SPECTRE Production Timeline

14243454748870

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Jeez, there was nothing wrong with the adjusting of his cuff. It's nowhere near being camp or a Moore-esque trait. It was a cool moment and pure Bond; emotionally unruffled by the dangerous situation he was in and suavely readjusts himself after successfully pulling off a dangerous stunt.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Bounine wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Daniel Craig's comment regarding Bond adjusting his cuffs:

    "That’s what it’s about: to be more concerned about the way you look at the moment of crisis."

    That's what The Moore films are about.

    I guess heading back down this territory was inevitable. I think Craig is genuinely scared that he's going to wind up being criticised as the humourless Bond. Connery would straighten his tie after a fight or some dangerous situation he was in but ONLY after. Not during. The films will never be full on Fleming but they don't have to go camp either. Go back to Moore by all means when a new actor is cast in the role. It sounds like the Craig films will start becoming too inconsistent in tone like in the horrible Brosnan films.

    All he did was straighten his cuffs, mate; no need to overreact here. That action isn't even close to being campy. Bond jumped the gap, causing his suit to become somewhat ruffled as he landed into the train car. Naturally, he would straighten his suit out and become once again more presentable.

    To me it seems pretty unnatural. Who would do that considering the situation they are in? To me it only seems like a vain pansy who is obsessed with his appearance would do such a thing under these circumstances. If another man was in this situation, having just jumped into a moving train that has just had the backed ripped off, wind whipping all around him, chasing a bad guy, the idea of him actually adjusting his cuff when such danger is present, seems like the last thing that would be on his mind. Honestly, to me, the situation seems ludicrous and the sort of thing you'd see in a slapstick comedy like Austin Powers. I liked the more Flemingsque tone in CR and QOS but they seem to be moving away from this now unfortunately. I was hoping it might last just for the Craig era. Oh well...

    In terms of the comedy, while Craig is a great Bond, he hasn't a great talent for the one liners. He's much better sticking to the natural humour like when he was having conversations with Vesper in the film version of Casino Royale for example. For me, the lighter tone of Goldfinger was a bit of a come down after the excellent FRWL, helped in part by the gadget laden car. Not that I watched them in order when I was first introduced to Bond in the 80's, but you know what I mean... :) I enjoy Goldfinger but it lacks the wonderful, darker tone of it's predecessor.

    I'm actually dumbfounded reading your comment. Do you not think you're going a tad OTT here? How you can get that wound up by something as simple as straightening his cuffs is beyond me. Referring to Craig as a "vain pansy" is pretty ridiculous not to mention insulting.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Bounine wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Daniel Craig's comment regarding Bond adjusting his cuffs:

    "That’s what it’s about: to be more concerned about the way you look at the moment of crisis."

    That's what The Moore films are about.

    I guess heading back down this territory was inevitable. I think Craig is genuinely scared that he's going to wind up being criticised as the humourless Bond. Connery would straighten his tie after a fight or some dangerous situation he was in but ONLY after. Not during. The films will never be full on Fleming but they don't have to go camp either. Go back to Moore by all means when a new actor is cast in the role. It sounds like the Craig films will start becoming too inconsistent in tone like in the horrible Brosnan films.

    All he did was straighten his cuffs, mate; no need to overreact here. That action isn't even close to being campy. Bond jumped the gap, causing his suit to become somewhat ruffled as he landed into the train car. Naturally, he would straighten his suit out and become once again more presentable.

    To me it seems pretty unnatural. Who would do that considering the situation they are in? To me it only seems like a vain pansy who is obsessed with his appearance would do such a thing under these circumstances. If another man was in this situation, having just jumped into a moving train that has just had the backed ripped off, wind whipping all around him, chasing a bad guy, the idea of him actually adjusting his cuff when such danger is present, seems like the last thing that would be on his mind. Honestly, to me, the situation seems ludicrous and the sort of thing you'd see in a slapstick comedy like Austin Powers. I liked the more Flemingsque tone in CR and QOS but they seem to be moving away from this now unfortunately. I was hoping it might last just for the Craig era. Oh well...

