|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Feb 16, 2008 9:40:44 GMT -5
Michael G. Wilson said a few years ago that Eon had run out of ideas for Bond. I thought running out of ideas for Bond was impossible - they have been making the same films for 40 years!  If Wilson had come to you for advice, what would you have said? What would you do if you had to make a Bond film? |
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Feb 16, 2008 14:39:49 GMT -5
EON should have hired other good writers that are available, but instead they kept Purvis and Wade and rebooted the series, leaving Pierce to be blamed for the mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Feb 20, 2008 11:56:16 GMT -5
EON should have hired other good writers that are available, but instead they kept Purvis and Wade and rebooted the series, leaving Pierce to be blamed for the mistakes. Wasn't it strange that Purvis and Wade were abused by fans who hated the last few Brosnan films and blamed them for Die Another Day, yet they loved the P&W penned Casino Royale. Purvis and Wade had their hands all over Casino Royale with its awful jokes, which I would normally enjoy. Unfortunately, these jokes were ruined by the rather wooden Daniel Craig.  Who would you like to see write a James Bond film, FormerBondfan? |
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Feb 20, 2008 17:30:12 GMT -5
I would say bring back Michael France or Bruce Feirstein, but with DC, I wouldn't mind if Uwe Boll writes a Bond film or even directing it.
|
|
Alec 006
Commander
"Finish the job, James! Blow them all to hell !!"
Posts: 422
|
Post by Alec 006 on Feb 22, 2008 22:55:01 GMT -5
Michael G. Wilson said a few years ago that Eon had run out of ideas for Bond. I thought running out of ideas for Bond was impossible - they have been making the same films for 40 years! If Wilson had come to you for advice, what would you have said? What would you do if you had to make a Bond film? Hello, Michael G. Wilson went on record in the mid '80's saying "We had always considered going back and doing a story about Bond's roots...he's always been such an established and experienced character." Cubby, however, felt it was best to move forward...hence "The Living Daylights". If I could've sat down with Michael and Barbara...I would've told them I'd love to see an "origin" story for 007, but with the following: I would have loved to have learned more about the death of Bond's parents in the climbing accident, his experience as a Commander in the Royal British Navy, how he honed his skills and became so good at what he does, and anything else Ian Fleming ever eluded to that would interest Bond fans. A young actor in the role would be essential. "Casino Royale" has grown on me a bit. The film was for the most part well written and well produced. For me, however, it failed as an origin story and as a "reboot". The problem is, while I consider Daniel Craig to be a good actor... he was the wrong choice to show a man who is an inexperienced MI6 agent promoted to "00" status. He looked and acted too seasoned. The scriptwriters, director, producers, ect. could've taken more time developing Bond into the character we all know and love. It just all seemed too rushed. Christopher Nolan took almost an hour developing Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins", and I believe everyone's favorite British Secret Agent deserved the same treatment. That's just my humble opinion, I'm sure I may get some flack over this! Take Care! |
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Feb 23, 2008 12:27:25 GMT -5
Michael G. Wilson said a few years ago that Eon had run out of ideas for Bond. I thought running out of ideas for Bond was impossible - they have been making the same films for 40 years! If Wilson had come to you for advice, what would you have said? What would you do if you had to make a Bond film? Hello, Michael G. Wilson went on record in the mid '80's saying "We had always considered going back and doing a story about Bond's roots...he's always been such an established and experienced character." Cubby, however, felt it was best to move forward...hence "The Living Daylights". If I could've sat down with Michael and Barbara...I would've told them I'd love to see an "origin" story for 007, but with the following: I would have loved to have learned more about the death of Bond's parents in the climbing accident, his experience as a Commander in the Royal British Navy, how he honed his skills and became so good at what he does, and anything else Ian Fleming ever eluded to that would interest Bond fans. A young actor in the role would be essential. "Casino Royale" has grown on me a bit. The film was for the most part well written and well produced. For me, however, it failed as an origin story and as a "reboot". The problem is, while I consider Daniel Craig to be a good actor... he was the wrong choice to show a man who is an inexperienced MI6 agent promoted to "00" status. He looked and acted too seasoned. The scriptwriters, director, producers, ect. could've taken more time developing Bond into the character we all know and love. It just all seemed too rushed. Christopher Nolan took almost an hour developing Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins", and I believe everyone's favorite British Secret Agent deserved the same treatment. That's just my humble opinion, I'm sure I may get some flack over this! Take Care! I agree totally here! They could have made a great Bond origin segment using some of the Bond history thar Fleming gave us; but all we got was a two minute black and white sequence with Daniel Craig in a chair! They could have had Bond at public school, Bond joining the navy, Bond being recruited to the 00 section in his mid to late twenties as in the novels. I get the feeling that if Michael G. Wilson had been given a free hand to write, produce and cast a Bond origin story, it would have been much more to our liking Alec! I cannot believe that fans accepted Daniel Craig as a young James Bond. Maybe they enjoyed the new approach so much that they were able to overlook this deviation from Fleming. |
