Agreat man once said ( I think it was me )
We all join AJB with fixed ideas and hardly ever change our minds.
Luckily I have no mind to change. )
Fans of the reboot love the new movies and direction they're taking. and Good for them. -{
Others,
Dislike it and are unhappy about the new direction. -{ and good for them too.
I'm somewhere in the middle, as I dislike both Groups. and am secretly working on a take over of AJB
I have many sleepers in place ( usually reading one of my posts turns people asleep ) soon on my
Command they will make their move, and Absolutely Roger Moore will rise. )
I'm getting really mixed up as a Bond fan.
I don't like Craig as Bond But Liked the trailer and feel excited about Skyfall.
I should be slagging it off and saying how Bad Craig looks etc, But I can't.
I'm feeling really good about it so far and hope ( I've stopped hopping, for now )
That it's going to hit the ball out of the park, and that's from watching a crappy
pirate copy of the 2nd trailer. So I should be ecsatic when the proper One is released.
I'm in my Happy place right now and I'm of to hug a kitten and listen to some
Kenny G. :007)
I think you're missing my point, and maybe it's my fault for not being clear. There's nothing wrong with having a bias or preference - we all have them (e.g. see my posts regarding Roger Moore). My reaction was based primarily on your decision to start with the premise that the last two Bond films were "bad" (at least that's what you title suggests). By stating it the way you did, I was left with the impression that you feel the consensus view is that both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were bad. That's obviously not the case. And although you thought the trailer was bad (your opinion about that is as valid as any others), maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised when you see the actual movie. Hopefully you will be able to keep an open mind about that.
The problem, friend, is that you started with the premise that the last two Bond films were bad. I know you explained that you are only stating your opinion, but again the title to your thread doesn't read that way. So it's no surprise that one would assume that not only do you believe the Skyfall trailer looks bad (an opinion I do not share), but that because of your obvious dislike of Daniel Craig's Bond, you think the movie will be bad as well. It's called bias, and it seems that's what's at play in this case. Perhaps I'm wrong, and certainly you are entitled to your views, but that is certainly the way your views are coming across to me, and apparently to several others who have read your posts
All I said was that the trailer was bad. I did say that the film might not be bad.
I don't understand how any film can be "objectively one of the best". I would think all opinions of art are subjective. Only science can be objective.
What’s wrong with having a point of view (“bias”, as you term it)? Do I have to like Craig’s Bond to comment on QoS or CR? Most people are divided on the quality of QoS, anyway, so what I’ve said is hardly controversial.
The trailer for Skyfall, to me, just seemed very bland. There was nothing in it that spelled out it was a Bond film. It could have been a trailer for any spy-based thriller, like Bourne etc. And the action clips (what few were shown, and lasting only seconds) seemed run of the mill.
Maybe the film might be better, but the trailer certainly gives no indication of this, or at least the trailer I saw on YouTube. Maybe the Imax version some people saw is better, I haven’t seen it.
I think you're missing my point, and maybe it's my fault for not being clear. There's nothing wrong with having a bias or preference - we all have them (e.g. see my posts regarding Roger Moore). My reaction was based primarily on your decision to start with the premise that the last two Bond films were "bad" (at least that's what you title suggests). By stating it the way you did, I was left with the impression that you feel the consensus view is that both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were bad. That's obviously not the case. And although you thought the trailer was bad (your opinion about that is as valid as any others), maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised when you see the actual movie. Hopefully you will be able to keep an open mind about that.
The problem, friend, is that you started with the premise that the last two Bond films were bad. I know you explained that you are only stating your opinion, but again the title to your thread doesn't read that way. So it's no surprise that one would assume that not only do you believe the Skyfall trailer looks bad (an opinion I do not share), but that because of your obvious dislike of Daniel Craig's Bond, you think the movie will be bad as well. It's called bias, and it seems that's what's at play in this case. Perhaps I'm wrong, and certainly you are entitled to your views, but that is certainly the way your views are coming across to me, and apparently to several others who have read your posts
What’s wrong with having a point of view (“bias”, as you term it)? Do I have to like Craig’s Bond to comment on QoS or CR? Most people are divided on the quality of QoS, anyway, so what I’ve said is hardly controversial.
