The Death of James Bond 007
After 45 years of loyal service with MI6, the Britisch secret service, 007 has been terminated.
And he hasn't been killed in action by a deadly laser, drowned while escaping from a sub, died in a car crash or just shot. No... it's much worse then that. The producing company responsible for the last few bond movies decided to start the Bond series from scratch. A so called 'reboot'. First of all, they hired Daniel Craig to play the role of 007! For reference, this is hus ugly muck: http://www.craignotbond.com/sitebuil...05-155x152.jpg Is this the James Bond we will be seeing in the future movies? If it is, I will take my winnings and consider Die Another Day as the final Bond movie. Going out with a bang with Pierce Brosnan playing Bond one last time as he should. But the sick picking of the actor isn't the only mistake that made. They actualy are remaking one of the most meaningless movies where Bond ever featured in. The original Casino Royal was more a comedy then an action movie. Which is the reason it was never concidered a real Bond movie. And even though I didn't like Casino Royal anyway, I don't see how you're going to remake a movie that was ment to be a comedy and convert it to an action movie. In fact, Casino Royal should be left alone and the next Bond movie should have been a fresh movie with a fresh script and a DECENT actor. But as things have gone as they are, the mix of Casino Royal and Daniel Craig is at least two mistakes that cancel eachother out. It's two mistakes that will make the movie one big flop and will hopefully make EON (the publisher) see that this was one of the stupidest ideas they have had. The online petition voting against Craig as Bond and Casino Royal as a remake collected over 17000 signatures. Every one of them from worried Bond fans, seeing the franchise go down the drain. I don't know if many people here are Bond fans, and even if you're not I hope you at least admit that Daniel Craig can not ever be the next James Bond 007. Help us fight against the discrace. We might not be able to stop the production of Casino Royal, since shooting has already started. But maybe we can convince EON to kick Craig out as soon as the movie is done, and keep future damage to the Bond Franchise to a minimum. Thank you all for your time :fuzemb: |
It's hard to imagine that the new one could get any worse than the last few Bond films. It should, in fact, be an improvement seeing as it is not a remake of the previous (crappy) films but rather the first Bond film in decades that was an adaptation of an original Ian Fleming novel.
I'm not sure about Daniel Craig. If he's capable of giving the character of Bond a bit of edge and pull the series out of the rut it's been in then all power to him, I say! |
I don't think the series has been in a rut to be honnest. With the release of Goldeneye they practicly had to re-introduce Bond to the public since it had been quiet for a long time. They modernized the setting a bit. New HQ, new M, same old Q :P.
The reason that they drifted off the novels as years progressed is because the novels were becoming to complicated to make a film out of. At least in those times. I'm not sure what movie was the last one that was based on the novels, but I know they dropped the concept after a few movies and wrote new stories. In all fairness, you can't keep a series like James Bond in it's 1960's touch for ever. Even though they tried to a little with the last few movies with Timothy Dalton. Every series needs modern touch up every once in a while and I think they stayed true to the Bond formula dispite those touch ups. Goldeneye, Tommorow never Dies, TWINE and Die another Day were all great movies IMO. With Pierce being one of the best actors next to Sean Connery to ever play the role of 007. |
This doesn't make sense to me.
This pussy even said in an interview "I don't much like guns." That's right, this nancy wants to be Bond and he doesn't like guns. He looks ugly as hell, too. |
The last few films have had absurd plots and ridiculous bad guys.
Tomorrow Never Dies was okay but a bit over the top. The World is Not Enough had totally illogical twists and most of the stunts were stolen straight from previous Bond films (the motor-boat that travels over land, the machine in the oil pipe, the skiing chase scene...) Die Another Day was just plain crap. The plot made no sense, the technology was questionable (I mean, a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required for any Bond film but that invisible car was way too much, not to mention the plastic surgery that completely changed people's appearance) and the bad-guy's evil plan was looted from Diamonds Are Forever. |
Well, Die Another Day was MEANT to have aspects of previous Bond films and to be a little crazy. Since it was the 20th aniversery and all. It had far more traces then the diamond thing ;).
I watched TWINE just a few days ago, and yea there are a few stunts in there that reminded me off older films as well. But that doesn't by definition make it a bad movie ;). If there was one thing I hated about that movie it was the acting performance of the girl playing Electra... damn get some skill. |
I agree with the new bond actor being Daniel Craig is a bad choice, I just find it hard to see how he could fit in, from apperance he doesn't have that Bond quality.
I though the logic behind the invisible car made realistic sense, all you need is billions of high definition excellent picture display video cameras the size of an atom glued on a car. |
I heard to principle of the invisible car isn't as far fetched as you might think. American military is already using that same principle as experimental camouflage. Ofcourse it's far from being perfected IRL.
|
I'm a bit of a Bond fan not hard out though. I haven't seen anywhere near all of them, but you're right, that guy doesn't have 'the look'.
The movies have gone down a bit lately, but I still think Brosnan was a great James Bond, and I still watch them all. |
Daniel Craig will be a brilliant Bond.