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Feb 23, 2008 15:45:01 GMT -5
I agree totally here! They could have made a great Bond origin segment using some of the Bond history thar Fleming gave us; but all we got was a two minute black and white sequence with Daniel Craig in a chair! They could have had Bond at public school, Bond joining the navy, Bond being recruited to the 00 section in his mid to late twenties as in the novels. Yeah, it was a watered-down approach to the origin story thingie. All we get is Craig sitting and shooting an old guy. Yeah there were those abrupt cuts to scenes with Craig beating up a Eurotrash villain in a restroom, and the whole thing was presented in black-and-white (which in itself is a visual cliche for presenting something in the past). But ultimately there was nothing extraordinary about it. Y'know, I always got the feeling that the enthusiasm for CR is nothing more than a way for these fans to hide their true feelings. I've always sensed that underneath it all there was embarrassment and even outrage at what happened to the series, what with Craig (who's so bizarre looking) suddenly becoming the "front-end" of the entire franchise. I don't mean this as harsh criticism, and I'm just humbly suggesting that these fanboys had to embrace it all whole-heartedly without question. They are the type who are just pro-anything for EON/Craig and whatever direction the series is in. They felt that their world was collapsing, and they rallied around Craig and EON, and built CR into something profound. I agree completely with this description of the fanfare and the pro-media attention that CR got (http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/): Even the mass media joined the hype and voiced its admiration for the film: reporters, film critics, TV entertainment commentators, and newspaper columnists were suddenly proclaiming to be well versed in Fleming fiction by asserting that the new film was true to its literary source. This powerful collective voice, emphasizing surprised glee and boundless praise, covered with its mask of joy the disagreement of the film’s detractors and set forth the decree that Daniel Craig was the best Bond since Sean Connery. In this whirlwind, a shift in sentiment also occurred at the handful of 007 fan-boy forums on the Internet: it became vogue to bash Brosnan and worship Craig as the epitome of greatness. The whole thing was a fascinating phenomenon to behold: it reminded me of the human impulse to represent something—something even as trivial as a film—as an illusory vision of something as we would like it to appear without critical judgment; and from this point of view, we can band together and march forward, in blind adherence, to an idea—a shared idyll—that everyone has accepted, united in the solidarity of the herd. |
|
|
|
Post by benny on Feb 24, 2008 5:16:00 GMT -5
I cannot believe that fans accepted Daniel Craig as a young James Bond. Maybe they enjoyed the new approach so much that they were able to overlook this deviation from Fleming. Well if you goto the Sony pictures site for Casino Royale you can access a profile for Bond. It gives his date of birth as 13th April 1968. Making him 38 in Casino Royale. Just like Daniel Craig.  As for the deviation from Fleming, well then you haven't read the books and then watched the movies very closely Harry, Bond of film is oh so different from Bond of the books, they cross paths sometimes closely, but they are not that alike. Flemings Bond is missing from nearly all but parts of the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan movies. Brosnan and Moore couldn't be further from Fleming. Though Sir Rog as always been a favourite of mine. Can't say the same about poor old Pierce, but he did a good fill in job for 5 films. |
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Feb 24, 2008 13:13:06 GMT -5
Can't say the same about poor old Pierce, but he did a good fill in job for 5 films. Damn, I must have missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Feb 24, 2008 13:17:02 GMT -5
He looked and acted too seasoned. Looked; I'd agree with, but he didn't come across to me as a seasoned agent. Way too blunt and raw. I think your origin idea is a good one and it illustrates what a missed opportunity the reboot could have been. |
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Feb 24, 2008 16:59:35 GMT -5
Well if you goto the Sony pictures site for Casino Royale you can access a profile for Bond. It gives his date of birth as 13th April 1968. Making him 38 in Casino Royale. Just like Daniel Craig. Gee, funny how that works out. But I guess that's Sony's way of admitting that Craig isn't the Bond that Fleming wrote about.  |
|
Alec 006
Commander
"Finish the job, James! Blow them all to hell !!"
