Some of the Moore movie plots were super wild and fun (Live and Let Die is a personal favorite for example) but I think his lighter complexion, humor, and age (60ish in A View to a Kill) made it difficult to see him as the same kind of James Bond as Connery (Lazenby= debatable) before him and, I would argue, Dalton, Brosnan & Craig after him.
Coevett wrote:
You're dissing a relative of mine Jamin.
I still prefer Connery though.
What part of Prague do you live in? I was there recently and thought about trying to organize a meetup with you.
I still want to see it even though it probably won't be great. The best part is Hans Landa is in the movie so if he plays a major role it would be good. Great actor in Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. It didn't feel like he appeared that much in the last bond movie considering he is the main villain.
Hello i am new
Hello i am new
Count me among those happy to discover they don't share movie tastes with jamin. I thought this was a really good Bond film. I've enjoyed watching Craig in the role, but will grant you Sean Connery was better than them all by a long shot. This one has some twists I didn't see coming. And one lady playing a secondary character nearly steals the show.
jamin wrote:
Coevett wrote:
You're dissing a relative of mine Jamin.
I still prefer Connery though.
What part of Prague do you live in? I was there recently and thought about trying to organize a meetup with you.
That's unfortunate Jamin, but I was in London until the end of the summer.
Haha, I'm not letting my stalkers here know where I live, but let's just say there that there are lots of Ukrainian hotties in my part of town.
What did you think of the women here Jamin?
I liked Casino Royale but all the other Daniel Craig ones sucked. It was the same thing with Pierce Brosnan. Goldeneye was awesome and then the rest just sucked.
The Daniel Craig era has ruined James Bond, and he is the worst to play him just due to how he changed the character.
I don't mind a franchise modernizing, removing offensive tropes, and changing with the times. In fact, I'm in favor of removing all those aspects. They HAVE to be removed. However, you can still do this without fundamentally changing the character. Daniel Craig and the producers fundamentally changed the character of James Bond. You can remove the sexism and racism without transforming the character to have completely different basic motivations and emotional basis.
The film version of James Bond was always primarily motivated by pure self satisfaction and gratification, AND loyalty to the crown. Historically that was displayed with emotionless sex, using women, and the enjoyment of killing people, all while humoring himself with his silly jokes. He had never been motivated by healing personal emotional wounds (heck, he was immune to emotional wounds) or out of love for any individual with the exception of Felix. To properly modernize the character, James Bond should still be primarily motivated by self satisfaction and loyalty to the crown, but could be displayed by different things of what purely satisfies Bond. Killing in cold blood while enjoying it and joking to himself could stay. The Craig films however did away with all those motivations except for a few flash instances. He retired like 4 times (yes loyalty DID bring him back) but his primary motivations through much of Daniel Craigs arc was out of mourning or almost depression, not anything to do with pure gratification. Yes Bond had loved women before, but any love for a women or others was far far far down on the list of what motivated him through all the films. The Daniel Craig James Bond isn't really James Bond anymore, just in name. There is nothing wrong with Daniel Craig's character, it just is a different character than James Bond. One could make a different film with his character and just call him by a different name. Nobody is stopping such a film to be made if that's what the producers want to make. Just don't call him JAMES BOND.
Although not a great film, Pierce Brosnan's performance in Tomorrow Never Dies was perfectly in line with who James Bond IS. That was the single greatest performance of James Bond post Sean Connery. Heck I think Die Another Day is the worst James Bond film, but its STILL absolutely James Bond. Make a modern/more realistic/better scripted of that James Bond (without offensive tropes) and THAT would be great!
I think the next step going forward is for the next film to be a period piece. We don't NEED James Bond to exist in the 2020s for the films to be successful and relevant.
jamin wrote:
No idea how this film is getting rave reviews.
The best one was Roger Moore's Spy Who Loved Me. He wasn't a good Bond but the underwater car was cool.
jamin wrote:
No idea how this film is getting rave reviews.
Got to agree with Jamin on this one. Basically, a Rambo movie squeezed into a Bond movie. All the pieces were there for a great movie. