Skyfall 007

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

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?

I dunno, how about Loki? Joker Maybe? No Bane sounds good.

Bourne was created to be a realistic movie. Bond wasn't ever meant to appeal to reality. "this age" argument doesn't work, we still have many films with fantastic elements to it that are very successful. Just because 007 took the direction towards realism, it is not in itself a justification that it would've failed otherwise. I and many others would totally watch a film with Connery if he was able to age backwards and deliver a film with the style similar to the originals. Of course there needs to be some evolution to current times, but that requires smart writers and director to pull off. Going realistic is just the easiest way out.

Casino Royale was great, But I disliked Quantom of Solace. So I don't know if I'll see the next one

Originally posted by Placidity
I dunno, how about Loki? Joker Maybe? No Bane sounds good.

Bourne was created to be a realistic movie. Bond wasn't ever meant to appeal to reality. "this age" argument doesn't work, we still have many films with fantastic elements to it that are very successful. Just because 007 took the direction towards realism, it is not in itself a justification that it would've failed otherwise. I and many others would totally watch a film with Connery if he was able to age backwards and deliver a film with the style similar to the originals. Of course there needs to be some evolution to current times, but that requires smart writers and director to pull off. Going realistic is just the easiest way out.

Loki is based on Norse mythology not a made-up villain name.
You might as well say, all foreigners have funny names.

The Joker. Well knowing what's he's sadistically capable of doing & how his "jokes" tend to be on the violent side, I'd be more fearful of a villain calling himself "The Joker" than I would be of Dr. No.

As for Bane. The meaning says it all. He is the cause of Batman's misery. The dictionary also states it's a noun for "killer" or "murderer". Bane was created simply to destroy Batman not seek world domination.

"Going realistic" is simply just one means to make the audience relate better to the character by introducing current politics, conflicts & present technologies available into the story. It makes things more credible.

A younger Connery won't save the Bond franchise when it's up against Mission Impossible or the Bourne series. It would be like being disappointed in seeing The Rolling Stones play now compared to 30 years ago when they were in their prime.
So yeah, even nostalgia for past actors who played Bond or pining for childhood memories won't save this franchise.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Loki is based on Norse mythology not a made-up villain name.
You might as well say, all foreigners have funny names.

The Joker. Well knowing what's he's sadistically capable of doing & how his "jokes" tend to be on the violent side, I'd be more fearful of a villain calling himself "The Joker" than I would be of Dr. No.

As for Bane. The meaning says it all. He is the cause of Batman's misery. The dictionary also states it's a noun for "killer" or "murderer". Bane was created simply to destroy Batman not seek world domination.

You didn't feel silly coming up with justifications how each is perfectly "valid", yet trying to maintain a similar rationale is impossible for James Bond? I could come up with another few pages of names, wanna go at it? The point actually wasn't what the names were, but the characters themselves. But Okay, seeing how you are utterly convinced you are right no matter what, you are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

A younger Connery won't save the Bond franchise when it's up against Mission Impossible or the Bourne series. It would be like being disappointed in seeing The Rolling Stones play now compared to 30 years ago when they were in their prime.
So yeah, even nostalgia for past actors who played Bond or pining for childhood memories won't save this franchise.

Funny how you mention Mission Impossible, where it's anything but realistic, yet still successful. Maybe the next Mission Impossible reboot it should be about how they need to stop some guy from making a profit, no more tech or gadgets, no more masks. Then someone with your logic would come in and conclude because if a new movie actually used whatever that defined it in the first place, it would totally fail. Realism is the only way now.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

it's up against Mission Impossible or the Bourne series.

It all hinges on what other movies are out? Lol. Not only is that a completely unfounded claim, those two franchises are completely different, and don't hold a candle to James Bond's legacy - a character and style that was established over 50 years and 20 movies. I think I'm inclined to believe it has proven itself over the ages, rather then some unfounded assertions by a "expert commentator" on why James Bond would've failed if done any other way.

Originally posted by marwash22

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*

This Bond is both suave and stealthy, he's just also more likely to punch you in the throat and throw you off a balcony.

are you two guys aware that this is the JAMES BOND thread,not THE DARK KNIGHT VS THE AVENGERS thread? 😆

they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...

Originally posted by marwash22
they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...

😄

Originally posted by marwash22
they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...

Hey I can't masturbate at work so I debate instead. 😎

Originally posted by Placidity

It all hinges on what other movies are out? Lol. Not only is that a completely unfounded claim, those two franchises are completely different, and don't hold a candle to James Bond's legacy - a character and style that was established over 50 years and 20 movies. I think I'm inclined to believe it has proven itself over the ages, rather then some unfounded assertions by a "expert commentator" on why James Bond would've failed if done any other way. [/B]

You know what, I'm betting this will be the very last Bond movie we'll see.
You're right about legacy & "proven itself over the ages", you're absolutely right in referring to Bond in the past tense.

