It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I feel that Die Another Day was trying to claim itself as the James Bond that had existed: ridiculous gadgets, cartoonish action scenes and puns. Those elements however, are brutally cliched and Die Another Day ending up failing in just about every way.
Casino Royale did its best to ground not only the formula of Bond, but the character of James Bond himself. Brosnan's Bond in DAD came across as some sleazy, aging playboy who happened to be a spy as well. Daniel Craig's Bond is a spy first, and a womanizer second; that has been proven with his last films. This phenomenon has also happened before remember: the change from Roger Moore's A View to a Kill to Timothy Dalton's The Living Daylights is very similar to the changing of the guard between Brosnan and Craig.
The only difference is that Craig's films are considerably more successful than Dalton's.
If EON were to go back to an escapist Bond film along the lines of 'Goldfinger', or 'The Spy Who Loved Me' (two films admired by the general public), it would be IMPERATIVE to fire Purvis and Wade, who have already proven themselves as inept from writing Die Another Day. They turned Bond into a giant cliche, thinking they could somehow recreate the magic of the early Bond films. And we all know how that turned out: Yikes.
So, in conclusion, if the Bond producers really want to go back to the 'way things were', a new set of filmmakers need to be brought in, starting with the expulsion of Purvis and Wade.
i stopped caring about critics once i read the reviews by Roger Ebert for both Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace, back-to-back..... they were both mirror opposites of each other - what he praised CR for doing, in breaking apart the cliche's from 40 years of Bond film history - he condemned QOS for continuing it..... it's almost like he himself wrote one article, and then his evil twin wrote another.. how does your opinion change that quickly from one film to the next?... it simply baffles me...
But all critics really do (at least ones i have read) is nitpick every detail, and bleed it dry until there is no more life left in it.... as @NicNac said, traditional elements were there in both CR and QOS, they just weren't thrown in your face like they did in previous films - it's like they forced you (for once maybe) to think and pay attention, while watching a Bond film, instead of being spoon-fed every ounce of detail or plot, or ham-handed cliche'
to say that fans are growing tired of "this new direction" of Bond i believe is a little pretentious on the writer's part.... while a lot of us do want some traditional elements to return, i do think it's quite ill-advised for him to say "we are all growing tired" - B.O. results, and reviews for the next film will show if we are growing tired or not.... (granted i didn't read it), but judging based off of what i've seen other's quote and/or comment on - it seems like he's basing his opinion(s) off of just his friend's - not to mention he's probably the type that can't form an opinion on his own, unless it falls in line with his friends........ now, i know a lot here dislike Craig (personally i don't, unless he really does a 180 with the Bond character), but to assume that his ONE friend speaks for the majority, or even we on this website make up the majority of people who watch James Bond around the world is quite silly......
i know EON does pay close attention to what fans say, (as it was obvious when MGW was asked by a fan during a lecture about the editing and action of QOS) - they get it, which is why i undoubtedly know traditional elements will be brought back into the mix - but it won't be 100% all at once, it will be gradual.... but in the end, it's what they feel is right for Bond, and they'll make their decisions accordingly.
i don't cut Purvis and Wade slack for DAD, because they need to shoulder some of the blame as well.... but it's the director's job to get the actors to be at their best, while also engaging the audience with excellent direction......................................... none of this was found in DAD.
CR is a brilliant movie except for the final where 007 gets to the sinking house which is once again a DAD excess finale. With two brilliant actors aboard they should have done the betrayal suicide actingwise which would have been really a change of pace and direction. Instead the choice was simply the usual one. Not really a change of direction.
QoS is a change of direction, it is the first 007 movie which I find artificial and full of cr%p. It has it moments but mostly contains a story and a movie that is unworthy to this great franchise. Artyfarty mumbojumbo bollocks.
Now lets hope the next one is a change of direction in which Daniel Craig gets his swansong if he decides to bow out after three, and can do so in style.
Difficult to disagree though.
Finally, to suggest that there is no point in all this debate, argument and downright hot-air. The market will decide how Bond will develop! Currently it is a Bourne sibling (please lets not deny this) God knows what is knocking on the door.
Something I've noticed during my time on here is that saying anything bad about Craig, CR or Skyfall is tearing the site down with negativity while saying Brosnan can't act, Moore was a joke, Dalton had no charm, is just fine apparently.
I like Craig but right now I'm tired of the new direction yeah. Mainly because of M being overused, them making every single film personal, etc.
I am looking forward to SF though. Even though I'm on the fence about some things (like the new Q, and the story of a "hacker" wanting to kill M), some things look great (the villian, the girls, the locations). I hope they change things up a bit and make it more classic Bond like they've promised.
What I don't think, is that SF will be the best one ever, I think Broccoli made too big a promise there. I think even Craigs best film is a big promise because CR was really good. They should've just promised "better than the last one", I'm sure they can live up to that.
I get where you're coming from. DC is superior to Brozza IMO but his films are not the real deal for me so far. They're not bad but they're no on the money either. It's nothing to do with what 'Acton Steve' says - all this stuff about silly fans needing 'crutches' etc. It's about the loss of a little bit of the magic and soul at the heart of the films. Any way, I do sense that Mendes and even Craig have felt that something has been missing and I think they'll have been working overtime to put it back with Skyfall.
Odeon are marketing Skyfall as "This times it's personal" in their promotional magazine in cinemas.
Wanted to add, "again".
Really? :)) =))
What is the reason for this bump? I am not seeing, that you actually SAY anything, that has a real meaning other then what we all know, that no argument can beat whatever will happen, once the film is released. Now - what do you want us to do with this information? #-o
But its you, that suggests that all the talk is senseless anyway. Does this even make sense to you? Attacking me doesn't change a CERTAIN illogicality.
But, of course, if you actually want to bring up a new discussion comparing Bond and Bourne, I am sure, MANY people will be happily jump onto such a brilliant, NEW idea.
No, CaptainFlandry on the other thread was getting abuse because he was preaching his own opinions as gospel. He was treating other people as morons because they didn't absolutely hate Craig. He earned his abuse. There are plenty of people on these forums that don't like Craig, and plenty who do like him. There are probably more Craig lovers here because he's the current Bond, just as the Brosnan lovers would have been more prevalent back in the 1996 (I give people a year to get used to him) to 2002 years.
One poster was totally in the wrong with regard his reaction but no one send boo to him.
I don't care, really. I was just pointing out, that it doesn't make your words more plausible. Maybe offer an answer to that. Reread your actual post and tell me, what was your point aside from moaning, that hating on the current Bond isn't the most favourable thing on this boards plus stating, that Bond and Bourne are alike (in some peoples opinion). Gawd, the Mummies are in Egypt are fresher news.
So, you obviously would more people like to hate on Craig. Go to CNB and you will find plenty probably. But on the other hand, they are all in cardiac arrest rest now...
I'm not saying he wasn't be as we all have been at one point. Each and every one of us, on these forums or in real life, has at one point felt that our opinions rise above all others, even if we weren't aware that we were doing it. CaptainFlandry was, however, unwilling to listen to anyone who could say something intelligent to him.
It's a good point well made Agent007391. We do tend to feel passionate about our opinions and simply making them means we run the risk of ridicule.
I'm a big fan of Craig as Bond but I do recognise that the misgivings some have about him as Bond, or the reboot idea or the Bourne influence are quite legitimate. However a discussion forum by its very nature will create some very heated debate.
Just don't let it turn to personal abuse. ;-)