Bond 23 - Skyfall - Page 3

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.

Daniel Craig's attitude is what sells the character, not his looks. Brilliant casting, if you ask me.

I agree 100%

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.


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.


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%

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.

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


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.


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

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


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.


Well - I will label that as . . . subjective. For me, QoS was enjoyable . . . just not as much as 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.

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.

Nothing is wrong . . . but as you know, Hollywood is so in love with remakes and the Moore Bond movies need to be remade . . . IMO of course.

IMO . . . they all suck big time. I don't see how they could possibly remake them worse . . . they are all rock bottom Bond movies.

And yet the BO takes for both movies are almost identical. Sort of takes some of the subjectiveness out of it.

I think Moores movies has a better rewatch potential then QoS. While QoS is a more serious movie, Moores movies are better executed, and more enjoyable for me to watch.


BO for QoS has alot to do with the success of CR. But we should also remeber that CR has $150M budget and QoS had a $200M budget.

(Not counting marketing)
CR made about 4 times its production money

QoS made about 3 times its production money

Casino Royale was released 4 years after a lackluster Die Another Day, and starred a new actor in the role. It was also billed as a reboot, since Casino Royale features Bond's first mission as a double-0 agent. It was almost destined to be a box office success.

Quantum of Solace was the highly anticipated follow up to the wildly popular Casino Royale in 2006, released less than two years prior. It was billed as a continuation of some of the plot elements introduced in Casino Royale. It was destined to repeat the success of Casino Royale. It was probably hurt by the negative reviews regarding its plot, otherwise it might have gone on to be more successful as anticipated sequels often do.

For example The Dark Knight was released a few moths prior to Quantum of Solace, and was the sequel to 2005's Batman Begins. There's no denying that Batman Begin's success led to The Dark Knight's success.

I never got around to watching Quantum of Solace due to the bad hype.

Was it really that bad?

I wouldnt say it was bad, it was just not very good.

No. It has issues (the shaky-cam is probably the worst example ever shot), but the movie as a whole is sort of a middle-tier Bond adventure. Not as good as Casino Royale, but nowhere near as awful as the likes of Moonraker or A View to a Kill. I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5.

It also plays a lot better on home video than it did in the theater.

After Casino Royale, QoS was a let down in that it backtracked toward the Moore era. More intrique and less gadgets is what I'm hoping for. Supervillans with HUGE projects that stay under the radar are the realm of comic books villans. Everytime I think of Moore I remember some scene with him in some very poorly produced levitating car that jerked around worse than an amusement park ride. IMO, there is not a lot of difference between a Moore 007 film and most secret agent farce films. Moore never exhibited the toughness I imagine a 00 would need.
For remakes, I'd vote for You Only Live Twice. At the time, I liked that movie a lot. In rewatching, it doesn't quite hold up anymore.

DC is just another attempt at the T. Dalton style of Bond. Ugh.

Maybe so, but very different actors with very different careers. TD made a decent effort to be a tougher Bond, but it was just not believable. DC is believable and physically much more capable. I don't believe for a moment that TD's Bond could intimidate with his bare hands. DC's Bond is dangerously and intimidatingly capable. That is the connection that many of us make with Connery's Bond in his more brutal moments...which are much like the Bond of the novels.

DC's Bond gives me the feeling that he might never achieve the level of sophistication that Bond does in the novels, but I think that DC has the best chance to take him there since Connery. Bond in the novels is never a prima dona pretty boy. He's a crude bastard that has learned that he likes the finer things in life along the way. DC's Bond could eventually stabilize into that character.

I would like to see DC's Bond evolve to a more stable character so that we can concentrate a bit less on him every second, and enjoy a great spy story. Maybe a bit more professional than personal.

Personally, I'd like to see a retro-Bond movie going back to the cold war era of the 50s or 60s, but I fear that would not be marketable in this era.

I dont think tougher was what TD aimed for, but more human. And the living daylights script was written for Moore in the first place.

License to kill was written for him, but still had alot of elements from the Moore era. So the entire movie shifted between brutal and campy from time to time.

So I think we never got to see the full potential of TDs bond.

It wasn't but I would describe it as kind of a let down. IMO, the film started off brilliantly so you kind of get sucked in. But then it starts to fizzle but it's gradual. By the time it's over you're kind of left confused. I like it. I bought it and do watch it from time to time. Its not close to Casino Royale though.

I don't mind QOS at all but your right Closet Geek Its not close to Casino Royal ( my favourite bond film )