No one can argue that James Bond was a male chauvinist that might've been appealing on the screen 20 or 50 years ago on the big screen but tell me exactly what audience market wants to see that, here & now?

Originally posted by marwash22
they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...

...and how many RPGs does it take to kill one.

Originally posted by Placidity
No I haven't and most people haven't either, and that's not the Bond they know. ............ 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.
🙁

Yeh, I see your point here too. I would dare even say that the vast majority of 007 fans have never read a novel. I started reading 'Casino Royale' in school and was bored to death with it, so I was reluctant when I was introduced to the films.
I am now a 007 fan, but of the film Bond. Sure, FRWL and LTK are leaning more in the 'reality' direction I guess, but they still have that spark of fun and wit.
I will admit that spark and wit was somewhat overdone and almost made the films too self aware in Moore's era, most (not all, 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and 'For Your Eyes Only' are two of the best 007 films) are so fantastic and humour filled they are almost spoofs - sorry Roger, but only the aforementioned two get any playtime in my house.

Now, being edgy to score points, well, I do agree it comes across as a fad in Hollywood at the moment.
I do have to say I am not a fan of the new direction or of Craig in the role. The franchise has lost me for now, but many like it and thats what counts in the end - its making money! 🙄

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

You're right about legacy & "proven itself over the ages", you're absolutely right in referring to Bond in the past tense.

Nice argument or should I say, lack of. Again making baseless assertions.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

No one can argue that James Bond was a male chauvinist that might've been appealing on the screen 20 or 50 years ago on the big screen but tell me exactly what audience market wants to see that, here & now?

We were discussing Bond in terms of realism, villains etc. I'm going to assume this is the only point you have, which is irrelevant.

Feel free to make more baseless assertions though.

YouTube video

I think this one has great potential. Brosnan killed in Goldeneye, then was put in so-so storylines from then on, though Die Another Day was pretty good as well. I'm hoping this can be a good bookend for Craig.

As to villains, every modern Bond film has for the most part produced an enjoyable foil to Bond without resorting to silliness like claws for hands or golden guns. They've managed to keep it realistic yet give each some traits that make him or her hard to take down.

Looking forward to Skyfall, hoping it doesn't suck as hard as QoS (one of the all time worst Bond films ever).

Bond remains relevant, there's really nothing 'dated' about him exactly, more about the way he's brought across. Craig's interpretation of a rough military bloke working intelligence and being a very "blunt instrument" is a great way to approach a thorough reboot.

They chose Casino Royale to reintroduce Bond, to move away from the Moore camp-y Bond and the cheesy Brosnan Bond. And now that he's getting into the swing of things, he'll ease up a little, loosen up and become a bit more cynical in his relations with women ... He got his revenge, he experienced betrayal and he's now a confirmed 00... The rest will come together in time.

Personally, I think they missed an opportunity to take JB in this direction with Timothy Dalton - he is an excellent actor and TLD was a very good Bond film - ruining him (and Bond) with the farcical Licence To Kill.

Bond, MI5/6, terrorism, the current fad of over-turning foreign governments by covert means (arming and training so-called 'rebels'😉 these all pretty much fit together.

The problem lies in trying to give Bond anything like moral authority. He works for the empire, he is basically Darth Vader, the biggest gun the Empire has. Bourne simply chose to play rebel, so he was easy to side with, Ethan Hawke and the MI crap is just Tom Cruise doing the US PR thing - nobody gives a shit for those films nor were they ever anything more than risible, from premise to execution.

Another approach is to go murky and have no moral authority, merely emotional attachment and lots of immediate threats - like Jack Bauer faces in 24. His agency are as bad as the threats he usually deals with, they are often complicit and his methods as outright fascistic as any tyranny you can imagine, but he's always saving someone and he's got a pretty daughter and we connect with him, not his masters, so that sort of makes the other stuff unimportant.

Originally posted by Kazenji
YouTube video

Looks absolutely like it's going to be the balls. Probably the movie I want to see most now (8-12 2012) save The Hobbit.

Originally posted by janus77
Looking forward to Skyfall, hoping it doesn't suck as hard as QoS (one of the all time worst Bond films ever).

Whoa, bro. Isn't that a little harsh? Have you not seen Die Another Day...? That one was godawful. lol

Lovely, lovely! I have hopes for this one to rise into the golden few Bond films that stand the test of time.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Whoa, bro. Isn't that a little harsh? Have you not seen Die Another Day...? That one was godawful. lol

Tomorrow Never Dies wasn't exactly a vision of cinematic perfection itself, but yes, QoS was even worse in terms of being empty in its overall story. It just felt like something tossed out for the sake of doing it with a bit of Bourne-esk hand-to-hand thrown in to try and keep it relevant.

Anyone else seeing a pattern:

The Living Daylights, pimpin; License to Kill, serviceable.

Goldeneye, great modern Bond; TND & DAD, not so much.

Casino Royale, another great reboot; QoS, drivel.