeld could be returning to the films; why not make a film showing his rise to power?
    THEN IT WOULDN"T BE A BOND FILM!
  • Posts: 5,745
    @Shadowinthesun and @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    Craig has said how they have a great set up, with quantum and the vesper storyline finished for them to market on. What I think, and slightly coincides with Shadow's thoughts, is that they have a whole UNIVERSE to market on, thats already set up. They could get away with killing off their lead (somewhat) or following the baddie for most of the movie. They're probably the only franchise that could get away with it. Break the pattern and surprise us. You could even cut a trailer for a film following the baddie to appear like its another machine product, only to surprise viewers in the theater. It'd be quite brilliant honestly. Bond wouldn't be completely out of the films. You'd still see him work against the baddie, or come back from the dead. It would just be a change in motion.

    You could even have Bond fail sometime, and have the baddie actually manage to run amuck.
  • edited September 2011 Posts: 1,894
    THEN IT WOULDN"T BE A BOND FILM!
    Yes, it would. Bond would feature in it - he just wouldn't get the most screen time as he normally would.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't know how that seems like a good idea. You may think the idea would work, but millions would be in uproar when they see an inconsistent showing of Bond in the film. I know many others who would be in outrage.
  • Posts: 1,894
    If it's a good film, I don't think people will complain. I'm not saying it should be done for the novelty factor, but that it should be done as a part of the plot.

    At the end of From Russia With Love, Bond was poisoned by Rosa Klebb. Fleming left his fate in the balance - and got a major response from it. Why couldn't something like that be done in the film? The only difference is that the audience would be led to believe that Bond was dead.

    If the film was written in such a way that Bond staged his own death a part of a wider plan - maybe to draw Quantum operatives out into the open and get careless - it could be done very well. Bond wouldn't simply disappear after five minutes and return in the final five. There would be plenty of clues for audiences to respond to, and pick up on when viewing the film a second time, clues that show Bond is alive.

    When Robert Jordan was writing The Wheel of Time series, he had a bit of a problem. His main character was being set up as a saviour for humankind, but also as a potential destroyer. In the third book, The Dragon Reborn, Jordan deliberately left his main character - the Dragon Reborn - out of it. The intention was to show just what sort of effect said character would have on the lives of the people he met, and how the world saw him. It inverted the entire story structure. The first two books showed the way the main character perceived the world around him. The third book showed the way the world perceived the character.

    There is a precedent for this within Bond canon: The Spy Who Loved Me. Bond does not appear until the third and final act. It's true, Fleming forbade the sotry from ever being adapted, but with the novel, he was trying to show how ordinary people saw Bond after writing eight books about how Bond viewed ordinary people.

    A Bond film without Bond in it (for most of it) would hinge on the ability to create a mystery about Bond's disappearance. So long as it is done well, and is a mystery the audience can solve for themselves, I think it can be done without alienating audiences.
  • Posts: 5,745


    A Bond film without Bond in it (for most of it) would hinge on the ability to create a mystery about Bond's disappearance. So long as it is done well, and is a mystery the audience can solve for themselves, I think it can be done without alienating audiences.
    Possibly create a film like this for a new Bond. Show the leaving Bond supposedly "dying" at the end of the actors (maybe Craig's) last movie. Then, have the entire first half of the new actor's first movie about the corruption of the World without Bond, and then have the new guy come in and save the day. The PTS could be the villain being all cynical, and the first half show all of his/her plans coming together, with hints of Bond. i.e. a picture frame moved that the bad guy/girl notices, an Aston Martin parked off in the background, and other subtle hints that Bond is there. And then BOOM, the villain does something that calls for immediate action, and we introduce our new Bond. It'd be a new level of class brought back into the franchise. Might catch wind of some awards, as well, if done right.

    In DEATH PROOF, by Quentin Tarantino, the entire second half of the movie focuses on the girls, and not the bad guy. But you can see the bad guy's car parked in the background. In the diner scene, he is sitting at the bar right next to the girls table they're talking at. I didn't even notice the first go round, but it was brilliant once I realized it. Tarantino received some flak for how much his story was centered on the would-be victims, but the overall execution still garnered the film much respect from critics and fans alike.

    I say go for it the next re-invention period.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    A Bond film without Bond in it (for most of it) would hinge on the ability to create a mystery about Bond's disappearance. So long as it is done well, and is a mystery the audience can solve for themselves, I think it can be done without alienating audiences.
    Your plot sounds like a Bond fanboy fan-fic. Never going to happen.

  • Posts: 5,745
    A Bond film without Bond in it (for most of it) would hinge on the ability to create a mystery about Bond's disappearance. So long as it is done well, and is a mystery the audience can solve for themselves, I think it can be done without alienating audiences.
    Your plot sounds like a Bond fanboy fan-fic. Never going to happen.

    Have you not read through my plots? I find the way I put it to be a highly realistic possibility for a post-Fleming world. Its just around the corner! (UNFORTUNATELY)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Have you not read through my plots? I find the way I put it to be a highly realistic possibility for a post-Fleming world. Its just around the corner! (UNFORTUNATELY)
    EON is much too safe-playing to make such a drastic change in the Bond formula. Bond movies are meant to be popular entertainment, not an all-out thriller/suspense film. shadow's plot is not a plot for a Bond film. Simple as. People want entertainement and fun for Bond films. Sorry but that's the reality. EON will be very reluctant to change the formula drasticly. So shadow is basicly doing a fan-fic, and not a credible script for an actual film. Just like members on the old MI6Forums who wrote fan-fics about Fleming's Bond life during the 2nd world war. Very good fan fic, but a horrible idea for a film.
  • edited September 2011 Posts: 5,745
    Have you not read through my plots? I find the way I put it to be a highly realistic possibility for a post-Fleming world. Its just around the corner! (UNFORTUNATELY)
    EON is much too safe-playing to make such a drastic change in the Bond formula. Bond movies are meant to be popular entertainment, not an all-out thriller/suspense film. shadow's plot is not a plot for a Bond film. Simple as. People want entertainement and fun for Bond films. Sorry but that's the reality. EON will be very reluctant to change the formula drasticly. So shadow is basicly doing a fan-fic, and not a credible script for an actual film. Just like members on the old MI6Forums who wrote fan-fics about Fleming's Bond life during the 2nd world war. Very good fan fic, but a horrible idea for a film.
    I respect your opinion, and I can definitely see where your coming from. Me and Shadow's ideas would not make a very good formulaic Bond film. But the Bond franchise is really the only franchise that could pull it off. When Fleming Novel's run out and the same refurbished writers eventually pan out, what will be left? I personally think, if I just got the job to be Bond, I would want to be brought in the way I presented above, with class. It would definitely break tradition, but what era of Bond HASN'T done that? Your telling me you wouldn't even give it a go?

    And to the point of EON being to safe - if B23 is a disappointment, they are going to lose out massively, especially to weaker audiences. Strong audiences that are huge fans of Bond will continue, but a tiring formula overused is going to lose fans. You never know what they'd be willing to do. They took a risk going straight and serious with Craig, and people loved CR. It wouldn't be as bad as people say. And plus, Bond is all about taking risks, that's who he is and that's what makes the movies. He does what others wont. Whose to say Eon doesn't/shouldn't think the same way?

    And to clarify, my proposed introduction for a new Bond film would only have Bond somewhat out of the story line for approx. 30 minutes, just to build tension and suspense, and convince the viewer there really is no hope. THEN have Bond swoop in. And even throughout those 30 minutes, you would see little clues of Bond. Like a small part of the baddies plan goes wrong without explanation, things are misplaced that the baddie notices, and trademarks, like an Aston in the background would be present. It would really be up to brilliant writing to pull it off, but it can be done reasonably.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited September 2011 Posts: 11,139
    All this talk about a Bond movie with Bond hardly in it, following the pov of another 00 or the villain just goes to show that for all of EON's faults and flaws, they know best and should never allow themselves to be dictated to by the fans or in some cases, fanatics.

