 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spectre, both film and score, are highly underrated in my opinion. Spectre meeting scene is wonderful as is the Mexico City pre credit sequence.
I agree. Both I appreciate much more with passing time, also since I know from the documentary on Craig that his injury made filming almost impossible, forcing him to wear a kneebrace for the majority of the shoot. So Mendes had to change a lot of the planned action sequences and turned the film more into a Bond horror film - and as such, it works splendidly.
And now, it is also a fitting prequel to NTTD.
The issue I have with this though is that I have absolutely no desire to see Bond shift genres into the realms of horror any more than I want to see Michael Myers become an action hero.
I respect your opinion but personally I thought Spectre was pretty awful from start to finish (with the sole exception being the cinematography which I thought was gorgeous). I also thought Madeline Swan was one of the dullest Bond girls in years so it was pretty excruciating for her to return in NTTD (where she was, if anything, even duller than last time).
That says a lot since a) the cinematography was one of the most criticized elements of SPECTRE (too bleached out, too dark), and b) Madeleine is one of the most praised elements of NTTD.
And „awful“? You must have the absolute highest standards then. For me Sharknado is awful.
Well, Bond films aren’t for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This movie is everything !
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue I have with this though is that I have absolutely no desire to see Bond shift genres into the realms of horror any more than I want to see Michael Myers become an action hero.
Well, the series does kinda shift genres throughout. Espionage thriller, science fiction space adventure, comedy, jungle action picture, cop thriller, etc. Why not horror? SPECTRE wasn't "horror" like a slasher film, but it was a pretty chilling film in many scenes and, I feel, all the better for it (it's one of the aspects of the film which has grown on me). I don't like all of the choices Eon has made since Dr. No, but I respect their willingness to bend, change and adapt within the framework of the format (and sometimes bend the format pretty far). It keeps it fresh. While it did fall into formula in the 70's and 80's, they've been trying to keep it interesting. The series wouldn't have survived for over 50 years doing the same thing film after film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue I have with this though is that I have absolutely no desire to see Bond shift genres into the realms of horror any more than I want to see Michael Myers become an action hero.
Well, the series does kinda shift genres throughout. Espionage thriller, science fiction space adventure, comedy, jungle action picture, cop thriller, etc. Why not horror? SPECTRE wasn't "horror" like a slasher film, but it was a pretty chilling film in many scenes and, I feel, all the better for it (it's one of the aspects of the film which has grown on me). I don't like all of the choices Eon has made since Dr. No, but I respect their willingness to bend, change and adapt within the framework of the format (and sometimes bend the format pretty far). It keeps it fresh. While it did fall into formula in the 70's and 80's, they've been trying to keep it interesting. The series wouldn't have survived for over 50 years doing the same thing film after film.
Applause. Very well said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like all of the choices Eon has made since Dr. No, but I respect their willingness to bend, change and adapt within the framework of the format (and sometimes bend the format pretty far). It keeps it fresh. While it did fall into formula in the 70's and 80's, they've been trying to keep it interesting. The series wouldn't have survived for over 50 years doing the same thing film after film.
I think the formula has stayed generally the same, more than people think, which is why trying to "modernize" it feels so awkward. Too much is said about the Bond films "evolving" when I don't think they really have.
The "slump" in the 70's and 80's Moore era was a slump of kitsch and bad jokes, where LAZINESS permeated the writing. But the superficial "formula" of Bond has been relatively intact (gadgets, stunts, villains, women, locales). What has changed though is the character of Bond as a fantasy: smooth, well-dressed, tough, and charming, capable of doing just about anything from golf to scuba diving to skydiving to driving tanks. That's not formula though, it's character, and I've said before that character pretty much died with the 20th century.
The Craig movies are not "James Bond" - they are movies that take the name of an expired franchise, elements from that franchise, and re-package it to make money. They make decent films, but the essence of the character doesn't exist any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 18, 2021 - 7:42 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mephariel
(Member)
|
I don't like all of the choices Eon has made since Dr. No, but I respect their willingness to bend, change and adapt within the framework of the format (and sometimes bend the format pretty far). It keeps it fresh. While it did fall into formula in the 70's and 80's, they've been trying to keep it interesting. The series wouldn't have survived for over 50 years doing the same thing film after film.
I think the formula has stayed generally the same, more than people think, which is why trying to "modernize" it feels so awkward. Too much is said about the Bond films "evolving" when I don't think they really have.
