# James Bond



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Since _Casino Royale_ was considered a re-boot for the franchise, does anyone think that,given Hollywoods habit of re-doing a movie, all the previous movies in the franchise will be re-done? And why or why not?

Personally I don't like the idea of a re-boot for James. To me, it's telling those of us who are fans of the films that all the previous films were no good.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

I love James Bond. Big fan. I also loved Batman and I have to say I love it that they are re-doing them. It's hard for me to say it but I believe Daniel Craig is the best James Bond. I like it that they have 86'd the corny jokes and names they used to have and created a more serious action thriller. I think Casino Royal was awesome but I was a little disappointed in Quantum of Solace. It was still a great movie but not as good as Casino Royal. That would be sweet if they did them again and I don't think it would be disrespectful at all to the originals. A View To A Kill is probably my favorite and if they would redo it I would love it!


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Brandon428 said:


> I love James Bond. Big fan. I also loved Batman and I have to say I love it that they are re-doing them. It's hard for me to say it but I believe Daniel Craig is the best James Bond. I like it that they have 86'd the corny jokes and names they used to have and created a more serious action thriller. I think Casino Royal was awesome but I was a little disappointed in Quantum of Solace. It was still a great movie but not as good as Casino Royal. That would be sweet if they did them again and I don't think it would be disrespectful at all to the originals. A View To A Kill is probably my favorite and if they would redo it I would love it!


Brandon I haven't seen _Quantum_ yet but it is on the movie schedule for this coming weekend so I will reserve judgment on it until then.

But for me Brandon, the little quirks,the corny jokes and over the top character names are what helped to sell the stories but unfortunately in today's age of film making it's all about the bang for the buck.

Mr Craig is a solid number 3 Bond behind Mr Brosnan(#2) and Mr Connery(#1) IMHO. Mr Craig to me plays the part much more in the vane of the character from the book than all others with the exception of Mr Dalton who was very good in the role as well. That's why the two new films are coming across much more seriously than the others. While I will watch any and all films with James Bond in them, I will always think the originals are in a class all their own.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I am a HUGE james bond fan. I dont think they will remake any of the old ones...that would just be wrong IMO. 

I like the new movies, but frankly they dont hold a candle to what James Bond really is in my book. It looses the suave agent appeal and makes it more of just another action flick. Sadly it probably had to be done to keep interest in the franchise as that is what people want these days.

I will say at least it is better than World is Not Enough...which I frankly did not like at all. Even though I really liked Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies (Brosnan is a great Bond IMO). I just wish they kept more of the suave agent appeal that James Bond has always been, instead of just another "action agent" like most movies have.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I'm also a HUGE Bond fan and am working on collecting them on the 3rd media so far (VHS, DVD and now BD). Doing an actual remake of any of them would be a big mistake in my opinion, but that doesn't mean they couldn't explore some other aspects or tangents of some of the more prominent characters without doing disservice to the franchise.

While I thoroughly enjoyed both CR (very pleasently surprised) and QOS I agree with other opinions that they have become a bit too much of just another action flick. 

I also agree with jody that the campy names (many taken right from the books) and gadgets were part of what set the films apart. IMHO they got too carried away with them in some of the John Ford directed Roger Moore movies (but I still loved them). I think they need to find a good balance of hard-nosed killer, suave special agent, gadets and great villans to keep it going successfully, no matter what stories they decide to include or follow.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Grentz said:


> I am a HUGE james bond fan. I dont think they will remake any of the old ones...that would just be wrong IMO.


Which is why they won't re-make the originals. Why p*ss off your fan base?



Grentz said:


> I like the new movies, but frankly they dont hold a candle to what James Bond really is in my book. It looses the suave agent appeal and makes it more of just another action flick. Sadly it probably had to be done to keep interest in the franchise as that is what people want these days.
> 
> I will say at least it is better than World is Not Enough...which I frankly did not like at all. Even though I really liked Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies (Brosnan is a great Bond IMO). I just wish they kept more of the suave agent appeal that James Bond has always been, instead of just another "action agent" like most movies have.


Well, you're a real fan. I, on the other hand, really felt like Bond had as much relevance to the modern world as Playboy magazine, or any other print media these days. I think Daniel Craig breathed life into the role having an "edge". Yes, Bronsan's Bond is "suave"...hoo hum in the mind of a new market they're wishing to capture. I kinda like a flawed Bond myself and cracked up with Craig's response to the "Shaken or stirred?" query when he ordered the martini in "Casino Royale". My major complaint is SONY's obnoxious product placements in the film. I don't care how swank a hotel it is, they're not using Blu-ray media for surveillance.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

bidger said:


> Well, you're a real fan. I, on the other hand, really felt like Bond had as much relevance to the modern world as Playboy magazine, or any other print media these days. I think Daniel Craig breathed life into the role having an "edge". Yes, Bronsan's Bond is "suave"...hoo hum in the mind of a new market they're wishing to capture. I kinda like a flawed Bond myself and cracked up with Craig's response to the "Shaken or stirred?" query when he ordered the martini in "Casino Royale". My major complaint is SONY's obnoxious product placements in the film. I don't care how swank a hotel it is, they're not using Blu-ray media for surveillance.


True, I do know what you mean. They obviously know what they are doing as well as they continue to be huge box office hits.