    We've seen the whole faking death angle before in YOLT, nothing particularly special and I hate to point out the obvious but these are movies being made and not novels being written. 2 very different medias with very different ways to convey a story. The Bond films are and will always be about Bond. No plot in a Bond movie regardless of how brilliant it is will force Bond to take a back seat. From a movie-making perspective it's a dumb idea that will never get made. You don't side-line your star attraction for anything. People are paying to see Bond, investors are financing the movie because of Bond, not for some villain or some obscure 00 agent eating up majority screen time. Bond is the show, Bond is the movie and Bond is who people want to see.
  • Posts: 5,745
    All this talk about a Bond movie with Bond hardly in it, following the pov of another 00 or the villain just goes to show that for all of EON's faults and flaws, they know best and should never allow themselves to be dictated to by the fans or in some cases, fanatics.

    We've seen the whole faking death angle before in YOLT, nothing particularly special and I hate to point out the obvious but these are movies being made and not novels being written. 2 very different medias with very different ways to convey a story. The Bond films are and will always be about Bond. No plot in a Bond movie regardless of how brilliant it is will force Bond to take a back seat. From a movie-making perspective it's a dumb idea that will never get made. You don't side-line your star attraction for anything. People are paying to see Bond, investors are financing the movie because of Bond, not for some villain or some obscure 00 agent eating up majority screen time. Bond is the show, Bond is the movie and Bond is who people want to see.

    With all due respect, since when is 30 minutes the majority of a Bond movie? Your tone is insulting, but I may be taking it wrong. Please read what I said carefully. It would only make the moment the new Bond did appear that much greater. I think we could follow a gteat villain for a good 20-30 minutes no prob.
  • Posts: 1,310
    The thing is (regarding all this re-invention stuff and fan fiction) that people who go to a Bond film are half expecting there to be some sort of a formula. Look both the Craig films. Some people have said they have broken the mold of formula, but in all honesty I do not see it. I am a fan of Craig and his films, but let's face it, his tenure has not completely REINVENTED Bond.

    Look at all of the things featured in Casino Royale and/or Quantum of Solace that are part of the 'Bond formula':

    - Bond drives an Aston Martin (CR/QOS)
    - Bond in a Tuxedo (CR/QOS)
    - "Bond, James Bond" (CR)
    - 'Spectacular' if often implausible action scenes (African Rundown in CR, Miami Airport in CR, Ending gunfight in QOS)
    - The villain's base blowing up in the end (QOS)
    - Vodka Martini (CR/QOS)
    - One night stands (Solange in CR, Fields in QOS)
    - Villain with a physical deformity (Le Chiffre's eye in CR)
    - Emphasized one liners ("That last hand nearly killed me," in CR)
    - Sadism (Blowing up Carlos at Miami Airport in CR)
    - The James Bond Theme* (Kind of; it was notably absent in both CR's and QOS's soundtracks, but the blaring Bond theme at the end of CR counts for me)

    There may be more, there may not be. The point is that a complete reinvention of James Bond and the 'formula' these films follow simply is not plausible from a financial standpoint. These formulaic films have been successful and are still raking in the money, so doing something as drastic as keeping Bond out for even just 30 minutes would send angry shock waves throughout the casual fan community. EON knows this, and even still, they are too glued to the tradition to do anything that liberal anyway.

    Now, the topic of this thread is 'realistic and serious'. Sure, bond films should be realistic to a degree. If Bond is to be shot at by multiple assailants, at least put cover for him to hide behind so it tricks the audience into thinking it a realistic scenario. But just how realistic do you want? There have always been some incredulity to the superior Bond action scene. I'll even appease @DaltonCraig007 and say that the car flip from The Man with the Golden Gun is a spectacular stunt, (that flippin' whistle is a different story, but that's for another thread) but when you sit back and think about it, the fact that the bridge was damaged in a way that allowed the car to do that stunt in the first place is just not in line with reality.