The "slump" in the 70's and 80's Moore era was a slump of kitsch and bad jokes, where LAZINESS permeated the writing. But the superficial "formula" of Bond has been relatively intact (gadgets, stunts, villains, women, locales). What has changed though is the character of Bond as a fantasy: smooth, well-dressed, tough, and charming, capable of doing just about anything from golf to scuba diving to skydiving to driving tanks. That's not formula though, it's character, and I've said before that character pretty much died with the 20th century.
The Craig movies are not "James Bond" - they are movies that take the name of an expired franchise, elements from that franchise, and re-package it to make money. They make decent films, but the essence of the character doesn't exist any more.
The problem is, tough guys that can do everything is dime a dozen in today's movies. Vin Diesel in Fast and Furious is basically the 90s Bond. He can do anything and is invincible. And the ladies love him. John Wick is like Bond without the suave. Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. The guy can do everything. That is whole irony behind this. In the 80s and 90s, Bond was the unrealistic invincible ladies man. He was the superhero. Most protagonist like Nic Cage and John Travolta and Bruce Willis played cops, tough street guys, etc. Now everyone is like Bond. All the Marvel/DC films...even female leads with Atomic Blonde and Jolt. Now, he has to be more realistic than the other characters just to stand out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now everyone is like Bond. All the Marvel/DC films...even female leads with Atomic Blonde and Jolt. Now, he has to be more realistic than the other characters just to stand out.
Great point.
I slightly disagree though. First off, I think making him "realistic" makes him actually just like every other character on one of the billions of Netflix shows that exist today and even movies like Marvel movies and new Star Wars movies where characters are painted as "flawed" and "multi-dimensional" but they "grow over time". Marvel is in fact really guilty of this and say guilty because it has become in-and-of-itself a formula for characters, predictable and dull.
As far as other movies, I think James Bond could stand apart by still being a suave, well-dressed Brit in a suit playing a spy - but I do think that is long gone now - partly because of irrelevance and partly like what you say with so many competitors now, but also because Craig has already established his Bond as grumpy, gritty, devil-may-care. I think they could still bring things back to a Bond that is suave, but they'd need to scale back the plots from these overly-epic-end-of-the-world scenarios and return Bond to being more of the spy/policeman he was through the majority of the James Bond series, instead of the hitman/assassin of the Craig era.
But tons of articles now are writing about how the franchise needs to be more woke to continue, while completely glossing over the fact that the character has nowhere to go because James Bond is not really a character - he's a comic book cutout. Which is why I say James Bond is done because the character inherently can't have much depth. He's almost like a sitcom character - not allowed to grow, because they're supposed to return every week to bring you comfort and familiarity.
I'm also against the idea that movies HAVE to be franchises and that franchises HAVE to keep continuing. That's capitalistic, but I don't accept it as some absolute given. I'd be fine if James Bond just ended and they figured out some different new character for Lashana Lynch. To me James Bond already wrapped up with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and that was fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Craig movies are not "James Bond" - they are movies that take the name of an expired franchise, elements from that franchise, and re-package it to make money. They make decent films, but the essence of the character doesn't exist any more.
Your opinion really is based on a total lack of knowledge about this character and on your personal preference of how that character should be depicted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the producers missed one more opportunity to connect to the 69 Bond. Five seconds before the missiles impacted he should have quipped 'This never happened to the other fellas!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then you should know how the character of James Bond is depicted by Fleming and by EON.
It’s just absurd that when pointing out facts hurts someone because they think their opinion is more valid and should never be questioned, especially on a message board during a discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soooo....what do we want here? An unrealistic Bond of the opulent 60's and 70's films with wisecracks, fussy tastes in wines and women fluttering "oh James" in the final moments? Or do we want to go back to Fleming? The literary Bond wasn't an expert in everything. He wasn't overly handsome (Honey Rider said he looked like Hoagy Carmichael). He had a scar on his cheek. He would fail and some tasks and need his ass saved by someone. He was also dismissive of certain people, not always suave and often ruthless. He would feel pain, be sidelined for MONTHS physically and mentally by his injuries and betrayals. BOND was intended to be realistic, the SITUATIONS were larger than life.
So what do fans want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer an actual character with emotions and development. That’s why the Craig era is my favorite, even though I really disliked most of SPECTRE. I haven’t read the books but from what I’ve learned about them over the years, Craig’s Bond is indeed more based off the literary character than any of the others, at least in terms of Casino Royale. I like Connery a lot — I was a fan of his long before ever seeing a Bond film, thanks to the wonderful Disney film Darby O’Gill and the Little People. I think the best Connery Bond portrayal (and best of his films) is From Russia With Love. From all I’ve read his more campy character in Goldfinger afterwards was quite a departure from book Bond, however fun it may have been on screen for folks.
