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
Agreed..the DB5 is at risk of becoming boring through over-use...Connery only used it twice....Brosnan used it ro re-introduce the series (as it wasnt a re-boot) and a small cameo part in TND as BMW was Brosnan's car...and we are looking at 3 of Craig's 4 films using the DB5 ...it is being shoved in the viewers face ,which takes away its charm.
Connery 2 times
Brosnan 2 times
Craig 3 times
= OVERKILL.
The DB5 belongs to GF and TB.....and it should have stopped there and not risked it's icon status ,as Moore's Lotus' from TSWLM and FYEO still are.
If I may butt in, its cleverly inserted into CR and doesn't draw too much attention to itself. The exchange between Bond and Solange in and around it is great ("welcome to my home").
Trust me, I'm not a DB5 advocate.
Did it make it a better film? No.
Did it make it a worse film? No.
As for logic - a man looking for logic in the Bond canon is a fool. The sooner people get over that the sooner they can spark up a cig/joint and kick back with a whisky.
Exactly!
CR was a serious and hard edged film, which was taking Bond from scratch. That is the difference.
Craig does not need to be tied down to another Bond actor's trademark car.
I liked the new Aston in CR and that fitted beautifully. No issues there.
Talking of smoking. I loved it when Bond smoked. That made me smoke. Too cool.
Shit happens. It's still probably one of the best three Bond films of all time and a DB5 isn't going to change that.
I would have preferred to see Bond smoke rather than the DB5 1964. Connery in Dr No made smoking cool. Bond lives dangerously.
QOS is the crown of the Craig era. Best film since LTK. A minority opinion though in the mainstream.
And Forster should have directed SF, and a shame Mendes got the gig. To screw up Blofeld I never thought was possible.
We saw Bond smoking in the previous film ;)
I'm inclined to agree though I really like CR too.
About the DB5, I liked its use in the Brosnan era because it's the same timeline as the original car. Never had any problems with Bond winning it in CR either because it is a different one.
But Mendes got it all wrong though. As usual. What does GF's DB5 have to do with the new timeline? Typical of Mendes, pretentiously showing off the old DB5 while it just doesn't make sense.
Had he used the one he won in CR it would have been fine, but Sam could not control himself and he shoved in all the gadgets from another timeline.
Don't agree about smoking though. In the sixties smoking was chique, now it's more associated with the lower classes.
It being the minority opinion is precisely why QoS isn't the crown of the Craig era. It's the old, 'I love this band, but you wouldn't get them' shtick. It's sandwiched by two films jammed packed with ideas and themes that have heft and are executed superbly. By no means flawless, but rich in mood and atmosphere and story, next to the comparably lightweight difficult second album (which I'm aware is why some people love it - it has moments of excellence).
In the end, favourite Bond film comes down to personal taste. Out of all the Craig films, QOS is the one I can watch the most.
Fans revise their Bond films. I used to dismiss OHMSS for instance.
And the QOS PTS has an incredible energy. A beautiful metaphor of the viciousness of the world Bond inhabits. Forster as a director did a great job.
'Favourite' is personal taste, naturally. I was talking 'best' film, from a critical perspective.
Regarding smoking, it is something that plenty of rich people do. Bond also drinks, which is also associated with the lower classes. In London there are people with no work who are drunk on the streets.
If someone in an expensive suit and car lights a cigarette up, no one will look down on them.
And Bond smoking is a middle finger at the politically correct culture we inhabit.
Bringing a DB5 into the movie (it could be any DB5 and CR explains the entry to the car)
and bring THE DB5 back which crosses the timelines
They never needed it in the Moore era, as the DB5 would have ignited the shadow of Connery.
That failed completely so bringing back the DB5 over and over again is an obvious attempt to put some Connery aura around Craig.
You hit the nail on the head. A weak attempt to sub-consciously tell the audience he is the new Connery.
Hence adios Craig. For me, only Connery, Moore and Dalton were completely their own man..
Excluding QOS, the Craig era fell into the Brosnan trap. He was also hailed as the new Connery.
I've been one of the most vocal critics of the DB5 and its misuse in this era, but using it as a stick to beat Craig with is disingenuous. The positives of his era, and in particular his portrayal, far outweigh the negatives.
Countless stabs at SP and Brosnan are ok it seems, but Craig not?
Brosnan and Craig, both, are just not up to the Quality Level that was ensured from Connery to Dalton in the acting department and Bondian Quality.
The idea is that you make a controversial statement, which which will either be agreed with or countered. It's called a 'forum'. If your 'controversial' statement is baseless it will likely be countered. That's how it works.
Quite.
I liked SP though surprisingly. Never cared for Craig.
Another good point. That's perhaps why QoS is looked upon much more favourably these days on this forum, and why many say it has excellent rewatch value. There's a lot going on in that short run time.
Some of the scenes are brilliantly filmed with excellent dialogue.
The Vesper scenario was closed brilliantly and the gunbarrel at the end made CR-QOS a neat little package.
SF came along and,to me ,is still a stand-alone Bond film,no matter what is said in SP..i ignore that.
SP should have carried on moving away from the Vesper storyline,but instead it ignores SF (apart from the totally irrelevant Silva mention) and dragged us back into it.
As SP proves, his era. bit off more than it can chew. Had he stuck to the QOS characterisation, then I would feel differently.
His era is all over the place. Connery in his first four films was more consistent .And one year between films, so less time to prepare. And smaller budgets that achieved a cinematic revolution.
Variety is the spice of life, as they say. Craig has tried to do something different with each film - more commendable in my opinion than turning up and going through the motions. Whether people like his work is up for debate, but his dedication isn't.
As for the films, there's a tonal shift from DN to FRWL and a dramatic one to GF. Same goes for Roger - a slight shift from LALD to TMWTGG then a dramatic one to TSLWM, so singling out Craig (again) is disingenuous.