    If you're not a Moore fan, let's take the film, Goldfinger as example. Goldfinger is NOT realistic and serious. As a matter of fact, GF is one of the more campy Bond films. It's all there: Pigeon diving masks, tuxedos under wetsuits, Oddjob being able to shrug off a gold bar hitting him square in the chest, the one liners ("Shocking" etc.), I could go on. Now, Goldfinger is often considered as one of the best James Bond films. (I consider it one of the best, too, but surprisingly doesn't get much love on these forums.) More importantly however, Goldfinger made a ridiculous amount of money. What I'm trying to say is that the more iconic films of the original series for better or for worse (GF, TSWLM, GE) were the least realistic ones. No one remembers For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights, not necessarily because they were poor films, but because they didn't have the (insert crazy gadget/golden painted girl scene here). Is that fair? No. But that seems to be the way it is.

    Then we have serious. Ask License to Kill how that went. Actually don't, the film will likely tell you to f*** off. The movie wasn't financially successful! So why would they make another movie in that vain? Okay, LTK still has some silly parts (which is what hurts it as a film...like that silly bar fight), but the violence and blood....and stumps where legs should be really turned off audiences. (Perhaps it was mixed with a poor marketing campaign, but how much really? I think this marketing excuse is just a result of filmmakers in denial: it is James Bond for God's sake, how much marketing do you need?) Make a Bond film too serious and it turns people off. Quantum of Solace, another low key Bond adventure, raked in a good amount of cash (likely due to Casino Royale residuals), but fan reaction was bleak. Remember the last time fans and critics complained this much about a Bond film? That's right, it was Die Another Day, and EON ended up listening with the making of CR. What I'm saying is that QOS's mixed critical reaction has the potential to hurt Bond 23 at the box office, just as DAD's negative reviews threatened to hurt Bond 21. With all of this in mind, I personally think that Bond 23 is going to be more inline with the 'standard' Bond film that audiences think of, and EON will be very vocal in saying that it is.

    Phew. I've ranted enough, I hope that some of this post is in relation to this topic! (And I hope I haven't offended any of you that much!)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The thing is (regarding all this re-invention stuff and fan fiction) that people who go to a Bond film are half expecting there to be some sort of a formula. Look both the Craig films. Some people have said they have broken the mold of formula, but in all honesty I do not see it. I am a fan of Craig and his films, but let's face it, his tenure has not completely REINVENTED Bond.

    Look at all of the things featured in Casino Royale and/or Quantum of Solace that are part of the 'Bond formula':

    - Bond drives an Aston Martin (CR/QOS)
    - Bond in a Tuxedo (CR/QOS)
    - "Bond, James Bond" (CR)
    - 'Spectacular' if often implausible action scenes (African Rundown in CR, Miami Airport in CR, Ending gunfight in QOS)
    - The villain's base blowing up in the end (QOS)
    - Vodka Martini (CR/QOS)
    - One night stands (Solange in CR, Fields in QOS)
    - Villain with a physical deformity (Le Chiffre's eye in CR)
    - Emphasized one liners ("That last hand nearly killed me," in CR)
    - Sadism (Blowing up Carlos at Miami Airport in CR)
    - The James Bond Theme* (Kind of; it was notably absent in both CR's and QOS's soundtracks, but the blaring Bond theme at the end of CR counts for me)

    There may be more, there may not be. The point is that a complete reinvention of James Bond and the 'formula' these films follow simply is not plausible from a financial standpoint. These formulaic films have been successful and are still raking in the money, so doing something as drastic as keeping Bond out for even just 30 minutes would send angry shock waves throughout the casual fan community. EON knows this, and even still, they are too glued to the tradition to do anything that liberal anyway.

