AVS Forum banner

Bond 23 - Skyfall

16K views 343 replies 74 participants last post by  See The Light 
#1 ·
Yes, that's the title currently. Anyway, with all the trouble over at MGM there was talk that this film was going to be delayed or could have problems with production. However, it appears some interesting news has come through.. and that is that Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) is signed up to direct the next installment and production could be fast-tracked as a result.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2010/01/05/s...mes-bond-film/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...8d2be322d5c07c
 
#52 ·
I also prefer the Daniel Craig portrayal of Bond. I am reading through the Fleming novels, and it's easy to picture Craig as the way Bond should have always been.


I wouldn't call it a quip nor one worthy of a laugh, but I would say my favorite quintisentially Bond line from Casino Royale is when he's ordering champagne and caviar for the villa. When the concierge on the phone asks him if he's ordering for two, he replies "What? No, for one." and bruskly hangs up the phone before leaving.
 
#53 ·
Isn't there supposed to be at least a little bit of fun in a James Bond film? I don't wanna go back to the ridiculous comic strip tone of the Moore era Bonds, but damn that just looks too Bourne for my taste. And jeez louise, DC is fugly.
 
#54 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker /forum/post/22049324


Isn't there supposed to be at least a little bit of fun in a James Bond film? I don't wanna go back to the ridiculous comic strip tone of the Moore era Bonds, but damn that just looks too Bourne for my taste. And jeez louise, DC is fugly.

The DC Bond movies are "cut from the same cloth" as the Fleming books. There is no humor in them. Personally, I like it that way. About the only Bond movies like that are Dr. No and From Russia With Love. After that, the one liners started and progressed from there.


If your only exposure to James Bond is from movies, you owe it yourself to read a few of Fleming's books.
 
#55 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22049372


The DC Bond movies are "cut from the same cloth" as the Fleming books. There is no humor in them. Personally, I like it that way. About the only Bond movies like that are Dr. No and From Russia With Love. After that, the one liners started and progressed from there.


If your only exposure to James Bond is from movies, you owe it yourself to read a few of Fleming's books.

I have read a couple of them, and found them quite dreary. It's a real tightrope to walk, but I don't see why you couldn't make a Bond film that's both "gritty" as you purist seem to like it, and damn entertaining at the same time. The first four Bonds managed to walk that line, imo. It didn't really get silly until YOLT. This new stuff just seem so stiff and uptight.
 
#57 ·
I've never read the books and while I certainly have my loves, likes and dislikes among the franchise, I just like the concept of Bond in general. And I think Craig's portrayal is strong. I like the style of the films as well.


"Champagne and caviar....no, for one" was classic Bond strong. Love that line. Love his style. But how could anyone forget.....


"Why don't you come help me find the stationary."
 
#58 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek /forum/post/22050770


I've never read the books and while I certainly have my loves, likes and dislikes among the franchise, I just like the concept of Bond in general. And I think Craig's portrayal is strong. I like the style of the films as well.


"Champagne and caviar....no, for one" was classic Bond strong. Love that line. Love his style. But how could anyone forget.....


"Why don't you come help me find the stationary."

THE greatest lines from any James Bond movie . . .


"Do you expect me to talk Goldfinger?"


"No Mr. Bond . . . I expect you to die."
 
#61 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker /forum/post/22049324


Isn't there supposed to be at least a little bit of fun in a James Bond film? I don't wanna go back to the ridiculous comic strip tone of the Moore era Bonds, but damn that just looks too Bourne for my taste. And jeez louise, DC is fugly.

I still think DC looks more like the third Russian thug from the left than a tough, sophisticated British agent. He just doesn't do it for me.
 
#64 ·
A humorless robot for an increasingly humorless series, yay. I really miss the mix of fun and cool Bond use to bring. There's no giddyness anymore. Watching even a bad Bond movie used to be pleasureable experience for me, but these DC Bonds just feel like a chore. Screw'em, I'm gone.
 
#65 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR /forum/post/22057136


I still think DC looks more like the third Russian thug from the left than a tough, sophisticated British agent. He just doesn't do it for me.

Funny you should say that. I was shocked upon seeing the first glimpse of DC as Bond on the teaser lobby card for Casino Royale. I said "He looks like Putin!" That said, I thought CR was superb....and QoS terribly directed although I'd love to see Camille pass Bond again when he is in a proper state of mind. Those two could have been hot.
 
#66 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker /forum/post/22058272


A humorless robot for an increasingly humorless series, yay. I really miss the mix of fun and cool Bond use to bring. There's no giddyness anymore. Watching even a bad Bond movie used to be pleasureable experience for me, but these DC Bonds just feel like a chore. Screw'em, I'm gone.

Agree to some extent. Its a little to much Bourne in the new Bonds. Bond of course needs to evolve, but they shouldnt ignore what made the movie character work in the first place.


They of course dont need to make it down to the Roger Moore level. But Quantum of Solace feelt sterile. Casino Royal gave us some nice scenes like Bond parking the car. And that was without breaking DC Bond character.


But a good Bond movie also need good bad buys. Who that visits this thread, doesnt remember Drax, Stromberg, Goldfinger, Blofeldt. A Bad guy that is smarter then Bond and a henchman that is stronger is a good combination, or like Grant that was a combination of both.


The bad guy in Quantum was not in their class.


