# Is this the end of James Bond ?



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

After viewing the new James Bond movie, starring Daniel Craig , I think Columbia pictures may be in the act of killing the long running series.

For Example: Where were the expected spread of gaderty? The beautiful women? There was only two women involved with Bond and he walked away
from one, leaving her alone, something Bond would never do.

He opened the movie driving of all things, a Ford ! 
We got short glimpses of two Aston Martin's, one he drove a few times around the hotel and the other he wrecked in which we only saw a short glimpse of. 

The new Bond is certainly not attractive , nor is he tall . He has a slight British accent. His clothing in this movie is usually casual except when gambling.

He and the movie makes light of his famous drink a dry Martini, shaken but not stired. Bond is seen drinking of all things either scotch or bourbon.
Again, where are all the beautiful women that Bond meets and cast aside?
Bond falls in love and Ms. M becomes a major part of the Bond mystery, Why? His only love interest puts him down and he talks of marrying her.

Finally, where is the tongue in cheek humor and spectacular climax ? 
It satrted with the dashing definitive Sean Connery and may end with a women as Bond !

Is this the end of James Bond ?


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

No, this is the beginning.

The movie is a modern interpretation of the first Fleming's novel. Heavily commerialized, but still much closer to the roots than many movies that came before this one.

In the book, Bond falls for Vesper much harder. Beginner's mistake.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I thought it was the best Bond film since OHMSS. The formula had gotten stale, and the setpieces had been pushed into the absurd. I'm glad to see everything stripped back down.

The gadgets and such will all come back, eventually.


----------



## westcoaster (Mar 1, 2006)

I am surprised that you did not like the movie. From the previews, I also thought it would be weak and Craig would be a bad Bond. I though the dark haired (and sartorially superb) Connery and Brosnan had been the best Bonds. (BTW, I have read many of the books and I have all the movies on DVD.) Casino Royale changed my mind, it is a Connery-era epic 007 flick with the benefit of modern cinematography. The emphasis is much more on the character, not on the gadgets, and the action is superb. And Bond continues to have a superb taste for fine clothing, watches, cars, and women  What's not to like?


----------



## Khnelben (Feb 18, 2005)

*Actually...*

this JB is the closest thing they got to the 'book original'.

All of the points you mentioned - gadgets, marrying etc. - are the things Bond always did in books (he wanted to marry practically every lead lady in each novel).

The movie is very good.

Andrey


----------



## luk-cha (Apr 29, 2006)

i have not read the books but from what i know and understand this is the first of the 007 and i guess this is what a lot of people have forgoten or not realized.

i like the film for what it was it was also a change, as the movies are having to compete with the likes of bourne id etc so i liked change and can not wait to see how it will mature!


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> After viewing the new James Bond movie, starring Daniel Craig , I think Columbia pictures may be in the act of killing the long running series.
> 
> For Example: Where were the expected spread of gaderty? The beautiful women? There was only two women involved with Bond and he walked away
> from one, leaving her alone, something Bond would never do.
> ...


Emphatically, no; it is not the end. This flashback movie shows the beginning.

Finally, the real James Bond is back on the silver screen. A small group, of which I am a member, attended a private screening of *Casino Royale* a few days before the public release. Years of faithful patience paid off for me. This film is the best since *Goldfinger *in my opinion.

The character's just-below-the-surface menace is there in abundance. Gone is the over-the-top campiness. Special effects are better than ever. This is especially true of the early scene at a construction site. I almost needed a seat belt for that one.

I don't wish to trash any icons. However, Daniel Craig is (to me) more believable than Sean Connery in the role. I am in a distinct minority to utter this, but if Timothy Dalton had the benefit of this writing and directing, he and Craig would vie in my mind for the most believable of the Bonds. I always felt that the twinkle in Connery's eye was the give away that he was playing a comedic role rather than the subtle satire written by Ian Fleming. Look into Craig's eyes and maybe you will notice what I mean.

Perhaps a reading of all the Bond novels and subsequent attention to the *Casino Royale* storyline will explain for you why all the movie gadgets and gimmicks so beloved by many are absent to a great degree. You are correct in that Craig is not "tall." He is the shortest actor ever cast in the role. He is only 5'11".