The trailer for Skyfall, to me, just seemed very bland. There was nothing in it that spelled out it was a Bond film. It could have been a trailer for any spy-based thriller, like Bourne etc. And the action clips (what few were shown, and lasting only seconds) seemed run of the mill.
Maybe the film might be better, but the trailer certainly gives no indication of this, or at least the trailer I saw on YouTube. Maybe the Imax version some people saw is better, I haven’t seen it.
I take your point about the title of the thread. It is a bit provocative.
From what I've read of the reviews of QoS, most of them thought it was a bad film, as did most people on this forum, at least when I last looked ages ago--maybe opinion has shifted since then. CR faired better, and in comparison was a good film, but for me it wasn't a "Bond Film". Apart from the main character being called Bond and the plot being similar to the novel, it had little else--none of the style or charm of classic Bond films, such as FRWL.
I think you're missing my point, and maybe it's my fault for not being clear. There's nothing wrong with having a bias or preference - we all have them (e.g. see my posts regarding Roger Moore). My reaction was based primarily on your decision to start with the premise that the last two Bond films were "bad" (at least that's what you title suggests). By stating it the way you did, I was left with the impression that you feel the consensus view is that both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were bad. That's obviously not the case. And although you thought the trailer was bad (your opinion about that is as valid as any others), maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised when you see the actual movie. Hopefully you will be able to keep an open mind about that.
What’s wrong with having a point of view (“bias”, as you term it)? Do I have to like Craig’s Bond to comment on QoS or CR? Most people are divided on the quality of QoS, anyway, so what I’ve said is hardly controversial.
The trailer for Skyfall, to me, just seemed very bland. There was nothing in it that spelled out it was a Bond film. It could have been a trailer for any spy-based thriller, like Bourne etc. And the action clips (what few were shown, and lasting only seconds) seemed run of the mill.
Maybe the film might be better, but the trailer certainly gives no indication of this, or at least the trailer I saw on YouTube. Maybe the Imax version some people saw is better, I haven’t seen it.
I take your point about the title of the thread. It is a bit provocative.
From what I've read of the reviews of QoS, most of them thought it was a bad film, as did most people on this forum, at least when I last looked ages ago--maybe opinion has shifted since then. CR faired better, and in comparison was a good film, but for me it wasn't a "Bond Film". Apart from the main character being called Bond and the plot being similar to the novel, it had little else--none of the style or charm of classic Bond films, such as FRWL.
Well, now you're made a statement that is factually untrue. Most reviewers of QOS did not think it was a "bad film". It gets a 64 rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means most reviewers gave it a positive review.
Is your issue really that Craig looks and behaves like no Bond before and you still find that rather jarring?
No, I don’t have a problem with him as Bond, it’s the scripts, storylines and the general shift away from the escapist element of classic 1960s Bond films to a more generic spy thriller format, that I don’t like. Craig can only work with the scripts he is given, after all.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
Why would they?? The last 2 Bonds have taken nigh on $600 Million worldwide apiece at the Box Office. Hardly a sign that the new format is failing is it??
Well, now you're made a statement that is factually untrue. Most reviewers of QOS did not think it was a "bad film". It gets a 64 rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means most reviewers gave it a positive review.
I wasn’t basing it on Rotten Tomatoes but the mainstream UK print press, which may not have been outright damming of it (they never are with any film, really) but were certainly unenthusiastic about it. They did, though, I admit, give better reviews for CR, but that was probably out of a sense of relief and gratitude that the Brosnan era was over.
I’m sure, though, that lots of people on this forum didn’t like QoS it—at least in one of the threads about it, which I read, albeit it a long time ago.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
) Thats a bit like saying the bank of england will run out of money.
seriously pal, you got issues or something?
i'd suggest you quit being a bond fan and watch the bourne films instead.
see the thing i'm getting from you is a real negative vibe. you're not saying 'will SF be regarded as bad?', but you immediately dismiss it as a write-off because you say so. there's little basis to your arguments and what you consider as a set in stone fact is actually just your opinion, two very different things.
now instead of suggesting skyfall might be the demise of EoN (which it won't be I can assure you), you're stating that it will be.
are you some kinda expert in the film making business or do you just consider your opinion to be perfect and the rest of the world is wrong, if its the latter i'd revert you back to my first question.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
) Thats a bit like saying the bank of england will run out of money.
seriously pal, you got issues or something?
i'd suggest you quit being a bond fan and watch the bourne films instead.
see the thing i'm getting from you is a real negative vibe. you're not saying 'will SF be regarded as bad?', but you immediately dismiss it as a write-off because you say so. there's little basis to your arguments and what you consider as a set in stone fact is actually just your opinion, two very different things.
now instead of suggesting skyfall might be the demise of EoN (which it won't be I can assure you), you're stating that it will be.
are you some kinda expert in the film making business or do you just consider your opinion to be perfect and the rest of the world is wrong, if its the latter i'd revert you back to my first question.
I never said Skyfall would be the demise of EoN, I said:
“I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long”.
Skyfall isn’t mentioned, and I used the word “suspect” and not “will”, as you accuse me of doing. QoS didn’t do well at the box office, and if Skyfall does similar, then EoN will probably have to go back to the formula which worked very well from 1962 to 1979. It’s simple economics.
And to tell me to quit being a Bond fan and watch Bourne films is a bit silly, seeing as I don’t like QoS precisely because it is trying to be a Bourne film.
If you want to be taken at your word that you don't have a built-in bias against the Daniel Craig Bond films, I think you might do well to avoid such comments as "They did, though, I admit, give better reviews for CR, but that was probably out of a sense of relief and gratitude that the Brosnan era was over." I know you are only expressing your opinion, but why not assume that the positive reviews were given because the reviewers genuinely believed that Casino Royale was a very good movie, regardless of what they thought of previous Bond films?
Well, now you're made a statement that is factually untrue. Most reviewers of QOS did not think it was a "bad film". It gets a 64 rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means most reviewers gave it a positive review.
I wasn’t basing it on Rotten Tomatoes but the mainstream UK print press, which may not have been outright damming of it (they never are with any film, really) but were certainly unenthusiastic about it. They did, though, I admit, give better reviews for CR, but that was probably out of a sense of relief and gratitude that the Brosnan era was over.
I’m sure, though, that lots of people on this forum didn’t like QoS it—at least in one of the threads about it, which I read, albeit it a long time ago.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
) Thats a bit like saying the bank of england will run out of money.
seriously pal, you got issues or something?
i'd suggest you quit being a bond fan and watch the bourne films instead.
see the thing i'm getting from you is a real negative vibe. you're not saying 'will SF be regarded as bad?', but you immediately dismiss it as a write-off because you say so. there's little basis to your arguments and what you consider as a set in stone fact is actually just your opinion, two very different things.
now instead of suggesting skyfall might be the demise of EoN (which it won't be I can assure you), you're stating that it will be.
are you some kinda expert in the film making business or do you just consider your opinion to be perfect and the rest of the world is wrong, if its the latter i'd revert you back to my first question.
I never said Skyfall would be the demise of EoN, I said:
“I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long”.
come on, stop splitting hairs and missing parts out. you said that if EoN didn't change its ways then they'd go out of business, which would be their demise would it not?
Skyfall isn’t mentioned, and I used the word “suspect” and not “will”, as you accuse me of doing. QoS didn’t do well at the box office, and if Skyfall does similar, then EoN will probably have to go back to the formula which worked very well from 1962 to 1979. It’s simple economics.
what? so its back to the money making slide whistles of RM and connery's rug huh? was everything pre brosnan amazing then? and what was so wrong with brosnan anyways? his films did pretty good (ok, except DAD) but lets face it, if EoN can survive DAD, and CR and QoS did ok, then they'd have to go pretty far to make a film that would put them out of business.
And to tell me to quit being a Bond fan and watch Bourne films is a bit silly, seeing as I don’t like QoS precisely because it is trying to be a Bourne film.
really? in what way does QoS try to be a bourne film? the editing? is that it?
both CR and QoS have been very successful films, ok QoS wasn't as good as CR, but i think a lot of that was down to the writers strike.
could you remind me of what you thought was so bad about DC's first 2 outings?
If you want to be taken at your word that you don't have a built-in bias against the Daniel Craig Bond films, I think you might do well to avoid such comments as "They did, though, I admit, give better reviews for CR, but that was probably out of a sense of relief and gratitude that the Brosnan era was over." I know you are only expressing your opinion, but why not assume that the positive reviews were given because the reviewers genuinely believed that Casino Royale was a very good movie, regardless of what they thought of previous Bond films?
Well, now you're made a statement that is factually untrue. Most reviewers of QOS did not think it was a "bad film". It gets a 64 rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means most reviewers gave it a positive review.
I wasn’t basing it on Rotten Tomatoes but the mainstream UK print press, which may not have been outright damming of it (they never are with any film, really) but were certainly unenthusiastic about it. They did, though, I admit, give better reviews for CR, but that was probably out of a sense of relief and gratitude that the Brosnan era was over.
I’m sure, though, that lots of people on this forum didn’t like QoS it—at least in one of the threads about it, which I read, albeit it a long time ago.
My not liking CR has nothing to do with Craig. It’s just a very mediocre Bond film, that’s all. I think Craig is a good Bond. It’s not his fault he’s had poor scripts and bland storylines to deal with.
My favourite Bond film is FRWL. It was true to the novel, and had a style and realism that was both believable and escapist. Craig could probably have done a good job with that script, had he been in Connery’s shoes at the time. Why do people assume just because a person doesn’t like a film, it’s because they don’t like the lead actor?
The positive reviews for CR wouldn’t have been that remarkable if the Brosnan films had been any good. In my view, the Brosnan films were so bad, that anything Eon made after them would, in comparison, be seen as high quality.
you talk of the good old days with plot being full of escapism, and i assume you think GE - QoS lacks in this area?
from what i remember though pretty much all these films have a bit of escapism in them. unless of course you;
know of a rogue agent who's built a huge radio dish in cuba,
think rupert murdoch would start a war to sell his papers,
think BP and Esso would blow up Istanbul by nicking a ruski sub,
believe Kim Jing Jong Ping Pong Il would have a face lift in order to fool the world, set up a diamond mine, build a space satelitte and hire a rogue MI6 agent instead of just invading the south
think the British government would really risk directly financing terrorism by risking it all on a game of poker
or think some shady gang would help topple a government in return for taking control of its water supply?
ok, so anglian water might have come close to the last one, but i think you'll find that all the plots in bond films are pretty escapist?
“come on, stop splitting hairs and missing parts out. you said that if EoN didn't change its ways then they'd go out of business, which would be their demise would it not?”
You have not read what I actually said, and are assuming what I said.
minigeff wrote:
“what? so its back to the money making slide whistles of RM and connery's rug huh? was everything pre brosnan amazing then? and what was so wrong with brosnan anyways? his films did pretty good (ok, except DAD) but lets face it, if EoN can survive DAD, and CR and QoS did ok, then they'd have to go pretty far to make a film that would put them out of business.”
If Brosnan’s films did so well, why the need for the reboot?
minigeff wrote:
“really? in what way does QoS try to be a bourne film? the editing? is that it?”