    It takes literally seconds to adjust cuffs; Bond was hardly stopping to take a breather there. Comparing such a simple and non-over the top situation to an Austin Powers film baffles me.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 2,598
    "I'm actually dumbfounded reading your comment. Do you not think you're going a tad OTT here? How you can get that wound up by something as simple as straightening his cuffs is beyond me. Referring to Craig as a "vain pansy" is pretty ridiculous not to mention insulting."

    I'm not wound up. I just think that it belongs right in the Moore era and I was hoping that Skyfall would continue in the more Flemingsque tone of CR and QOS. I'm not saying Craig is a vain pansy but portraying Bond in such a way makes the character he is playing seem like one to a small extent. To think that someone would actually think to stop and do something like this considering the circumstances baffles me. I can't believe that people actually think that this is natural given the situation he is in! I thought that Craig's Bond was supposed to be more rough and ready like Connery and the book Bond. Bond considers his presentation important but he wouldn't pause to adjust his apparel right smack bang in the middle of a dangerous situation like this. Moore's and Brosnan's cinematic Bond would but they are far removed from their literary counterpart. Sorry, but to me it just seems kind of absurd.

    If Craig wants to cross into Moore territory then fine. I just find it a bit disappointing. I was hoping for more realistic (when I say realistic I'm obviously not referring to Fleming's plots), Flemingsque Bond films for the Craig era. What if the corner of his shirt was hanging out and he tucked it in? Would this be a perfectly natural thing to do too while standing beside a whole in an unbalanced train while the villain gets further away? If Bond had have adjusted his tie or cuff when it was all over, presuming he wasn't shot, then this would be perfectly fine. Well, each to their own I guess.

    In terms of the humour, if Bond 24 has more natural humour like the dialogue exchanged between Bond and the nurse in Shrublands in TB for example, then that's perfectly fine. This stuff is funny. I just think that they should leave out the corny one liners for the Craig era.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I still don't understand why you are so up in arms over such a simple moment, honestly. So your problem is that Bond does it while the mission is still on, yet it literally takes him seconds to fix his cuffs and he never once takes his mind off of his mission to do it.

    If this is the kind of silly criticism we are now entertaining, what's next?

    "I don't like the way Daniel's Bond tosses keys when he pretends to be a valet in "Casino Royale". A Fleming-esque Bond would show the proper respect to such keys, and at least buy them a drink first before sending them on their way. Utterly abysmal form, EON."

    :|
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 2,598
    It's the fact that it even occurs to him to do it or atleast chooses to do it. He shouldn't care about making himself look pretty in such a situation. Even though it is a small action, it gives large insights into his character.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 2,598
    I watched Thunderball recently and there is a lot of great, funny natural humour in this with minimal one liners that come after an action scene. If they want to make Bond 24 more light hearted then more of this kind of humour wouldn't be unwelcome.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Bounine wrote:
    It's the fact that it even occurs to him to do it or atleast chooses to do it. He shouldn't care about making himself look pretty in such a situation. Even though it is a small action, it gives large insights into his character.

    I've mentioned this point before, but it seems appropriate to mention it again. I always got the impression that it was to signify 'this is the Bond you know and love'. The whole opening sequence symbolises 'classic' Bond, the suave, cocksure secret agent who is then emasculated somewhat when 'M' orders the shot. He spends the rest of the movie trying to get his mojo back.

    So when you say it gives large insights into his character, I would agree, but there's an editorial reason for it, rather than it being just a throwaway gag.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    You mean like Connery taking time out to drop a vase of flowers on Bouvar's head after he'd already been dispatched, with goons milliseconds away from bursting through the door guns blazing? Come on dude, the cuff adjustment is a much better executed scene and its not like the man was adjusting his cuff in mid air before he landed into the carriage anyway. It really isn't a big deal to take issue with and falls perfectly in line as being a great CINEMATIC Bond moment.
  • Posts: 2,483
    doubleoego wrote:
    Jeez, there was nothing wrong with the adjusting of his cuff. It's nowhere near being camp or a Moore-esque trait. It was a cool moment and pure Bond; emotionally unruffled by the dangerous situation he was in and suavely readjusts himself after successfully pulling off a dangerous stunt.

