[quote]jldume wrote:
…M?? That was such bullshit. [/quote]
Same way that did that to you know who in Boardwalk Empire.
You want to REALLY emotionally invest yourself in a movie? The movie has to not be afraid to go all in.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Daniel Craig.
By far, far, far, far, far.
I really, really want to say Sean Connery, but go back and try watching one of his, or ANY of the other James Bonds, without snorting and snickering through half the movie. Some of them make Schwarzeneggar flicks look like Terrence Malik pieces. [/quote]
agreed completely
can’t beat how Sean says the name
BOND, JAMESHH, BOND[/quote]
X3. Connery is an extremely close second, but Daniel Craig has this stoic thing going for him. It may not necessarily be Craig but the way the wrote the new Bond. Last Bond flick I saw was Casino Royale and I liked how the Bond character had “grown up” from just being a playboy spy to a more experienced, seasoned agent who was actually dealing with some “issues.” I realize Bond flicks are not meant to be taken seriously but this little bit of character development is a nice touch.
[/quote]
Yes.
Craig manages to project the maturity of character that when he does pull out those one-liners, we actually laugh, instead of snort.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]jldume wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Sean Fucking Connery[/quote]
My favorite. Runner up is Timothy Dalton.
With that being said, I think Daniel Craig is an amazing actor, and his movies were great, but they dint feel like I was watching James Bond movies. I don’t know, maybe the absence of the gadgets or his attitude were a tad bit off. Like Skyfall, it just felt like I was watching an awesome action movie.
SPOILER ALERT FOR SKYFALL
[/quote]
The double twist ending was brilliant but something of a brain fuck. Casino Royale was the first Bond movie to exist outside of the rest of the series: all the other iterations of Bond were assumed to be the same guy with the same career. Skyfall’s plot changes Casino Royale from a Bond reboot to a prequel story to the Connery movies by placing it before Dr. No.
SKYFALL SPOILERS
/SKYFALL SPOILERS.
[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]jldume wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Sean Fucking Connery[/quote]
My favorite. Runner up is Timothy Dalton.
With that being said, I think Daniel Craig is an amazing actor, and his movies were great, but they dint feel like I was watching James Bond movies. I don’t know, maybe the absence of the gadgets or his attitude were a tad bit off. Like Skyfall, it just felt like I was watching an awesome action movie.
SPOILER ALERT FOR SKYFALL
[/quote]
The double twist ending was brilliant but something of a brain fuck. Casino Royale was the first Bond movie to exist outside of the rest of the series: all the other iterations of Bond were assumed to be the same guy with the same career. Skyfall’s plot changes Casino Royale from a Bond reboot to a prequel story to the Connery movies by placing it before Dr. No.
SKYFALL SPOILERS
The introduction of a male M and Miss Moneypenny in the traditional office setting suggests that Dench’s M was Bernard Lee’s predecessor and Ralph Fiennes is playing a younger version of Lee’s M.
Likewise, Naomie Harris is for all intents and purposes, the first Moneypenny. If Casino Royale is Bond’s origin story, Skyfall shows the genesis of the male M, Moneypenny and Q (the scene where Bond meets his new Quartermaster is played with tongues firmly wedged against cheeks. He isn’t the first Q : it’s hinted that ‘new Q’ replaced somebody, but that doesn’t mean he succeeded ‘previous’ Q’s Llewellyn and Cleese).
Remember this is the first appearance of Q (and Moneypenny) in a Dan Craig Bond.
Ignore the anachronisms of technology and appearance: they were never an issue in Bond films. Thanks to Skyfall, Dan Craig’s Bond now ostensibly prefigures Connery’s wearing of the tux and explains the death of Dench’s M.
/SKYFALL SPOILERS.
[/quote]
Ok, this was awesome analysis, but I’m still a touch confused. Where does Skyfall, or, more importantly, the next movie not out yet, fit in the timeline? Is the next movie before or after Dr. No, or does it just kind of slide in there ambiguously?
[/quote]
Skyfall’s final reveal places every current and future Dan Craig Bond before Dr. No. (he’s only contracted to make one more, I believe).
I initially thought of Casino Royale and Quantum preceding Dr.No, with Skyfall coming after Die Another Day - in other words, Craig’s Bond has lived through every mission in between and that’s why he comes into Skyfall as a physical wreck.