Partly, I’ve also heard in other parts of this forum complaints that Eon are trying to make Bond appeal to Bourne fans.
you talk of the good old days with plot being full of escapism, and i assume you think GE - QoS lacks in this area?
from what i remember though pretty much all these films have a bit of escapism in them. unless of course you;
know of a rogue agent who's built a huge radio dish in cuba,
think rupert murdoch would start a war to sell his papers,
think BP and Esso would blow up Istanbul by nicking a ruski sub,
believe Kim Jing Jong Ping Pong Il would have a face lift in order to fool the world, set up a diamond mine, build a space satelitte and hire a rogue MI6 agent instead of just invading the south
think the British government would really risk directly financing terrorism by risking it all on a game of poker
or think some shady gang would help topple a government in return for taking control of its water supply?
ok, so anglian water might have come close to the last one, but i think you'll find that all the plots in bond films are pretty escapist?
I don’t mean storyline escapism, I mean its cinematic treatment visually: camera angles, use of editing, set design, wardrobe, etc. The 1960s Bonds, in my view, were all superior in this respect.
"The positive reviews for CR wouldn’t have been that remarkable if the Brosnan films had been any good."
There you go again, assuming that the positive reviews were for reasons other than the fact that the reviewers thought Casino Royale was a good film. Just because you thought CR was "a mediocre Bond film" doesn't mean that the critics would have agreed with you if the Brosnan films weren't so bad. I think what bothers me and some others here is that you tone seems a bit condenscending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional, but it sure comes across that way.
No, I don’t have a problem with him as Bond, it’s the scripts, storylines and the general shift away from the escapist element of classic 1960s Bond films to a more generic spy thriller format, that I don’t like. Craig can only work with the scripts he is given, after all.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
I don’t mean storyline escapism, I mean its cinematic treatment visually: camera angles, use of editing, set design, wardrobe, etc. The 1960s Bonds, in my view, were all superior in this respect.
sorry pal, but you said it was the storylines. and in the same post you were saying if EoN didn't revert back to pre brossa days they'd go out of business, ie if they keep on the way they are they'll go pop.
when it comes down to the cinematography, the set design and wardrobe, i'm afraid they're all 'era related', unless of course you're creating a film set in the past, which EoN haven't done ever.
the old bond films have that old style, classic look because they were made back in the time which we now consider 'classic'. I dare say in 50 year people might look back and consider CR old school and retro too.
times change, styles and fashion moves on and the bond films do this to in order to maintain up to date. we'll not be seeing bond in flares anytime soon (i hope).
When it comes to plot etc, EoN try and keep a little bit in touch with real life global situations, the cold war, oil crisis etc etc. ok so there's no more hollow volcanos, but does a modern day bond film need it? the takings of CR and QoS would suggest not.
If Brosnan’s films did so well, why the need for the reboot?
The series was 40 years old, and everything else was being rebooted. I didn't necessarily love everything Pierce Brosnan did, but he certainly didn't kill the franchise so that their only option was to reboot it.
If anything, rebooting was a huge gamble. A gamble that paid off pretty well, if I do say so myself.
And as far as QoS goes, I liked it. They certainly suffered from the writers' strike, but I don't think the movie is by any means something to ashamed of.
"The positive reviews for CR wouldn’t have been that remarkable if the Brosnan films had been any good."
There you go again, assuming that the positive reviews were for reasons other than the fact that the reviewers thought Casino Royale was a good film. Just because you thought CR was "a mediocre Bond film" doesn't mean that the critics would have agreed with you if the Brosnan films weren't so bad. I think what bothers me and some others here is that you tone seems a bit condenscending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional, but it sure comes across that way.
No, I don’t have a problem with him as Bond, it’s the scripts, storylines and the general shift away from the escapist element of classic 1960s Bond films to a more generic spy thriller format, that I don’t like. Craig can only work with the scripts he is given, after all.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
I don’t mean storyline escapism, I mean its cinematic treatment visually: camera angles, use of editing, set design, wardrobe, etc. The 1960s Bonds, in my view, were all superior in this respect.
sorry pal, but you said it was the storylines. and in the same post you were saying if EoN didn't revert back to pre brossa days they'd go out of business, ie if they keep on the way they are they'll go pop.
when it comes down to the cinematography, the set design and wardrobe, i'm afraid they're all 'era related', unless of course you're creating a film set in the past, which EoN haven't done ever.
the old bond films have that old style, classic look because they were made back in the time which we now consider 'classic'. I dare say in 50 year people might look back and consider CR old school and retro too.
times change, styles and fashion moves on and the bond films do this to in order to maintain up to date. we'll not be seeing bond in flares anytime soon (i hope).