    The criticism of this moment is just plain silly.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, while we're on that topic, I love the fact that Craig's Bond tosses everything: the keys to the car in CR, the keys to his hotel room in QoS, and the laptop in SF.

    I, too, will never understand the cuff adjustment complaint, something that Bond was doing as he walked along after Patrice. Again, they're both on a train, the mission wouldn't have been last with M screaming in the background "Bond. Bond! Did you adjust your cuffs? You could've had him if you did! Who are you trying to impress? Who are you trying to get a laugh out of?"

    I thought it was badass and made sense: get yourself more comfortable in the suit again and continue. He didn't jump into the train, strip, and iron out his clothes or anything while making an apple pie. He just adjusted and went.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited August 2013 Posts: 16,351
    I had no problem with the cuff adjustment. It was just as Brosnan's tie Straightening after the Tank Chase in GoldenEye. It's the same as bashing his fight stance in the Komodo dragon fight. "Ooooo Craig is putting up his dukes! That's totally a Roger Moore thing!!! Whine whine!"
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    It's Yahoo, so I never believe anything they say, but I saw that article on the 'irony' making the rounds, and they said that Fiennes and Harris are confirmed to return. I thought it was only Craig and Whishaw at this point, though it's pretty much a guarantee that Fiennes and Harris are on board?
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Creasy47 wrote:
    It's Yahoo, so I never believe anything they say, but I saw that article on the 'irony' making the rounds, and they said that Fiennes and Harris are confirmed to return. I thought it was only Craig and Whishaw at this point, though it's pretty much a guarantee that Fiennes and Harris are on board?

    They all are signed on until Bond 25.
  • Posts: 908
    RC7 wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    It's the fact that it even occurs to him to do it or atleast chooses to do it. He shouldn't care about making himself look pretty in such a situation. Even though it is a small action, it gives large insights into his character.

    I've mentioned this point before, but it seems appropriate to mention it again. I always got the impression that it was to signify 'this is the Bond you know and love'. The whole opening sequence symbolises 'classic' Bond, the suave, cocksure secret agent who is then emasculated somewhat when 'M' orders the shot. He spends the rest of the movie trying to get his mojo back.

    So when you say it gives large insights into his character, I would agree, but there's an editorial reason for it, rather than it being just a throwaway gag.

    You definitly got a point here, but still it's quite camp. Especially since Bond is bleeding out of his shoulder anyway. Moore and especially Brosnan get slammed for things like that to no end here in this very forum.That all said, it is one of the few moments in the Movie I didn't mind. And like all of them excessively featured in the Trailers.
  • Posts: 908
    Bounine wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    Daniel Craig's comment regarding Bond adjusting his cuffs:

    "That’s what it’s about: to be more concerned about the way you look at the moment of crisis."

    That's what The Moore films are about.

    I guess heading back down this territory was inevitable. I think Craig is genuinely scared that he's going to wind up being criticised as the humourless Bond. Connery would straighten his tie after a fight or some dangerous situation he was in but ONLY after. Not during. The films will never be full on Fleming but they don't have to go camp either. Go back to Moore by all means when a new actor is cast in the role. It sounds like the Craig films will start becoming too inconsistent in tone like in the horrible Brosnan films.

    All he did was straighten his cuffs, mate; no need to overreact here. That action isn't even close to being campy. Bond jumped the gap, causing his suit to become somewhat ruffled as he landed into the train car. Naturally, he would straighten his suit out and become once again more presentable.

    To me it seems pretty unnatural. Who would do that considering the situation they are in? To me it only seems like a vain pansy who is obsessed with his appearance would do such a thing under these circumstances. If another man was in this situation, having just jumped into a moving train that has just had the backed ripped off, wind whipping all around him, chasing a bad guy, the idea of him actually adjusting his cuff when such danger is present, seems like the last thing that would be on his mind. Honestly, to me, the situation seems ludicrous and the sort of thing you'd see in a slapstick comedy like Austin Powers. I liked the more Flemingsque tone in CR and QOS but they seem to be moving away from this now unfortunately. I was hoping it might last just for the Craig era. Oh well...

    In terms of the comedy, while Craig is a great Bond, he hasn't a great talent for the one liners. He's much better sticking to the natural humour like when he was having conversations with Vesper in the film version of Casino Royale for example. For me, the lighter tone of Goldfinger was a bit of a come down after the excellent FRWL, helped in part by the gadget laden car. Not that I watched them in order when I was first introduced to Bond in the 80's, but you know what I mean... :) I enjoy Goldfinger but it lacks the wonderful, darker tone of it's predecessor.


    As the Oldtimers jused to say: "Now you got their attention, Sunny"

    Welcome to the bizare World of the SF-Zone!
  • Posts: 6,396
    Matt_Helm wrote:

    As the Oldtimers jused to say: "Now you got their attention, Sunny"

    Welcome to the bizare World of the SF-Zone!

    Just can't help yourself can you? Any chance to have another dig at SF and up you pop. It's all getting rather tiresome now.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @MrBond, awesome, so I was wrong. Let's hope they continue after that, too.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @MrBond, awesome, so I was wrong. Let's hope they continue after that, too.

    Whishaw have said in an interview that he would be thrilled if he would get the opportunity to play Q as long as Desmond Llewelyn!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    MrBond wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @MrBond, awesome, so I was wrong. Let's hope they continue after that, too.

    Whishaw have said in an interview that he would be thrilled if he would get the opportunity to play Q as long as Desmond Llewelyn!

    That would be nice! It'd be great to see him age through the films in the next 30 or 40 years if that happened.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Creasy47 wrote:
    MrBond wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @MrBond, awesome, so I was wrong. Let's hope they continue after that, too.

    Whishaw have said in an interview that he would be thrilled if he would get the opportunity to play Q as long as Desmond Llewelyn!

    That would be nice! It'd be great to see him age through the films in the next 30 or 40 years if that happened.

    And if *shudders* the Bond-franchise still carries on then or if it has become something more like Sherlock Holmes in terms of mythology.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    RC7 wrote:
    Bounine wrote:
    It's the fact that it even occurs to him to do it or atleast chooses to do it. He shouldn't care about making himself look pretty in such a situation. Even though it is a small action, it gives large insights into his character.

    I've mentioned this point before, but it seems appropriate to mention it again. I always got the impression that it was to signify 'this is the Bond you know and love'. The whole opening sequence symbolises 'classic' Bond, the suave, cocksure secret agent who is then emasculated somewhat when 'M' orders the shot. He spends the rest of the movie trying to get his mojo back.

    So when you say it gives large insights into his character, I would agree, but there's an editorial reason for it, rather than it being just a throwaway gag.

    In response to @Bounine, the view of @RC7 as bolded most mirrors my own thoughts on this subject. And part of exactly why I argue against complaints, on the occasion that they have happened, that we don't have the Bond character full blown when the film starts. I feel the same guy exists when he goes to Shanghai. The rest is about getting his mojo back and the usual support trimmings of Q and Moneypenny as well, while saying goodbye to Dench.

    In this context, the definition of the word "camp" is said to derive from the French slang term "se camper", meaning "to pose in an exaggerated fashion". The OED gives 1909 as the first print citation of camp as "ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical". So indeed the moment is a little bit of camp and moments like these are indeed nothing unusual in most Bond films. But my very first thought regarding a complaint was, is this "good" camp, or "bad" camp? And for me, when I think of the utter ridiculousness of a certain Bond straightening his tie out, while underwater, while trying to drive a boat in pursuit of someone (I suppose he's so cool that he used his knees to steer), this SF moment is positively good camp in comparison and situation. It is indeed far more editorial than throwaway per the example I just gave. And keeping in mind that RC7 is one of the bigger critics here regarding Skyfall, his commentary is both fair and insightful.

    @Bounine- considering Craig's recent comments that he'd like a bit of these old ironies back as they are indeed part of the usual trimmings, yet realizes that he's no Sir Roger and has his limitations when it comes to this department, it doesn't cause me any real concerns. Otherwise, if I were you, I wouldn't respond to Helm and would run as far away as I could from any support he gives you when it comes to anything Skyfall. What @WillyGalore said more than sufficiently describes the problem we should all avoid.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited August 2013 Posts: 7,314
    Bounine wrote:
    It's the fact that it even occurs to him to do it or atleast chooses to do it. He shouldn't care about making himself look pretty in such a situation. Even though it is a small action, it gives large insights into his character.
    Obviously Bond fights better when he looks pretty. :))
    Seriously though, what large insight into Bond's character do you get from this? As @doubleoego said, it's simply a cinematic Bond moment. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it then that's fair but I don't find it to be anywhere near the realm of camp as you do.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Seriously the cuff adjustment was great and will go down as a classic moment in the Craig era, the valet sequence from CR is another highlight, Craig's Bond while he may take influence from Fleming is from a different era, you can't have that kind of thing now it would just look out of place, Fleming wrote those books in the 1950's it's now 2013.

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 2,598
    I realise it's a Bondian cinematic moment but one that reflects the Moore and Brosnan interpretations more and for this reason I just think that it feels out of place a bit in a Craig film as it would in a Dalton and Connery Bond film. I can't recall the grittier, more Flemingsque Bonds like Connery and Dalton doing this during an action scene. It's just not a scene that harmonises with the rest of Craig's portrayal of the character. Nothing else Craig has done like tossing keys is a problem which I find a strange, irrelevant comparison anyway. I also find the scene where Bond rips off part of the train with a bulldozer sociopathic (LOL). It seems like he has little concern about the welfare of innocent people but this is at least consistent with what they'd already established with the character. Plus, this is Hollywood anyway, so we need big thrills.

    The insight I get is one that reflects a Bond who is over concerned about he way he looks and has vanity issues. I realise of course that this is not actually true because we've seen enough of Craig's Bond to know that this isn't the case and that it's there merely for tradition like the 1960's Aston Martin that is filled with gadgets which is also ridiculous. Would Q branch deem it appropriate and necessary to fill and old car like that around 45 years old with machine guns and an ejector seat sometime between 2006 and 2012 (we all know Bond is a reboot and that he first acquired that car in 2006 during the Casino Royale events. If there was no reboot then it would be fine)? They would put them in a modern car but not that old but very beautiful automobile. What I'm saying is that some homages and a following of tradition is fine but not to the point where one becomes absurd and in terms of the character, inconsistent. If someone was to come in and see a Bond film for the very first time, that being Skyfall, and is not aware of the cinematic or literary Bond's personality or history then I can see them thinking about vanity issues when Bond adjusts his cuff during such a dangerous moment. It would be much more normal and realistic to do it afterwards. Skyfall's a good film (although not up there with Casino Royale) and the only other issue I have with this film is half to three corny quarters of the casino scene but I do feel strongly about and over indulgence in unnecessary traditional moments like the cuff scene and a prehistoric gadget laden Aston Martin. I'm still glad the car was there as Bond has a love for classic cars and I love the DB5 but it shouldn't have gadgets.

    As far as Bond 24 goes, if it has some great, natural humour like in Thunderball which I find pretty funny, then no problem. If it has corny one liners (I'm generally referring to the ones that are uttered following an action or thriller type scene) which Craig isn't as good at pulling off (although he's better than Brosnan, which isn't too hard to achieve), then I feel that this would be a mistake. Moore and Connery could do the one liners so wonderfully and naturally that they didn't stick out like a sore thumb. As wonderful as these two Bonds are, Craig can't though and nor could Dalton. Craig admits that he's not as good at the "shtick" so it's good that he's aware of this. On a side note, I love the Moore films. I haven't a problem with anything Moore does as his Bond movies revolve around comedy and exaggeration.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I've not seen any awkward moments from Craig, the humour he's been given in his 3 films has been handled fine, I don't find him to be struggling like say Dalton did with humour in his films.

    I think the humour they give him his fine for his talents, if he gets moments like
    "That last hand, nearly killed" we'll be fine, his delivery recalls Connery somewhat but he has is own style.

    Craig is fine with what they've given him, I don't think for one minute that Bond 24 will turn into a joke fest, I actually prefer Skyfall just slightly to CR.
  • Posts: 2,598
    Creasy47 wrote:
    MrBond wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @MrBond, awesome, so I was wrong. Let's hope they continue after that, too.

    Whishaw have said in an interview that he would be thrilled if he would get the opportunity to play Q as long as Desmond Llewelyn!