    Now, the topic of this thread is 'realistic and serious'. Sure, bond films should be realistic to a degree. If Bond is to be shot at by multiple assailants, at least put cover for him to hide behind so it tricks the audience into thinking it a realistic scenario. But just how realistic do you want? There have always been some incredulity to the superior Bond action scene. I'll even appease @DaltonCraig007 and say that the car flip from The Man with the Golden Gun is a spectacular stunt, (that flippin' whistle is a different story, but that's for another thread) but when you sit back and think about it, the fact that the bridge was damaged in a way that allowed the car to do that stunt in the first place is just not in line with reality.

    If you're not a Moore fan, let's take the film, Goldfinger as example. Goldfinger is NOT realistic and serious. As a matter of fact, GF is one of the more campy Bond films. It's all there: Pigeon diving masks, tuxedos under wetsuits, Oddjob being able to shrug off a gold bar hitting him square in the chest, the one liners ("Shocking" etc.), I could go on. Now, Goldfinger is often considered as one of the best James Bond films. (I consider it one of the best, too, but surprisingly doesn't get much love on these forums.) More importantly however, Goldfinger made a ridiculous amount of money. What I'm trying to say is that the more iconic films of the original series for better or for worse (GF, TSWLM, GE) were the least realistic ones. No one remembers For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights, not necessarily because they were poor films, but because they didn't have the (insert crazy gadget/golden painted girl scene here). Is that fair? No. But that seems to be the way it is.

    Then we have serious. Ask License to Kill how that went. Actually don't, the film will likely tell you to f*** off. The movie wasn't financially successful! So why would they make another movie in that vain? Okay, LTK still has some silly parts (which is what hurts it as a film...like that silly bar fight), but the violence and blood....and stumps where legs should be really turned off audiences. (Perhaps it was mixed with a poor marketing campaign, but how much really? I think this marketing excuse is just a result of filmmakers in denial: it is James Bond for God's sake, how much marketing do you need?) Make a Bond film too serious and it turns people off. Quantum of Solace, another low key Bond adventure, raked in a good amount of cash (likely due to Casino Royale residuals), but fan reaction was bleak. Remember the last time fans and critics complained this much about a Bond film? That's right, it was Die Another Day, and EON ended up listening with the making of CR. What I'm saying is that QOS's mixed critical reaction has the potential to hurt Bond 23 at the box office, just as DAD's negative reviews threatened to hurt Bond 21. With all of this in mind, I personally think that Bond 23 is going to be more inline with the 'standard' Bond film that audiences think of, and EON will be very vocal in saying that it is.

    Phew. I've ranted enough, I hope that some of this post is in relation to this topic! (And I hope I haven't offended any of you that much!)
    So many words, so little said.
  • edited September 2011 Posts: 1,310
    Well it was a rant, after all; I suppose a good edit or two might have been some help.

    Cliff notes of what I said: Bond needs some unrealism and silliness to be wholly successful. Not stupid silly like double taking pigeons, but more witty and low key. And relating to realism, Bond films are known for some of their incredulous stunts, I think you cannot eradicate those either. (Even the african rundown in CR featured some over the top stunts, mainly by Mollaka.)

    Make the action completely gritty and 100% real, you lose some fun and Bond films should be more fun than your average action flick.

    How's that, Brady? ;-)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Yes, SJK91 is right. CR and QOS really didn't re-invent the formula. They're still pretty much straightforward Bond films... Only the Bond character has changed since DAD. Yes, they are changes in the formula here and there, but it isn't radically different from said formula.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2011 Posts: 28,694
    Well it was a rant, after all; I suppose a good edit or two might have been some help.

    Cliff notes of what I said: Bond needs some unrealism and silliness to be wholly successful. Not stupid silly like double taking pigeons, but more witty and low key. And relating to realism, Bond films are known for some of their incredulous stunts, I think you cannot eradicate those either. (Even the african rundown in CR featured some over the top stunts, mainly by Mollaka.)

    Make the action completely gritty and 100% real, you lose some fun and Bond films should be more fun than your average action flick.