We also need a good plot. I want to destroy the world is a descent plot if its done in style and with a "good" reason. You obviously doesnt need to push it that far, but its good if the plot in a Bond movie is clear early in the movie.


Add these elemet and throw in DC as Bond and you have a potential winner in your hands.
 
#67 ·
In an amazing coincidence HBO is showing the Casino Royale (1967) with Peter Sellers and Ursula Andrews. Good gawd man, I couldn't for a moment figure out if I was watching Bond or Bean!


Connery was a larger than life character, Brosnan was aptly suave for a Bond that could charm the pants off women while Craig personifies the secret agent on whose shoulders rests the burden of saving the world.
 
#68 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/22058352


Agree to some extent. Its a little to much Bourne in the new Bonds. Bond of course needs to evolve, but they shouldnt ignore what made the movie character work in the first place.

You mean like DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? CASINO ROYALE and QoS definitely have their roots in those original Bond Movies.
 
#69 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22058485


You mean like DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? CASINO ROYALE and QoS definitely have their roots in those original Bond Movies.

You could say that the classic Bond started with Goldfinger. I agree that DC Bonds have more in common with the books and the first 2 Bond movies. But QoS doesnt have the mojo that Dr No and Russia had.


I certainly dont want a DC in a Goldfinger type movie (or Moonraker for that matter)


But I would want Bond movie with a little more of what made the old franchise work. But the script must also work for DC type of Bond.


Casino Royal worked, QoS didnt.
 
#71 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/22058536


You could say that the classic Bond started with Goldfinger.

LOL - well . . . you could. I say they started with DR. NO

Quote:
I agree that DC Bonds have more in common with the books and the first 2 Bond movies. But QoS doesnt have the mojo that Dr No and Russia had.

I agree with your assessment that QoS was lacking in the villian department. But look at FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - no "super villian" like DR. NO or GOLDFINGER. And yet it is an outstanding Bond movie.

Quote:
I certainly dont want a DC in a Goldfinger type movie (or Moonraker for that matter)

Two totally different Bond movies; GOLDFINGER and MOONRAKER (blah). It's too bad that Roger Moore played an "over the top" James Bond. If you have ever seen any of his THE SAINT TV shows, THAT is how he should have played Bond. But the producers were too enamored with humor, stunts and gimmicks.

Quote:
But I would want Bond movie with a little more of what made the old franchise work. But the script must also work for DC type of Bond.


Casino Royal worked, QoS didnt.

IMO, it wasn't Craig's fault. It was the writers and producers fault that QoS didn't match CASINO ROYALE


Interesting that his two films were almost identical at the BO:

Casino Royale


Domestic: $167,445,960 28.2%

Foreign: $426,793,106 71.8%

Quantum of Solace


Domestic: $168,368,427 28.7%

Foreign: $417,722,300 71.3%
 
#72 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek /forum/post/22058727


If you look at the progression of Bond as an agent rank instead of a man then iMO Craig is exactly what it should be. Society has transitioned from sophistication to brute crudeness in many aspects and Connery to Craig personifies that.

Connery made three Bond movies during the Vietnam War years:


1965 Thunderball

1967 You Only Live Twice

1971 Diamonds Are Forever


So IMO, your assessment of "society" is off.
 
#73 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22058767


I agree with your assessment that QoS was lacking in the villian department. But look at FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - no "super villian" like DR. NO or GOLDFINGER. And yet it is an outstanding Bond movie.

Russia had Grant, and he was almost superior to Bond on every department.

Quote:
Two totally different Bond movies; GOLDFINGER and MOONRAKER (blah). It's too bad that Roger Moore played an "over the top" James Bond. If you have ever seen any of his THE SAINT TV shows, THAT is how he should have played Bond. But the producers were too enamored with humor, stunts and gimmicks.

I think Rogers bond movies style were very much a product of its time. By playing over the top they got away with the more both the epic plots, and the larger then life action.

Quote:
IMO, it wasn't Craig's fault. It was the writers and producers fault that QoS didn't match CASINO ROYALE

Yes, Craig cant do much if the foundation for a good movie isnt there, they couldnt even get the intro music right.
 
#74 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/22058805


Russia had Grant, and he was almost superior to Bond on every department.

Not what I would call a "super villian" like Dr. No - just a highly skilled assassin

Quote:
I think Rogers bond movies style were very much a product of its time. By playing over the top they got away with the more both the epic plots, and the larger then life action.

Which IMO made them the farsical movies they turned out to be. They really should remake them in a more serious tone. Like they did with CASINO ROYALE.

Quote:
Yes, Craig cant do much if the foundation for a good movie isnt there, they couldnt even get the intro music right.

Well - I will label that as . . . subjective. For me, QoS was enjoyable . . . just not as much as CASINO ROYALE.
 
#75 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22059148


Which IMO made them the farsical movies they turned out to be. They really should remake them in a more serious tone. Like they did with CASINO ROYALE.

Whats wrong with creating new stories to make Bond movies from. There should be plenty of good stories out there to make a great Bond movie.
 
#76 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/22058767


IMO, it wasn't Craig's fault. It was the writers and producers fault that QoS didn't match CASINO ROYALE


Interesting that his two films were almost identical at the BO.

Exactly this. QoS didn't live up to it's expectations, so Skyfall has even more riding on it now. Casino Royale was brilliantly done.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top