MR

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Then they turn around, fire his ass, and bring in the weird looking and oafish Craig.

No, here's your weird-looking and oafish. Nobody beats this guy in that dept. Robert Englund should pass the torch to this dude. The new Freddy. They don't even need to put makeup on him.

verslibre wrote:

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Then they turn around, fire his ass, and bring in the weird looking and oafish Craig.

No, here's your weird-looking and oafish. Nobody beats this guy in that dept. Robert Englund should pass the torch to this dude. The new Freddy. They don't even need to put makeup on him.

Except he was playing Dr. Who, which has almost always been played by an ugly & weird looking dude.Not a debonair spy. Smith was pretty great in the role, I thought. Haven't watched any of the new season.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Except he was playing Dr. Who, which has almost always been played by an ugly & weird looking dude.

Somehow I don't think the "Whooters" agree with you when it comes to Eccleston and Tennant. NONE of the previous actors (or the new one, Capaldi) are as straight-up fugly as Smith. That is one ODD-looking guy. Wes Craven's "Newer Nightmare."

I can see how you guys much prefer Brosnan or Moore, but Damn I thought Skyfall was very well done,
and was very in depth to his character. The villain was great too.

RPM wrote:I can see how you guys much prefer Brosnan or Moore, but Damn I thought Skyfall was very well done,
and was very in depth to his character. The villain was great too.

Skyfall was great. Bardem made the movie, IMO. But you know, haters gonna hate.

Journey/Survivor wrote:

kgdjpubs wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:I love the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras, and I liked the Dalton era. Lazenby was alright, nothing special, but alright. I hate the Craig era, as I already said. I will celebrate when he's gone.

any particular reason? Just don't like his take on the character? Scripts? Tone? Something else? Just curious...

All of it, really.

I think that Craig is a horrible Bond. He is good for action movies, just not Bond in my opinion.
I think the scripts have sucked during the Craig era. Too many other things like no Miss Moneypenny, no Q, not using the theme song in Casino Royale, little or no gadgets, etc,etc.

OK, fair enough. Generally speaking, I thought they did a pretty faithful adaptation to the novel once you introduce the girl---and I'll be the first to admit that the novel itself isn't really detailed enough for a feature-length movie, so you were going to have to add some plot in there.

That being said, it is a hundred miles away from where the Bond movies have gone before, and barring a couple of exceptions, the movies and novels have rarely even crossed paths.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

kgdjpubs wrote:There isn't a tremendous amount of difference between the Daniel Craig era and the very early Connery era when they were still attempting to at least be somewhat faithful to the Fleming novels.

No comparison, really. The Connery films were an epoch-shaking cultural event, like The Beatles. The Craig films are pretty much forgettable action films. Skyfall, in fact, is overall a generic revenge flick. Casino Royale was somewhat memorable due to the Fleming source material. It is worth noting, however, that Pierce Brosnan advocated for the producers to adapt Casino Royale forever.

I'm not talking about how well they were received. I'm talking about tone. Take the tone of a few of the early films (ie From Russia, with Love), and there isn't a tremendous amount of difference in there. You could pretty much use the same script, film it with Craig with today's filming/editing style, and it would fit in tonewise with the Craig films. Whether you prefer the serious spy novel approach, the Craig era is one of the few times they have attempted a serious take on the material, and the only time since those first few films that it has been done with any financial success.

As far as Brosnan and Casino Royale is concerned, they didn't have the rights to that one for a long time, which is why it was never done beforehand with Connery. I wish Brosnan had the chance to do that film though. Great actor in the part, but saddled with some of the worst scripts. He always acted like he wanted to do a serious take on the part and never really got the chance.

verslibre wrote:Somehow I don't think the "Whooters" agree with you when it comes to Eccleston and Tennant.

Those same "Whooters" would make the case that Matt Smith is a dreamy pin-up model with boyish good looks. Not sure what your point it. Dr. Who is an alien from outer space. He is supposed to be weird.

kgdjpubs wrote:I'm not talking about how well they were received. I'm talking about tone.