    How's that, Brady? ;-)
    I didn't mean to come off as rude to you in my post, @SJK91. I'm sorry If I offended you. Anyway, I am at heart a fan of a cold and ruthless Bond(as you guys should know by now from my Connery/Craig promotion and outstretching love). I like the realism used in the current Craig era and see no reason to stop it. I've loved Craig in the role and the action isn't over the top in my eyes. The man used for Mollaka was indeed a parkour expert after all, so he knew what he was doing and it wasn't over the top for him. If we let realism out the door we could get more Moore-like films. I don't want to see Bond go through that. It has been a while since 1973-1985. We live in a modern world with very real danger, and the realism in the films is an indication of how scary the world today can be. I'll always be a fan of a more realistic Bond than an overdone caper.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Well I can't wait for the franchise to steer away from this serious/realistic dullness and back to a more fun, epic, humorous trend.
  • Posts: 1,310
    One more thing to add: I love the Sean Connery Bond films and Casino Royale, as a matter of fact CR may be my favorite Bond film. (Sorry, if I lost all credibility to you, DC007!) But all in all, the Craig films are not complete reinventions.
  • Posts: 1,092
    "epic fail, you lose", lol what are you 11 years old? learn how to put up a real argument .
    When someone makes such an asinine comment like Moore's films were a disgrace to the franchise, why shouldn't I respond in kind? Der.
  • Posts: 1,092

    Epic fail. You lose.
    I'm sure there's a coloring book laying around here that needs coloring...In all seriousness, don't just disrespect someone with a stupid comment. Grow up and give some evidence to back up your claims.
    Uh, what's your line about coloring books all about then, Mr. Hypocrite? And you aren't the boss of me. I can post whatever I want. He called Moore's tenure a disgrace. That isn't disresepctful or childish? What evidence does he give? When someone makes such a ridiculous statement someone needs to call him out. Why is he allowed to call a revered Bond actor a disgrace?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Well I can't wait for the franchise to steer away from this serious/realistic dullness and back to a more fun, epic, humorous trend.
    Serious and realistic doesn't have to mean dull. If anything I think Bond 23 will prove serious and realistic can be fun and 'epic' to an extent because afterall we're watching a James Bond film. Think of all the over the top scenes from the last two films, the sinking house, skydiving, not really realistic and the Bond films need to realise this. Humour will also play a part too. I think more than anything the films could not be as down to Earth as they are especially with the most recent villains perhaps. This with letting Bond do his 'thing' should make for a very entertaining film - something we may get next year. Don't think we're still stuck in dull, serious and realistic times. The public will choice where we go next at now it's a 'proper Bond movie' as Craig puts it.

    EDIT: Just my random thoughts really. Not necessarily directed at you @DaltonCraig007 but more the thread topic in general.
  • SexpionageSexpionage Suspended
    Posts: 49
    Roger Moore is a great guy, I really like the man as a human being, but his tenure was a comedy act. For instance the Flying Car Scene with Scaramanga was so unnecessary and just stupid lol. I wonder if the writers at the time were were on LSD while writing the scripts. Seriously though I know there are fans on here that love Rogers 007 tenure and I'm glad we both share a love for Bond.
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited September 2011 Posts: 348
    if I were Barbara broccoli I would remake all of the original book movies made by Moore with complete seriousness and realism in the timeline we live in now....
    i agree. lets keep them gritty and srs. And think we should also eliminate sex, because thats a distraction from shooting up the baddies. There should also be a scene where Bond plays COD 4 wiv da main villain, and then rips his head off...

    Get rid of humour, class, fun and intelligence too, because there isn't in any the books by Ian Flemming.

    Hans Zimmerman should do the score, and Chris Nolan should direct.

    That would be 4rsome lol

    Disclaimer: The above post is pure satire.