When it comes to plot etc, EoN try and keep a little bit in touch with real life global situations, the cold war, oil crisis etc etc. ok so there's no more hollow volcanos, but does a modern day bond film need it? the takings of CR and QoS would suggest not.
I wish you wouldn’t keep addressing me as “pal”—it sounds awfully aggressive.
I take your point about retro films styles. But it’s possible to make some homage’s to it as Goldeneye did.
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
If Brosnan’s films did so well, why the need for the reboot?
The series was 40 years old, and everything else was being rebooted. I didn't necessarily love everything Pierce Brosnan did, but he certainly didn't kill the franchise so that their only option was to reboot it.
If anything, rebooting was a huge gamble. A gamble that paid off pretty well, if I do say so myself.
And as far as QoS goes, I liked it. They certainly suffered from the writers' strike, but I don't think the movie is by any means something to ashamed of.
Am I the only one in this forum who doesn’t like CR and QoS? Surely the must be others.
No problem. I, too, enjoy a good debate, and at least your comments are intelligent and thought-provoking. Best of all, you're a fellow Bond fan, so that's a plus! -{
"The positive reviews for CR wouldn’t have been that remarkable if the Brosnan films had been any good."
There you go again, assuming that the positive reviews were for reasons other than the fact that the reviewers thought Casino Royale was a good film. Just because you thought CR was "a mediocre Bond film" doesn't mean that the critics would have agreed with you if the Brosnan films weren't so bad. I think what bothers me and some others here is that you tone seems a bit condenscending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional, but it sure comes across that way.
No, I don’t have a problem with him as Bond, it’s the scripts, storylines and the general shift away from the escapist element of classic 1960s Bond films to a more generic spy thriller format, that I don’t like. Craig can only work with the scripts he is given, after all.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
I don’t mean storyline escapism, I mean its cinematic treatment visually: camera angles, use of editing, set design, wardrobe, etc. The 1960s Bonds, in my view, were all superior in this respect.
sorry pal, but you said it was the storylines. and in the same post you were saying if EoN didn't revert back to pre brossa days they'd go out of business, ie if they keep on the way they are they'll go pop.
when it comes down to the cinematography, the set design and wardrobe, i'm afraid they're all 'era related', unless of course you're creating a film set in the past, which EoN haven't done ever.
the old bond films have that old style, classic look because they were made back in the time which we now consider 'classic'. I dare say in 50 year people might look back and consider CR old school and retro too.
times change, styles and fashion moves on and the bond films do this to in order to maintain up to date. we'll not be seeing bond in flares anytime soon (i hope).
When it comes to plot etc, EoN try and keep a little bit in touch with real life global situations, the cold war, oil crisis etc etc. ok so there's no more hollow volcanos, but does a modern day bond film need it? the takings of CR and QoS would suggest not.
I wish you wouldn’t keep addressing me as “pal”—it sounds awfully aggressive.
you what? you never seen a friend and said 'hello pal'? i think when people type things, the reader can interpret them in different ways. i'm not saying 'pal' as in 'welcome to the party pal', i'm just using it as a generic name for you.
i'll refrain from using 'pal' in case it offends you and refer to you as 'NTSC' instead.
I take your point about retro films styles. But it’s possible to make some homage’s to it as Goldeneye did.
ah so you must like the db5 in CR then? if you're a fan of homages you must be DAD's biggest fan )
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
in 10 years time, the CR reboot will have become the norm and will have evolved past its original concept. that is, if they continue to develop the films that way, but i think a reboot is done, the franchise takes a different direction and then things evolve from there. 10 years later and its too late, its like saying when a kid walk for the first time 'you wait, 10 years time and he'll have forgot what legs are'.