But my favorite Bond film and my favorite Bond, pre-Daniel Craig, was Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights (it was also my favorite Bond score, pre-Casino Royale…which still to me is the pinnacle of the series). I’ve long heard that before Craig, Dalton was most faithful to the book character, and unlike most actors who play the part, Dalton said he actually read all the books before tackling the role…so I believe it.
I guess maybe I should finally get around to trying the books, lol…
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soooo....what do we want here? An unrealistic Bond of the opulent 60's and 70's films with wisecracks, fussy tastes in wines and women fluttering "oh James" in the final moments? Or do we want to go back to Fleming? The literary Bond wasn't an expert in everything. He wasn't overly handsome (Honey Rider said he looked like Hoagy Carmichael). He had a scar on his cheek. He would fail and some tasks and need his ass saved by someone. He was also dismissive of certain people, not always suave and often ruthless. He would feel pain, be sidelined for MONTHS physically and mentally by his injuries and betrayals. BOND was intended to be realistic, the SITUATIONS were larger than life.
So what do fans want?
I could not agree more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2021 - 7:41 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jkannry
(Member)
|
Soooo....what do we want here? An unrealistic Bond of the opulent 60's and 70's films with wisecracks, fussy tastes in wines and women fluttering "oh James" in the final moments? Or do we want to go back to Fleming? The literary Bond wasn't an expert in everything. He wasn't overly handsome (Honey Rider said he looked like Hoagy Carmichael). He had a scar on his cheek. He would fail and some tasks and need his ass saved by someone. He was also dismissive of certain people, not always suave and often ruthless. He would feel pain, be sidelined for MONTHS physically and mentally by his injuries and betrayals. BOND was intended to be realistic, the SITUATIONS were larger than life.
So what do fans want?
I could not agree more. I read my first James Bond book (Goldfinger) in 1969 and saw my first Bond movies in the summer of 1971 (a reissue of DR. NO & FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE). I've been a fan since. The Bond in NO TIME TO DIE is as close to Fleming's literary Bond as I have ever seen portrayed on film, right down to the doomed relationship, lost love and ending. And as for that ending, Bond does the same thing he had every intention of doing at the end of the novel Moonraker; "Don't be ridiculous," said Bond impatiently. "What the hell is there else to do? The explosion will be so terrific that one won't feel anything. And it's bound to work with all that fuel vapour hanging around. It's me or a million people in London. The warhead won't go off. Atom bombs don't explode like that. It'll be melted probably. There's just a chance you may get away. Most of the explosion will take the line of least resistance through the roof--and down the exhaust pit, if I can work the machinery that opens up the floor." He smiled. "Cheer up," he said, walking over to her and taking one of her hands. "The boy stood on the burning deck. I've wanted to copy him since I was five."
Ever hear of SPOILERS? The movie was just released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2021 - 8:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
The Mutant
(Member)
|
I prefer an actual character with emotions and development. That’s why the Craig era is my favorite, even though I really disliked most of SPECTRE. I haven’t read the books but from what I’ve learned about them over the years, Craig’s Bond is indeed more based off the literary character than any of the others, at least in terms of Casino Royale. I like Connery a lot — I was a fan of his long before ever seeing a Bond film, thanks to the wonderful Disney film Darby O’Gill and the Little People. I think the best Connery Bond portrayal (and best of his films) is From Russia With Love. From all I’ve read his more campy character in Goldfinger afterwards was quite a departure from book Bond, however fun it may have been on screen for folks.
But my favorite Bond film and my favorite Bond, pre-Daniel Craig, was Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights (it was also my favorite Bond score, pre-Casino Royale…which still to me is the pinnacle of the series). I’ve long heard that before Craig, Dalton was most faithful to the book character, and unlike most actors who play the part, Dalton said he actually read all the books before tackling the role…so I believe it.
I guess maybe I should finally get around to trying the books, lol…
Yavar
I just watched Daylights again last night. That to me is an almost perfect Bond movie. I wish they would return to that style. It walked the line of hard-edged action and the absurdity of the situations perfectly with a good balance of humor. The story is also really well laid out. Aside from Necros, the other villains weren’t too threatening - that might be my main critique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched Daylights again last night. That to me is an almost perfect Bond movie. I wish they would return to that style. It walked the line of hard-edged action and the absurdity of the situations perfectly with a good balance of humor. The story is also really well laid out. Aside from Necros, the other villains weren’t too threatening - that might be my main critique.
I agree that TLD was a solid Bond espionage adventure with a great female lead and a considered performance by Dalton. The villians could be stronger, but the plot was quite good and even John Glen put away his zoom lens for the film.
Compare his work here with Octopussy. More zoom ins than in Death Wish 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