    That would be nice! It'd be great to see him age through the films in the next 30 or 40 years if that happened.

    Yeah, and hopefully other recurring characters like Fiennes can stay on board for as long as possible.

  • edited August 2013 Posts: 2,598
    Shardlake wrote:
    I've not seen any awkward moments from Craig, the humour he's been given in his 3 films has been handled fine, I don't find him to be struggling like say Dalton did with humour in his films.

    I think the humour they give him his fine for his talents, if he gets moments like
    "That last hand, nearly killed" we'll be fine, his delivery recalls Connery somewhat but he has is own style.

    Craig is fine with what they've given him, I don't think for one minute that Bond 24 will turn into a joke fest, I actually prefer Skyfall just slightly to CR.

    "That last hand nearly killed me" line was handled wonderfully. When Craig says "put it all on red" and "the circle of life" though it isn't bad but I don't think it's delivered with real panache either. It sounds, well maybe not awkward, but it's not delivered with the finesse that Connery and Moore could do such lines with.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited August 2013 Posts: 28,694
    Bounine wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    I've not seen any awkward moments from Craig, the humour he's been given in his 3 films has been handled fine, I don't find him to be struggling like say Dalton did with humour in his films.

    I think the humour they give him his fine for his talents, if he gets moments like
    "That last hand, nearly killed" we'll be fine, his delivery recalls Connery somewhat but he has is own style.

    Craig is fine with what they've given him, I don't think for one minute that Bond 24 will turn into a joke fest, I actually prefer Skyfall just slightly to CR.

    "That last hand nearly killed me" line was handled wonderfully. When Craig says "put it all on red" and "the circle of life" though it isn't bad but I don't think it's delivered with real panache either. It sounds, well maybe not awkward, but it's not delivered with the finesse that Connery and Moore could do such lines with.
    I agree. My problem with that moment is that Bond first says, "put it all on red" and then just seconds later he continues with, "it's the circle of life" as he hears the man screaming in the komodo dragon pit. I think the delivery feels kind of sloppy and overdone, not because of Dan's acting, but because the lines come right after the other too fast. I feel like the scene would have been much better if Bond just said one line or the other, and not both with such a small gap between the deliveries of them.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Bounine wrote:
    The insight I get is one that reflects a Bond who is over concerned about he way he looks and has vanity issues. I realise of course that this is not actually true because we've seen enough of Craig's Bond to know that this isn't the case and that it's there merely for tradition
    Perhaps it's fair to conclude that Bond is at least a little vain. Personally I saw it as Bond walking with a swagger. It's a way of pumping himself up and showing extreme confidence. Perhaps the film wants him to show off a bit before his "fall" a few minutes later. Then he spends the rest of the movie trying to get that confidence back.

    Bounine wrote:
    If someone was to come in and see a Bond film for the very first time, that being Skyfall, and is not aware of the cinematic or literary Bond's personality or history then I can see them thinking about vanity issues when Bond adjusts his cuff during such a dangerous moment.
    Perhaps this is selfish on my part but I couldn't care less about a newcomer's opinion of the series. If they like it then they are more than welcome to watch the other films and read the novels and learn their Bond history.

    Bounine wrote:
    As far as Bond 24 goes, if it has some great, natural humour like in Thunderball which I find pretty funny, then no problem. If it has corny one liners (I'm generally referring to the ones that are uttered following an action or thriller type scene) which Craig isn't as good at pulling off (although he's better than Brosnan, which isn't too hard to achieve), then I feel that this would be a mistake. Moore and Connery could do the one liners so wonderfully and naturally that they didn't stick out like a sore thumb. As wonderful as these two Bonds are, Craig can't though and nor could Dalton. Craig admits that he's not as good at the "shtick" so it's good that he's aware of this. On a side note, I love the Moore films. I haven't a problem with anything Moore does as his Bond movies revolve around comedy and exaggeration.
    I think that the majority of us are hoping for an old school TB like adventure for Bond 24 so hopefully we won't be disappointed. I think Craig will be fine. He's knows he's not as gifted as Connery and Moore were with the one liners and they won't force it on him the way they did with Brosnan.

Sign In or Register to comment.