That would mean Casino/Quantum and Skyfall/next movie are bookends to the whole Bond canon and Craig’s Bond is the same guy in every movie from Connery to Brosnan.
SPOILERS
Placing Skyfall like that doesn’t work, though: it has to be set before Dr. No as well because of
the return to the traditional pre-mission briefing of Bond in a room with a male M and Moneypenny going from field agent to office job. Bond movies don’t adhere to a strict timeline (the passing of time is a non-issue, really), so it’s just Sam Mende’s way of connecting Dan Craig’s Bond to the rest of the Bond movies while giving the sense of a rough chronology and explaining why certain characters were absent from CR and QOS.
Skyfall is so self-referential that there doesn’t need to be anymore detail: Mendes planted the seed of an idea, given M and Moneypenny a back story, and the Craig movies a place among the other Bonds. The next movie can just carry on as a self-contained mission with certain characters being addressed by their codenames as they have been in the past.
/SPOILERS
[/quote]
Damn Ok that was fucking awesome lol. Thanks for the break down, I honestly never even thought about it that way. It makes sense to place all of Craig’s movies before Dr. No. For me, I just imagined that beginning with Casino Royale it was all a continuation of where Brosnan left off as stand alone missions not really telling a prequel of how James comes to be who we know him as today from the previous films.
It’s hard to tell; you have ones like Brosnan that I think could have pulled it off that got stuck with shit movies.
You have to also consider; do you care about how much the reflect the books, or do you care about how similar they are to the first? Can you judge a Bond distinct from his movies?
I personally don’t rank Lazenby at all; one movie isn’t enough for me to decide.
I’d put Craig as very good, and he and Dalton are closest to the books if that matters to you.
Brosnan I think could have been a great Bond, but they saddled him with shitty movies.
Connery was pretty good at it.
Moore, I didn’t like. He didn’t pull off the dangerous vibe at all well.
Dalton was another one that I thought could be good but was given some poor movies to deal with.
I think Brosnan could pull off the mixture of suave and dangerous better than the others, personally–he could do Connery’s style better than Connery IMO–again, if he’d been given non-shit movies to work with. Craig pulls off dangerous and cold very well–he’s my personal favorite.
James Bond isn’t just one character if you know what I mean. He’s like one part suave womanizer, one part sarcastic egomaniac, one part gambler, one part `white collar criminal’, one part intelligent strategist, one part dangerous, one part physical, one part ruthless assassin and you get the point.
People have their preferences on the actor based on what traits they like best.
If we’re judging best bond on quality of films, Craig get’s the nod. He’s also the most intimidating and dangerous Bond.
Connery had the mischievous vibe to him. I personally think he was the coolest. And if being the coolest is the best barometer then I think Connery takes it. He was also the first so that counts for something too.
My opinion: I’ve read all the books and Daniel Craig’s performance is much closer to the character portrayed in the books. However, Sean Connery is the best movie version. Roger Moore is a pathetic.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
Roger Moore.
Dude had charisma.[/quote]
I agree. There is something about a spy that can talk his way out of trouble. Some of his movies were corny but HE was always the best imo.
Sir Thomas Sean Connery is and forever will be Bond. And he will forever be Professor Henry Walton Jones, Sr. the father of Indiana Jones.
Darby O’Gill & the Little People is the film that first brought Sean Connery to the attention of Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli. Dana Broccoli his wife thought he was very good looking and rough enough to play the agent in the first James Bond film, Dr. No.
He eats the food then f___s the shit out of her for three hours.
I have two favorite clever Connery memories here’s one:
To me, in a sense, Craig is to Bond what Bale is to Batman: a return to the much darker and grittier spirit of the source material. Craig has charisma, but it is a more laconic charisma, underlaid with a convincing sense of hardness, cynicism and menace. Skyfall gives a meaningful nod to Bond’s struggle with substance abuse, which was featured prominently in the books but had been heretofore glossed over in the films with a wink and a nudge.
I don’t find I miss the gadgets, snappy one-liners and over the top emphasis on Bond’s sexual prowess that were so central to the older films. The chases and fight scenes are significantly more credible than in the past and I appreciate the raw, unpolished aggression Craig displays in the latter (especially in Casino Royale).