Lazenby 6'2½" https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0493872/bio
Dalton 6'2" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Dalton
Connery 6'2" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery
Moore 6'2" 
Brosnan 6'1" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Brosnan
Craig 5'11" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Craig

Rather than killing the long running series as you suggest, I respectfully disagree and feel that some new life was injected.

________________________________________


----------



## andrei67 (Dec 7, 2004)

Casino Royale and Daniel Craig have already been extensively discussed in another thread, but I still feel compelled to canvass my view (after all, that what we are here for - exchanging views and opinions).
It has been suggested in the other thread that present version of CR is heavily targeted towards female audience and that's the principal difference between the movie version and the original book (I too have read all the Fleming's original books and have all the movies on SE DVDs). While similarly true to the original (though in modernized way - after all pro-communist leader of French trade unions is not the most colourful figure presently), the difference is huge in the details. And Craig's (or I believe producers desire for Craig to show) menace was not in any of the book (except maybe in You Only Twice - after Tracy's murder).
On the bright side - the ending sequence of the movie promises a better and truer following...


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

Full Canvas said:


> I am in a distinct minority to utter this, but if Timothy Dalton had the benefit of this writing and directing, ...


Although it is a point of personal favour for me Dalton is the "best" bond.

I never realized the thing about Brosnan. Connery is not my cup of tea, although i agree that he is a good actor.

I haven't seen the movie yet. But what really bothered my is the Theme song.
Did they run out of money and asked a schoolband to send in a demo tape. Ridiculous.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

The series, James Bond was successful because it strayed away from the Orginal book.
Bond became the Hollywood past. The Cary Grants , Earrol Flynn's, Rex Harrison's etc. The era when men did not cower to N.O.W.

As stated earlier, fast cars , beautiful women , exciting locations , all the things the average man can only dream of.

Hollywood was a dream factory ! The era when the men were tall and the women beautiful . In this new version the man is plain and the women average.

Books are generally altered when producing a film to add the touches that would make the film many times better than the book.
Bond is an example of taking an average book and transforming it into the longest running series in motion picture history.

As in the case of the Hollywood musicals, we all knew how it would end , the beautiful music , the excellent dances and the wonderful productions.
That is what made musicals so enjoyable.

Is James Bond any different ?

Movies are not expected to be believable , but escapism , to get away from the dull existance many of us must live with. How many of us drive Aston Martin's , have beautiful girl friends , enjoy the wonderful locations and outstanding adventures.

How many of us are as handsome as Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan ?

Most of you are correct, this is a new direction for the James Bond series ,
much as we have seen a new direction in men's dress and manners.
Times do change , the Bond we once enjoyed must change also .

We can wait around and hope but we will never see it again.


----------



## stuman (Oct 6, 2005)

They made a bold move by choosing Craig. It resulted in a winner, just look at the box office receipts. They succeeded in resurrecting a franchise which was getting really stale. I can't wait for the next one.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

While I would have preferred to see Clive Owen rather than Daniel Craig cast as the new Bond--a casting choice I feel would have given the Bond character a tad more of his wonted suavity and a mite less angst--I feel I have to say a word in defense of Eva Green. I would hardly describe her as "average" in appearance. While perhaps a bit on the thin side, she's certainly way prettier than the average.

And as for gadgetry, yeah, I would have preferred a bit more myself, I must admit. I still thought that the cardiac defibrillator that Bond just "happened" to have in his glovebox was pretty neat--after all, I may need one in a few years.

I think there's something to be said for the idea that the filmmakers were faced with refitting and perhaps adding a bit of depth to a series that had lapsed into self-parody, and that they did a reasonably good job, all things considered. In particular, the portrayal of the emotional effects of violence has become something of a trend in action movies: The scene of Bond's brutal struggle with the hit men in the hotel corridor and stairway, all with Eva in tow, is very similar to a scene in "The Bourne Identity" where Franka Potente's character throws up after witnessing a savage fight between Jason Bourne and a would-be assassin.


----------



## harrybee (Jul 17, 2006)

I think it's just the end of the chauvinistic and formally-attired Bond as the studio wants to create a 21st century feel character.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I thought Casino Royale was a good return to form and a more faithful interpretation of the Ian Fleming novels. I thought Daniel Craig was terrific as well as the story.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> I thought it was the best Bond film since OHMSS. The formula had gotten stale, and the setpieces had been pushed into the absurd. I'm glad to see everything stripped back down......