Comments
Absolutely Roger Moore?!? Shirley, you jest.
Count me in for Absolutely Sir Roger Moore B-)
* that virtual iPad keyboard is driving me nuts!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Cheers TP, you are in top form today - I enjoy your posts {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I take your point about the title of the thread. It is a bit provocative.
From what I've read of the reviews of QoS, most of them thought it was a bad film, as did most people on this forum, at least when I last looked ages ago--maybe opinion has shifted since then. CR faired better, and in comparison was a good film, but for me it wasn't a "Bond Film". Apart from the main character being called Bond and the plot being similar to the novel, it had little else--none of the style or charm of classic Bond films, such as FRWL.
Well, now you're made a statement that is factually untrue. Most reviewers of QOS did not think it was a "bad film". It gets a 64 rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means most reviewers gave it a positive review.
No, I don’t have a problem with him as Bond, it’s the scripts, storylines and the general shift away from the escapist element of classic 1960s Bond films to a more generic spy thriller format, that I don’t like. Craig can only work with the scripts he is given, after all.
I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long, or the company will go out of business.
Why would they?? The last 2 Bonds have taken nigh on $600 Million worldwide apiece at the Box Office. Hardly a sign that the new format is failing is it??
I wasn’t basing it on Rotten Tomatoes but the mainstream UK print press, which may not have been outright damming of it (they never are with any film, really) but were certainly unenthusiastic about it. They did, though, I admit, give better reviews for CR, but that was probably out of a sense of relief and gratitude that the Brosnan era was over.
I’m sure, though, that lots of people on this forum didn’t like QoS it—at least in one of the threads about it, which I read, albeit it a long time ago.
seriously pal, you got issues or something?
i'd suggest you quit being a bond fan and watch the bourne films instead.
see the thing i'm getting from you is a real negative vibe. you're not saying 'will SF be regarded as bad?', but you immediately dismiss it as a write-off because you say so. there's little basis to your arguments and what you consider as a set in stone fact is actually just your opinion, two very different things.
now instead of suggesting skyfall might be the demise of EoN (which it won't be I can assure you), you're stating that it will be.
are you some kinda expert in the film making business or do you just consider your opinion to be perfect and the rest of the world is wrong, if its the latter i'd revert you back to my first question.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I never said Skyfall would be the demise of EoN, I said:
“I suspect that Eon will have to revert back to a more classic Bond style (pre-Brosnan era) before too long”.
Skyfall isn’t mentioned, and I used the word “suspect” and not “will”, as you accuse me of doing. QoS didn’t do well at the box office, and if Skyfall does similar, then EoN will probably have to go back to the formula which worked very well from 1962 to 1979. It’s simple economics.
And to tell me to quit being a Bond fan and watch Bourne films is a bit silly, seeing as I don’t like QoS precisely because it is trying to be a Bourne film.
come on, stop splitting hairs and missing parts out. you said that if EoN didn't change its ways then they'd go out of business, which would be their demise would it not?
what? so its back to the money making slide whistles of RM and connery's rug huh? was everything pre brosnan amazing then? and what was so wrong with brosnan anyways? his films did pretty good (ok, except DAD) but lets face it, if EoN can survive DAD, and CR and QoS did ok, then they'd have to go pretty far to make a film that would put them out of business.
really? in what way does QoS try to be a bourne film? the editing? is that it?
both CR and QoS have been very successful films, ok QoS wasn't as good as CR, but i think a lot of that was down to the writers strike.
could you remind me of what you thought was so bad about DC's first 2 outings?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
My not liking CR has nothing to do with Craig. It’s just a very mediocre Bond film, that’s all. I think Craig is a good Bond. It’s not his fault he’s had poor scripts and bland storylines to deal with.
My favourite Bond film is FRWL. It was true to the novel, and had a style and realism that was both believable and escapist. Craig could probably have done a good job with that script, had he been in Connery’s shoes at the time. Why do people assume just because a person doesn’t like a film, it’s because they don’t like the lead actor?