He'd still be a great Bond if they weren't changing the character at all. Daniel Craig is a good actor and well suited for the role. The photo you show of Daniel Craig is not exactly flattering. Go watch Layer Cake or something else with him in. Casino Royale is not a remake of the spoof; it just happens to bear the same name. |
No it's a 'remake'. Same setting, ect. They won't be THAT stupid to re-use a name that has been used before for the exact same genre of movie.
And the guy might be a good actor, but he doesn't have the look. Thats the point. Looking at him you just don't get the feeling your looking at the calm smart women seducer working for the Britisch goverment. Can you seriously picture him say: The name is Bond, James Bond. ? Seriously, that doesn't match! |
And I don't think he has the accent either.
Yeah, Peirce Brosnan was a great bond in my opinion. |
:
|
Bond Through the Years:
Original Bond: Sean Connery http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eanConnery.jpg Bond #2: George Lazenby http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../cf/Laz_69.jpg Bond #3: Roger Moore http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oger_moore.jpg Bond #4: Timothy Dalton http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dalton_007.jpg Bond #5: Pierce Brosnan http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...007Brosnan.jpg Hmm. It's not like every previous Bond was gorgeous. Granted, they're more pleasing to the eye than this Craig guy. But they'll probably clean him up. Nate's got the right idea. If he can do the part justice, then good on him. I was never a diehard Bond fan. It was my assumption that Connery was widely accepted as the greatest Bond. |
Well I'm highly skepticle about him doing the part. Playing Bond is about more then just good acting IMO.
|
Yeah. He has to have the looks, the presence... and the license to kill helps too :).
|
Don't forget the tight buttocks.
*growls erotically* |
George Lazenby didn't really have that look either, so hopefully this guy will be a one timer as well.
But he still had more of the look than this Craig fellow. |
The picture of him is undeniably unflattering. Because I'm sure the producers think it's a good idea to leave a gruff, untrimmed beard and mustache on a suave secret agent. If they could make Brosnan look like a hobo, they can make Craig look like a million bucks.
As far as the current trend of the series... there've been some good moments and plot twists during the past few years. Bringing back Valentino in The World is Not Enough was pretty cool, and the car scenes from Tomorrow Never Die and Die Another Day were pimp as hell. The plots, on the other hand, just suck. TMD felt far too campy, TWINE was flat out boring, and DID felt forced, not to mention that casting job of blackie couldn't have produced less chemistry. Let's face it: Goldeneye was the last certifiable A+ Bond film. Another rebirth is probably for the better. |
TMD? DID? Die Inother Day? Oh dear oh dear.
*puts on huge glasses and crazy wig, pulls out pointing stick* To fully understand this event one must look back onto the History of James Bond, 007, and take a look at the bigger picture. In the beginning a Brit called Ian Flemming wrote a book called 'Casino Royale'. For the next few years nothing of any relevance to this topic happened, other than more books and 007 being praised by the world. THen someone did a SPOOF, a parody of the first novel, 'Casino Royale', the film was not produced by EON and had nothing to do with the films that would follow, other than that the lead role had the same name. Then a dude called Albert R. Brocolli and a slightly less dudey dude called Harry Salzman created the film, 'Dr No' with a little-known actor called Sean Connery. Connery immediately defined the role of James Bond on the big screen, became incredibly famous in the role and in his fifth film in the role a set was constructed for his film that cost more to build than 'Dr No' (the big volcano base for 'You Only Live Twice'). Sean Connery created the legend that was Bond James Bond and went on to make 6 films with EON and a 7th with a competing company several years afterwards. When (not for the last time) Sean Connery gave up the role EON found an actor on an advert by the name of George Lazenby who they called in to audition. Lazenby had in fact never acted before (not that he told them that) but this proved to be his key trait: in auditions he broke a stuntman's nose because he didn't know how to stage-punch properly. Oddly enough, this landed him the role. Lazenby's approach to the role was notably less action-hero than Connery's, also he went a bit to far with the whole seduction of beautiful women. A slightly camper James Bond who only went on to make one film, however said film did produce what's been described as one of the greatest love songs of all time ('We Have All the Time in the World'). People generally thouht Lazenby was a bad choice and many critics claimed it to be THE DEATH OF DOUBLE-OH-SEVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OMGROFL!!!! They ere shortly proved all wrong by the brief return of Connery to the role who did one film and then said he was done with James Bond (not for the last time). Feeling rather worried, EON hunted for a new face of James Bond and found Roger Moore, a Bond that would go on to make 7 films all with EON and be in effect the joint most successful Bond of all time!!! Plus Tom Jones neversung any of his theme songs which is always a bonus. Many people didn't like Moore, why? Because he wasn't Connery! with Connery having defined James Bond it wold be a hard role to follow, the world in general considered Connery to be Bond, and many were unwilling to change their views to suit the more humourous but no less English figure of Roger Moore. This was put to the test