Posts: 422
|
Post by Alec 006 on Feb 25, 2008 20:59:43 GMT -5
He looked and acted too seasoned. Looked; I'd agree with, but he didn't come across to me as a seasoned agent. Way too blunt and raw. I think your origin idea is a good one and it illustrates what a missed opportunity the reboot could have been. Hello, A good point, Mr. Skywalker. Daniel's Bond was very raw and inexperienced. I guess I should edit my remarks and simply say that I didn't find Daniel convincing as an MI6 agent recently promoted to "00" status. He just looks too mature for the role. I may be embellishing, but for example, would you cast a 40 year old Michael Keaton to play Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins"? Having said all this...I'm cautiously optimistic now that "origin" and "re-boot" are not part of the equation for "Quantum Of Solace". I'm hoping we'll get back to some of the more familiar motifs that we enjoyed in the first 20 Bonds films. "M": "This may be too difficult for a blunt instrument to understand..." Take Care! |
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Feb 26, 2008 7:32:46 GMT -5
Looked; I'd agree with, but he didn't come across to me as a seasoned agent. Way too blunt and raw. I think your origin idea is a good one and it illustrates what a missed opportunity the reboot could have been. Hello, A good point, Mr. Skywalker. Daniel's Bond was very raw and inexperienced. I guess I should edit my remarks and simply say that I didn't find Daniel convincing as an MI6 agent recently promoted to "00" status. He just looks too mature for the role. I may be embellishing, but it for example, would you cast a 40 year old Michael Keaton to play Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins"? Having said all this...I'm cautiously optimistic now that "origin" and "re-boot" are not part of the equation for "Quantum Of Solace". I'm hoping we'll get back to some of the more familiar motifs that we enjoyed in the first 20 Bonds films. "M": "This may be too difficult for a blunt instrument to understand..." Take Care! I don't necessarily consider age to be the issue, it's more to do with looks. Sir Rog in LALD looked very youthful for his age as did Pierce in GE. Daniel simply didn't have the required look for the style of film (CR), so it made it seem awkward IMO having a seasoned looking man play a young, blunt, raw agent. |
|
|
|
Post by adam on Feb 27, 2008 13:58:58 GMT -5
My next Bond after DAD would have simply been a grittier Bond with Brosnan in the role. He was easily the best thing in DAD. So much more confident and self assurred than in his debut GE. It takes a few films to really grow into the role and Brosnan was still growing and improving. He still looked handsome, fit and young looking. DAD got 'OK' reviews when it came out & did great box office. No one complained about Brosnan or suggested a change in direction or a new actor. So still can't understand why he was replaced after just four films.
|
|
|
|
Post by 009 on Feb 28, 2008 16:59:43 GMT -5
My next Bond after DAD would have simply been a grittier Bond with Brosnan in the role. He was easily the best thing in DAD. So much more confident and self assurred than in his debut GE. It takes a few films to really grow into the role and Brosnan was still growing and improving. He still looked handsome, fit and young looking. DAD got 'OK' reviews when it came out & did great box office. No one complained about Brosnan or suggested a change in direction or a new actor. So still can't understand why he was replaced after just four films. From reading the gossip, i just think B.Broccoli did not like the man, which is fair enough I suppose. She's the boss. Benny mentioned that Sony invented a new backstory for Craig's Bond. Again that's fair enough, but unrelated to Ian Fleming's Bond. |
|