The positive reviews for CR wouldn’t have been that remarkable if the Brosnan films had been any good. In my view, the Brosnan films were so bad, that anything Eon made after them would, in comparison, be seen as high quality.
from what i remember though pretty much all these films have a bit of escapism in them. unless of course you;
know of a rogue agent who's built a huge radio dish in cuba,
think rupert murdoch would start a war to sell his papers,
think BP and Esso would blow up Istanbul by nicking a ruski sub,
believe Kim Jing Jong Ping Pong Il would have a face lift in order to fool the world, set up a diamond mine, build a space satelitte and hire a rogue MI6 agent instead of just invading the south
think the British government would really risk directly financing terrorism by risking it all on a game of poker
or think some shady gang would help topple a government in return for taking control of its water supply?
ok, so anglian water might have come close to the last one, but i think you'll find that all the plots in bond films are pretty escapist?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
You have not read what I actually said, and are assuming what I said.
If Brosnan’s films did so well, why the need for the reboot?
Partly, I’ve also heard in other parts of this forum complaints that Eon are trying to make Bond appeal to Bourne fans.
I don’t mean storyline escapism, I mean its cinematic treatment visually: camera angles, use of editing, set design, wardrobe, etc. The 1960s Bonds, in my view, were all superior in this respect.
There you go again, assuming that the positive reviews were for reasons other than the fact that the reviewers thought Casino Royale was a good film. Just because you thought CR was "a mediocre Bond film" doesn't mean that the critics would have agreed with you if the Brosnan films weren't so bad. I think what bothers me and some others here is that you tone seems a bit condenscending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional, but it sure comes across that way.
sorry pal, but you said it was the storylines. and in the same post you were saying if EoN didn't revert back to pre brossa days they'd go out of business, ie if they keep on the way they are they'll go pop.
when it comes down to the cinematography, the set design and wardrobe, i'm afraid they're all 'era related', unless of course you're creating a film set in the past, which EoN haven't done ever.
the old bond films have that old style, classic look because they were made back in the time which we now consider 'classic'. I dare say in 50 year people might look back and consider CR old school and retro too.
times change, styles and fashion moves on and the bond films do this to in order to maintain up to date. we'll not be seeing bond in flares anytime soon (i hope).
When it comes to plot etc, EoN try and keep a little bit in touch with real life global situations, the cold war, oil crisis etc etc. ok so there's no more hollow volcanos, but does a modern day bond film need it? the takings of CR and QoS would suggest not.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
The series was 40 years old, and everything else was being rebooted. I didn't necessarily love everything Pierce Brosnan did, but he certainly didn't kill the franchise so that their only option was to reboot it.
If anything, rebooting was a huge gamble. A gamble that paid off pretty well, if I do say so myself.
And as far as QoS goes, I liked it. They certainly suffered from the writers' strike, but I don't think the movie is by any means something to ashamed of.
It's not intentional. I'm just used to getting into debates, and I can sometimes go into "debate mode" without thinking about being tactful.
I wish you wouldn’t keep addressing me as “pal”—it sounds awfully aggressive.
I take your point about retro films styles. But it’s possible to make some homage’s to it as Goldeneye did.
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
Am I the only one in this forum who doesn’t like CR and QoS? Surely the must be others.
you what? you never seen a friend and said 'hello pal'? i think when people type things, the reader can interpret them in different ways. i'm not saying 'pal' as in 'welcome to the party pal', i'm just using it as a generic name for you.
i'll refrain from using 'pal' in case it offends you and refer to you as 'NTSC' instead.
ah so you must like the db5 in CR then? if you're a fan of homages you must be DAD's biggest fan
in 10 years time, the CR reboot will have become the norm and will have evolved past its original concept. that is, if they continue to develop the films that way, but i think a reboot is done, the franchise takes a different direction and then things evolve from there. 10 years later and its too late, its like saying when a kid walk for the first time 'you wait, 10 years time and he'll have forgot what legs are'.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org