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Good Old Sledge (Jun 13, 2006)

And, for the record, my wife misses very few opportunities to point out the Daniel Craig is "hot." Like with those sallow grey Prada ads, Gentlemen, perhaps we're not the target audience...


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Books are generally altered when producing a film to add the touches that would make the film many times better than the book.


This must be why nearly every adaptation I, my family, or my friends have seen results in a comment of "It wasn't as good as the book."


----------



## tiealign (Nov 16, 2005)

I have to agree that it was the best bond flick in many years. Daniel Craig was a very bold choice for bond and I didnt think he would work out til I saw the movie which changed my mind.


----------



## Foghorn (Feb 2, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> I thought it was the best Bond film since OHMSS. The formula had gotten stale, and the setpieces had been pushed into the absurd. I'm glad to see everything stripped back down.
> 
> The gadgets and such will all come back, eventually.


Doc,

You are correct, once again.

Foghorn


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

When does it come out on DVD? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

*Great film*

Just seen it. I found the new Bond very much a "new man" in his quite complex relationship with the two women in his life, M and Vesper. Very much in tune with contemporary female tastes - hunky yet graceful (more dancer than boxer), boyish and vulnerable yet deadly. Interesting psychoanalytical readings on the man-woman relation - Bond and Vesper both orphans, M a sort of mother figure - Bond's attitude towards Vesper definitely rather maternal, I thought - a good idea, that.

The whole of the collapsing palazzo sequence was riveting - in fact all the stunts went beyond the purely spectacular.

Not a lot of wardrobe items this time. Le Chiffre's casino garb was well chosen. Was that a DB three-piece salt-and-pepper Donegal tweed suit with peak lapels Dimitrios was wearing?


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Given the performance of this film in the box office one could say the premise of the opening post is quite ridiculous.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Newton said:


> Given the performance of this film in the box office one could say the premise of the opening post is quite ridiculous.


If only because a sequel seems pretty well inevitable. Every one I know who's seen it wants more.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bump - so that Silverporsche can have all his Bond threads on the go at once.

SP, you are obsessed with Bond!


----------



## Ed Rooney (Nov 6, 2012)

Read the books, then you will understand.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Ed Rooney said:


> Read the books, then you will understand.


Exactly!


----------



## NathanielD (Oct 18, 2012)

I saw the new Bond flick this past Friday night, and I must say that I was quite impressed. It was a very good movie with stellar cinematography. It also closed the loop on a number of things that I was missing.:thumbs-up: I give it 2 thumbs up.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Good movie. M going male and Moneypenney coming back may be a sign that they are going to roots. Nice that they used one of the old Bond cars. The villain was a comicbook character but isn't it so in many of the books. About Bond drinking single malt (eh, OK he does that) and Beer (what!) and wearing Canali (no Bond wears Italian, c'mon) is of note.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

catside said:


> Good movie. M going male and Moneypenney coming back may be a sign that they are going to roots. Nice that they used one of the old Bond cars. The villain was a comicbook character but isn't it so in many of the books. About Bond drinking single malt (eh, OK he does that) *and Beer *(what!) and wearing Canali (no Bond wears Italian, c'mon) is of note.


You have to remember, that in today's age a Martini is one step away from an Appletini. What once was manly, isn't even "manish." The shift to beer had to happen. If Bond is to remain an iconic hero, he he has to remain at least some reflection on society.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Apatheticviews said:


> You have to remember, that in today's age a Martini is one step away from an Appletini. What once was manly, isn't even "manish." The shift to beer had to happen. If Bond is to remain an iconic hero, he he has to remain at least some reflection on society.


Some reflection on the society of which he was created to be a member though, surely?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Some reflection on the society of which he was created to be a member though, surely?


Not saying I like it anymore than you do, but... I had an English teacher who gave an assignment years ago. It was a comparison between Heroes, from Beowulf to Bond, with the definition of a hero being someone who represented all the ideas of a society.

Beowulf was a braggart, immensely strong, and violent. Bond however was sophisticated, philanderous (sp), and bordering on alcoholism.

Was the old Bond really better than the new? Or was he just different?


----------