    The Shark is not associated with MGM, EON, Danjac or the staff of MI6Community and does not reflect their views.
  • I don't mind a bit of humor and silly moments in Bond but Moore did bring to the screen a multitude of such moments, but fair play to the man there was some serious moments too especially in For Your Eyes Only and even Octopussy, amid all the clowning around, no pun intentional

    Maybe that's why Dalton is a favorite, it was such a relief to get back to the Fleming ways of old, Bond had finally become serious once again and you could believe in the character once again, such nonsense as doing wild ski jumps to the Beach Boys had quickly been forgotten
  • Posts: 1,999
    Humor and silly are quite different. The series flew right off the rails with the clumsily handled and poorly conceived pre-title sequence in DAF. At no point was Connery convincing as an aggrieved, vengeance seeking widower. Gray was equally silly as a non-threatening Blofeld. Playing stuffy bureaucrats was his metier. From there the series was a reflection of Moore's lighweight approach to Bond, always seeming to wink at the camera as if to say, "Look, I'm acting as if I'm J.B." Most of the humor was sophomoric. Under Dalton the series regained its seriousness, but you can practically see the pained expression on Dalton's face whenever he delivers one of those cheesy lines. Brosnan was Moore of the same. Craig's Bond harkens back to DN & FRWL. For some of us who have been with series since the release of DN, Craig is the first Bond not to make us miss Connery.

    If I need silly, then I'll watch Johnny English and Austin Powers. What I want from Bond is wit.
  • Posts: 1,310
    Humor and silly are quite different. The series flew right off the rails with the clumsily handled and poorly conceived pre-title sequence in DAF. At no point was Connery convincing as an aggrieved, vengeance seeking widower. Gray was equally silly as a non-threatening Blofeld. Playing stuffy bureaucrats was his metier. From there the series was a reflection of Moore's lighweight approach to Bond, always seeming to wink at the camera as if to say, "Look, I'm acting as if I'm J.B." Most of the humor was sophomoric. Under Dalton the series regained its seriousness, but you can practically see the pained expression on Dalton's face whenever he delivers one of those cheesy lines. Brosnan was Moore of the same. Craig's Bond harkens back to DN & FRWL. For some of us who have been with series since the release of DN, Craig is the first Bond not to make us miss Connery.

    If I need silly, then I'll watch Johnny English and Austin Powers. What I want from Bond is wit.
    This. This. This. Mods, archive this for us Craig fans. Brilliant, CrabKey. Absolutely brilliant.
  • Posts: 289
    to go back to moore level of silliness would be the death of Bond....
  • SexpionageSexpionage Suspended
    Posts: 49
    Humor and silly are quite different. The series flew right off the rails with the clumsily handled and poorly conceived pre-title sequence in DAF. At no point was Connery convincing as an aggrieved, vengeance seeking widower. Gray was equally silly as a non-threatening Blofeld. Playing stuffy bureaucrats was his metier. From there the series was a reflection of Moore's lighweight approach to Bond, always seeming to wink at the camera as if to say, "Look, I'm acting as if I'm J.B." Most of the humor was sophomoric. Under Dalton the series regained its seriousness, but you can practically see the pained expression on Dalton's face whenever he delivers one of those cheesy lines. Brosnan was Moore of the same. Craig's Bond harkens back to DN & FRWL. For some of us who have been with series since the release of DN, Craig is the first Bond not to make us miss Connery.

    If I need silly, then I'll watch Johnny English and Austin Powers. What I want from Bond is wit.
    AMEN ^. This guy nailed it right on the head. I couldn't say it any better my self
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited October 2011 Posts: 348
    Humor and silly are quite different. The series flew right off the rails with the clumsily handled and poorly conceived pre-title sequence in DAF. At no point was Connery convincing as an aggrieved, vengeance seeking widower.
    Eh? That's assuming DAF follows directly on from OHMSS. In all likelihood, considering the opening setting (Japan), no recognition of Tracey's death, and the producer's response to OHMSS's relative lack of success - it doesn't. With one or two rare exceptions, plot continuity and Bond don't mix.
    Gray was equally silly as a non-threatening Blofeld.
    Zorin Industries put it best in his review:
    We have a very effete BLOFELD whose preening music hall, drag-queen confidence makes for a deliciously unnerving villain (and potentially the best attempt at showing BLOFELD the character’s psychosis and derangements).
    Nail on the head.
Sign In or Register to comment.