Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The real question is whether James Bond is no longer a valid character/franchise in this day & age?
I always think that is a poor argument. I find it to be a really cliche and annoying phrase. What does it even mean? Some of the best movies were made many decades ago and are still recognized as such today.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Have you read any of Fleming's novels?.....if you have then yeah you can tell that's where their getting the "realistic" side of things.
No I haven't and most people haven't either, and that's not the Bond they know. But they do know the outstanding legacy the old Bond has left behind - something I guarantee you "realistic" Bond will never achieve.
I hope this "realism" fad will pass on soon. I don't have a problem with "realistic" movies, like the Bourne franchise, one of my favorites, but I hate it when they apply it to characters that were meant to be fantastic. It seems being "dark" and "edgy" automatically gives you cool points these days.
I feel like I repeat myself every time a Craig Bond movie comes out... 🙁
Originally posted by Placidityagreed, but only to a point.
No I haven't and most people haven't either, and that's not the Bond they know. But they do know the outstanding legacy the old Bond has left behind - something I guarantee you "realistic" Bond will never achieve.I hope this "realism" fad will pass on soon. I don't have a problem with "realistic" movies, like the Bourne franchise, one of my favorites, but I hate it when they apply it to characters that were meant to be fantastic. It seems being "dark" and "edgy" automatically gives you cool points these days.
I feel like I repeat myself every time a Craig Bond movie comes out... 🙁
I thought the whole dark and gritty thing was only going to stick around for 1 or 2 movies because he was new at being 007 and hadn't yet transformed into the smooth character we had come to know; but it seems as if that's just who this Bond will be... a tough, gritty, in your face 007.
It's a rather cool change of pace from the previous 007's, but i also kinda prefer the character to be suave and stealthy. *shrug*
Originally posted by marwash22
I thought the whole dark and gritty thing was only going to stick around for 1 or 2 movies because he was new at being 007 and hadn't yet transformed into the smooth character we had come to know; but it seems as if that's just who this Bond will be... a tough, gritty, in your face 007.
Yup. that is why I find CR acceptable.
The other point is Bond needs a fantastic memorable villain. CR was weak in this department, but at least the guy had a bleeding eye.
In QoS, the villain was someone trying to control the water supply...really?
Bond has and always will need a fantastic villain. Imagine Bourne instead of fighting realistic assassins, fights Dr. No instead, it's just as ridiculous.
Also, where are the gadgets and tech? Where is that sense of adventure from the Connery Bond (and all other ones really)?
Originally posted by Placidity
Meh, I liked CR, but QoS was terribad. Not really a fan of "realistic" and "dark" Bond, it totally destroys who James Bond is and what its about.
I like the idea of a realistic and dark appraoch to it.James Bond has been done to death with so many silly chase scenese and car chases where your thinking to yourself-de je vu because its been done to death.I personally with they had ended the Bond franchise wafter Moore retired.I mean whats the plan,keep on making James Bond films as long as the world is here and hollywood can make films? 🙄
there comes a point to where it becoame rediculous and they pretty much passed that point a long time ago. so since they HAVE chosen to keep making themI like the idea that they are at least trying something different with a darker and more realistic approach.
jinXed by JaNx wrote-
Can't wait for this one. I'm just sorry that it's Craigs last time as, Bond. Casino Royale is my favorite, Bond film. Quantum of solace was good, as well. It wasn't better than Casino, but it never tried to out do its predecessor.
thats a false rumor that got around that this is going to be Craigs last Bond movie.Expect to see him in four more Bond films after this one.
Originally posted by Placidity
Yup. that is why I find CR acceptable.The other point is Bond needs a fantastic memorable villain. CR was weak in this department, but at least the guy had a bleeding eye.
In QoS, the villain was someone trying to control the water supply...really?
Bond has and always will need a fantastic villain. Imagine Bourne instead of fighting realistic assassins, fights Dr. No instead, it's just as ridiculous.
Also, where are the gadgets and tech? Where is that sense of adventure from the Connery Bond (and all other ones really)?
You've just answered my question of whether Bond is still valid today...leaning towards the negative.
I mean you can easily believe that Bourne is on the run from the CIA searching for his true identity & make a franchise out of the notion.
The same with Mission Impossible tracking down terrorists & Ethan Hunt's arsenal of high tech gadgets.
You put those same gadgets in any current Bond movie & people will ***** about already seeing it in another movie.
As far as Bond needing a fantastic villain?
Seriously, in this day & age, are we meant to feel threatened by villains who call themselves Dr No., Mr. Big, GoldFinger, SPECTRE, THE UNION, BrokenClaw or General Brutus?