when, during the production of 'Octopussy' Sean Connery came back to make a remake of 'Thunderball' with a rival company. The film was named 'Never Say Never' by Connery's wife because Connery had previously announced that he would never make another Bond Film. If EON was worried about this they had no reason to be, like all the Moore films 'Octopussy' became one of the most successful Bond films up to that point, possibly because the rival company had chosen to remake the film that Tom Jones had originally sung for (bad ideas all round). Connery announced that he would never make another Bond film again (so far he's actually held to it this time, but who knows what the next film will bring?) When, in the early 80s, Moore stepped down from the role of 007 EON decided maybe it was time to REBOOT JAMES BOND and at last made the terrible mistake they'd been considering since 'Gold Finger': they Americanised Bond. For this task they called on the skills of the actor Timothy Dalton, who surrendered the unshakable calm and outstanding sophistication of the previous Bonds and went for a more macho-hero, women falling at his feet for him to choose, exaggerating where previous Bond under-exaggerated approach, complete with short geeky, swooning Moneypenny and a total disregard for everyone English. America loved it. Everyone else wondered what went wrong. Arnold Schwarzenegger has stared in very similar films. Dalton made two films, the second taking up a '15' certificate in England (the highest cert of any Bond Film) and bringing an end to James bond for EIGHT YEARS, leading people to believe that they had witnessed THE DEATH OF JAMES BOND DOUBLE-OH-SEVEN!!!!!!!!OMGROFL!!!!! Since the times of Roger Moore EOn had had their eyes on an actor known as Pierce Brosnan, but who'd always been busy at the wrong time to fill the widely desired role. However, Brosnan came into the picture at the right time to produce 'Goldeneye' and go on to rack up a current total of 4 films, reinstating the swathe unshakable sophistication that made James Bond so popular and unique world-wide. So lets review: Connery (6+1 films, highly successful) Lazenby (1 film, oops) Moore (7 films, highly succesful) Dalton (2 films, oops) Brosnan (4 films, successful) Craig (plenty of potential for disaster, but Bond will survive, I think we can be sure of that) As for 'Casino Royale', I was personally rather pleased that EON would be taking on that for the next film, it, in effect, gives them a chance to repair the damage that was done to Bond so early on. I doubt they'll be copying the previous film, rather taking it back to the book and working up from there. And hey, if it's another mess-up, well there'll always be another bad guy threatening global destruction and so on for a new Bond to flatten. Who knows, Connery might even take up the role once more for his next last film. So no worries (as long as they don't have Tom Jones sing the theme tune). Go optimism! |
Nice sum up Splat! Kudos to you, you got it all right as far as I can see ^_^.
Although I don't mind some change every once in a while (you can't keep going with the same recepy for decades on end), I just think they took it a bit over the top now. The change they did with Dalton was a little bit overwelming, but it did work in the end. I liked his movies to be honest, and also how he portraits Bond. But still, ofcourse he's no Sean Connery. I'm still sceptical about it, but I guess we'll have to see what EON has in store for us. The review magazines all over the globe are not very positive about it. But it will be the reviewers judgements that will decide if Craig will stay or not. Cuz lets be honnest, you don't use the same actor again if the entire movie industrie has told and begged you to drop him. |
The two Dalton movies were entertaining. Shame the man takes so much flak.
|
:
Well Dalton was an americanised version of James Bond, maybe it was a greater blow to England, Bond was really the british hero up till then (and about the only decent one, it has to be said). Americanising him sort of killed the dream. Actually Brosnan was almost the guy to do 'The living Daylights' (Dalton's first film), he was just finishing a TV series and Dalton was busy on another film. Brosnan was scheduled to finish first but then the script-writers came up with 5 more episodes to his program so he was held up and Dalton got the role. It's interesting to think how Brosnan would have done if he had landed the Americanised script. |
I dunno, I think he would have been awfully youngh back then to put up a good acting performance up to the Bond standards. How old was Brosnan when he started with Goldeneye? In his mid 30's or something?
|
Just finished watching 'Licence to Kill', definately Dalton's better film, i really enjoyed it. They seemed to have given up on the American Bond by then.
JAMES BOND WILL RETURN That line is a legend in itself and is really the best conclusion to this thread. More films should put that at the end of their credits, and I mean saying James Bond, pay credit to the most famous fictional character world-wide (true fact that). |
Hmm... I always thought that was God...
|
Daniel Craig gives me a mega erection.
|
Poor you...
|
:
|
I can't wait for this next bond film. It looks and sounds brill.
I don't see the problem with using this Craig guy. I've seen him in interviews and on the set of this film (through tv. i wasn't actually there) and i think he's gonna make a brilliant James Bond. And Havoc, you clearly have issues over this. So you don't fancy Daniel Craig, big deal. I bet that there are lots of people out there who thinks he's better looking than Brosnan. And this petition thing is a pile of crap, it was obviously Brosnans biggest fan who created it. When the film comes out, don't watch it and just sit naked in your room filled with Brosnan and Connery poster. |