Product placement has been getting insane, ever since Die Another Day it seems like the product placement has been insane.

and speaking of Bond, you guys might want to check this out:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2074234#post2074234


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Remake classics like _Goldfinger _and _Dr. No_? Why don't they just remake _Gone With the Wind _and _Citizen Kane _while they're at it?

:nono2:


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

bidger said:


> Well, you're a real fan. *I, on the other hand, really felt like Bond had as much relevance to the modern world as Playboy magazine, or any other print media these days.* I think Daniel Craig breathed life into the role having an "edge". Yes, Bronsan's Bond is "suave"...hoo hum in the mind of a new market they're wishing to capture. I kinda like a flawed Bond myself and cracked up with Craig's response to the "Shaken or stirred?" query when he ordered the martini in "Casino Royale". *My major complaint is SONY's obnoxious product placements in the film.* I don't care how swank a hotel it is, they're not using Blu-ray media for surveillance.


Wasn't this one of the big things being asked when Mr. Brosnan took over the role with _GoldenEye_? 007 didn't have a purpose anymore, the Russians were no longer the bad guy, Spectre had long ago been defeated, how would Bond be relevant in today's world. The writer's tried to make the franchise more relevant to today's world by having Bond go against arm's dealers, the evil media, Big Oil, and the prodigal son. Did it work? Well enough I think that ,while Mr. Craig has brought an edge back to Bond that has been missing, re-booting the entire franchise might not have been necessary.

Product placement is going to become this generations commercial. It's how tv shows and movies are going to survive in this age of the dvr and the I need it quicker and faster mentality. Not something I want to see either; but might it be considered a necessary evil?


----------



## alexissamantha (Apr 28, 2009)

I am very big fan of james bond ,,,,, casino royale i dont like that one much i like die another day and many others hope they have to take many movies which is very interesting to watch,,,,,,,,,


----------



## quadzillabill (Apr 29, 2009)

I'm torn. Would like to see modern versions of the early stuff, but I just don't think you mess with a classic.


----------



## Maui (Feb 17, 2009)

I watched the Blueray last night and I was very disappointed. This has to be the worst Bond film ever. I've seen Bond get out of some tight situations but this one took it way to far. The bad guys couldn't hit Bond with a machine gun at point blank range while Bond could take out a bad guy with a pistol at 100 yards. How many people can one guy kill and get away with it? If I want to watch a superhero cartoon I'll watch Wolverine. The plot was sketchy at best and consisted of a series of disconnected nonsense. The director made sure you noticed the fem star's scar tissue but never gave you the who, what, why, where, etc, other than her cowering in the corner during the inevitable fire scene. She appeared to be mumbling something about a BBQ gone bad at uncle Guido's. I wouldn't recommend this movie and any Bond fans. If you haven't seen it Don't!. If you feel you have to; find a cheap way because it isn't worth any amount of money.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Maui said:


> I watched the Blueray last night and I was very disappointed. This has to be the worst Bond film ever. I've seen Bond get out of some tight situations but this one took it way to far. The bad guys couldn't hit Bond with a machine gun at point blank range while Bond could take out a bad guy with a pistol at 100 yards. How many people can one guy kill and get away with it? If I want to watch a superhero cartoon I'll watch Wolverine. The plot was sketchy at best and consisted of a series of disconnected nonsense. The director made sure you noticed the fem star's scar tissue but never gave you the who, what, why, where, etc, other than her cowering in the corner during the inevitable fire scene. She appeared to be mumbling something about a BBQ gone bad at uncle Guido's. I wouldn't recommend this movie and any Bond fans. If you haven't seen it Don't!. If you feel you have to; find a cheap way because it isn't worth any amount of money.


Wow, that's harsh! It wasn't the best Bond movie of all time but I certainly didn't think it was nearly as bad as you make it sound to be. They did explain what happened to the Female lead and why she was out to kill the General, even as far as what was essentially a suicide mission when she was going to shoot him on the boat, and why she was so scared in the fire in the hotel - perhaps you missed that part. As for guys missing him at close range, well that kind of stuff has happened in a whole lot of Bond movies and I didn't think this one was any worse than many of them.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Maui said:


> I watched the Blueray last night and I was very disappointed. This has to be the worst Bond film ever. I've seen Bond get out of some tight situations but this one took it way to far. The bad guys couldn't hit Bond with a machine gun at point blank range while Bond could take out a bad guy with a pistol at 100 yards. How many people can one guy kill and get away with it? If I want to watch a superhero cartoon I'll watch Wolverine. *The plot was sketchy at best and consisted of a series of disconnected nonsense.* The director made sure you noticed the fem star's scar tissue but never gave you the who, what, why, where, etc, other than her cowering in the corner during the inevitable fire scene. She appeared to be mumbling something about a BBQ gone bad at uncle Guido's. I wouldn't recommend this movie and any Bond fans. If you haven't seen it Don't!. If you feel you have to; find a cheap way because it isn't worth any amount of money.


The only statement in this that I can agree with is what has been noted above. The plot was very jumpy. But it wasn't so bad that the entire film was a total disaster for me, I enjoyed it and will continue to watch Mr Bond at work.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

I did not like QoS at all - as a Bond film. As a non-Bond action flick it would have been pretty good. Yeah, yeah I know, Bond was rebooted/reimagined with Casino Royle, blah, blah, blah. But Casino Royle still "fit" the feel of a Bond film, even reimagined. QoS, not at all. I don't walk out of a movie no matter how bad (I'm a cheap glutton for punishment), but I really wanted too.


----------