Tone is meaningless if your stories are crap. Only 3 films into the Craig reboot, and the producers are depicting the character as a washed up relic past his prime. This is the same approach used in the Brosnan era, when M chided him as being a misogynistic Cold War dinosaur. Bringing in Craig as a newly minted, edgy, rookie double-oh, was supposed to rejuvenate the series and bring it into James Bourne shaky cam age. But it seems pretty obvious to me that they are creatively out of gas.

kgdjpubs wrote:...the Craig era is one of the few times they have attempted a serious take on the material, and the only time since those first few films that it has been done with any financial success.

Not true. The Dalton era had a fairly serious tone and The Living Daylights was a hit. The Roger Moore era went the serious route a few times, most notably with For Your Eyes Only, also a hit. Goldeneye hearkened back to the Connery days in tone, and was also a huge success.

verslibre wrote:Skyfall was great. Bardem made the movie, IMO. But you know, haters gonna hate.

So people with a different opinion are haters, huh? You conveniently overlook the fact that many of those haters are big followers of the Bond franchise and criticize from a place of fandom, not knee-jerk cyber troll sniping. And many of their complaints are valid, not the least of which is that Skyfall’s script/Bardem's diabolical "master plot" made NO FUCKING narrative sense. A former MI6 operative turned cyber hacker who steals a list of embedded secret agents all so he can be pursued by Bond, get deliberately captured, escape (alot like Ledger's Joker and Loki in The Avengers. Yawn), detonate explosives in a subway station at the perfect location so a train lands on top of Bond (Huh? Implausible at best, stupid at worst), and then storm into a courthouse to shoot M? Care to tell me, how exactly did Bardem's character know to plant explosives in a train station years in advance? And his entire master plot revolves around Q jacking into his laptop? Are you fucking kidding me??! And if Silva has control of his own Apache helicopter, which he uses in the Home Alone-lite climax, why not fly over M's London apartment and simply blow it up? There’s suspension of disbelief, and then there’s playing an audience for morons. Skyfall requires an Evil Knievel leap of faith and to put your critical thinking skills on permanent pause. Strip it all away, and not only is there really NO plot, but what little story exists is pretty much Death Wish 10 set across the pond. Skyfall just proves how much lower audiences standards are today compared to the earlier films. Moonraker, arguably the dumbest 007 film of all time, at least was tongue in cheek. Skyfall is a pretentious bore(M reciting Tennyson? Bond weeping and introspectively examining his childhood? Really? Fuck off). It is a Bond film for aristocratic assholes who turn up their nose at Bond films, and think mainstream popcorn cinema is only for the great unwashed.

Somebody's got diarrhea.

Pep-tooooo...Bis-MOL!

The_Noble_Cause wrote:You conveniently overlook the fact that many of those haters are big followers of the Bond franchise and criticize from a place of fandom, not knee-jerk cyber troll sniping.

A coin has two sides, yes?

Many people who had grown bored (as had I) with the Bond franchise and felt it should take a LONG, perhaps indefinite, break think these Craig movies are giving it the kick in the ass it needs. Keep in mind I did NOT approve of this dude Craig being cast at first, as I'd pretty much been bored with Bond since GoldenEye. But he's surprised me.

verslibre wrote:Somebody's got diarrhea.

Pep-tooooo...Bis-MOL!

My bad. I guess long posts should only be reserved for topics like a grown man in red tights fighting Batman, Wonder Woman, & Aquaman. Y'know, the very important stuff.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

verslibre wrote:Somebody's got diarrhea.

Pep-tooooo...Bis-MOL!

My bad. I guess long posts should only be reserved for topics like a grown man in red tights fighting Batman, Wonder Woman, & Aquaman. Y'know, the very important stuff.

No, you should definitely avoid those particular topics, lest you continue to be owned every single time you attempt to make an invalid point.

verslibre wrote:Many people who had grown bored (as had I) with the Bond franchise and felt it should take a LONG, perhaps indefinite, break think these Craig movies are giving it the kick in the ass it needs.

Well, considering that the core writing team of Purvis & Wade, who wrote 1/2 of Brosnan's Bond films, have been involved with every single Craig film (including re-writing the new one), I'd argue that any changes implemented to the series have been window dressing. All of the problems evident during the Brosnan years are still in-tact, and in fact, they are worse. The only thing that's changed is producers hired a thuggish looking guy who can't deliver a suave quip to save his life. Looking at these pics below, I can't help but be reminded of the Sesame Street song, "One of These Things is Not Like The Other."