All of these things, IMO, work together to make Craig’s Bond much more believable as a man past the flower of his youth but still very much in his prime when it comes to killing people for a living.
Love me some Sean Connery though.
I understand that the studio is also talking with that dude who played the vampire in those movies about vampires.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
I understand that the studio is also talking with that dude who played the vampire in those movies about vampires.
[/quote]
0_0
Maybe as someone Bond can shoot and then fuck his GF
[quote]batman730 wrote:
To me, in a sense, Craig is to Bond what Bale is to Batman: a return to the much darker and grittier spirit of the source material. Craig has charisma, but it is a more laconic charisma, underlaid with a convincing sense of hardness, cynicism and menace. Skyfall gives a meaningful nod to Bond’s struggle with substance abuse, which was featured prominently in the books but had been heretofore glossed over in the films with a wink and a nudge.
I don’t find I miss the gadgets, snappy one-liners and over the top emphasis on Bond’s sexual prowess that were so central to the older films. The chases and fight scenes are significantly more credible than in the past and I appreciate the raw, unpolished aggression Craig displays in the latter (especially in Casino Royale).
All of these things, IMO, work together to make Craig’s Bond much more believable as a man past the flower of his youth but still very much in his prime when it comes to killing people for a living.[/quote]
I’ve enjoyed the character development of the Bond character with the prequels.
I know a lot of people thought it was completely out of character to see him “fall in love” in Casino Royale, but I thought it was essential to really show what helped build the callous, bemused, emotionally-detached character that you see with Connery.
While, of course, the action has improved, and the storylines are more “realistic”, I think the strongest point of the Craig movies was addressing the psychological aspects of who Bond really is, and why he is how he is.
There’s no real such thing as good or bad, there’s just tradeoffs. Bond is an awesome character with some admirable personality traits – the whole “women want him and men want to be him”; but these movies show that with all good comes some bad… or vice versa. The books addressed this pretty well. The new movies just feel more “honest” to me.
Damnit, I don’t want Kristen Stewart as a Bond girl. That’s just wrong on more levels than I can enumerate.
[quote]paulwhite959 wrote:
Damnit, I don’t want Kristen Stewart as a Bond girl. That’s just wrong on more levels than I can enumerate.[/quote]
True okay maybe he can shoot them both then place them in awkward positions to lure the bad guy to a house so then Bond can shoot the bad guy and fuck his GF instead.
Brosnan.
Fun fact: I have an Uncle called James Bond
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
To me, in a sense, Craig is to Bond what Bale is to Batman: a return to the much darker and grittier spirit of the source material. Craig has charisma, but it is a more laconic charisma, underlaid with a convincing sense of hardness, cynicism and menace. Skyfall gives a meaningful nod to Bond’s struggle with substance abuse, which was featured prominently in the books but had been heretofore glossed over in the films with a wink and a nudge.
I don’t find I miss the gadgets, snappy one-liners and over the top emphasis on Bond’s sexual prowess that were so central to the older films. The chases and fight scenes are significantly more credible than in the past and I appreciate the raw, unpolished aggression Craig displays in the latter (especially in Casino Royale).
All of these things, IMO, work together to make Craig’s Bond much more believable as a man past the flower of his youth but still very much in his prime when it comes to killing people for a living.[/quote]
I’ve enjoyed the character development of the Bond character with the prequels.
I know a lot of people thought it was completely out of character to see him “fall in love” in Casino Royale, but I thought it was essential to really show what helped build the callous, bemused, emotionally-detached character that you see with Connery.
While, of course, the action has improved, and the storylines are more “realistic”, I think the strongest point of the Craig movies was addressing the psychological aspects of who Bond really is, and why he is how he is.
There’s no real such thing as good or bad, there’s just tradeoffs. Bond is an awesome character with some admirable personality traits – the whole “women want him and men want to be him”; but these movies show that with all good comes some bad… or vice versa. The books addressed this pretty well. The new movies just feel more “honest” to me.[/quote]
Agreed.
I find it to be a refreshingly intelligent reboot in that regard.
Me.
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
Me.[/quote]
What, no love for Lazenby?
Oh, and I know many people mistakenly think that he isn’t canon, but I was really impressed by Corey Burton.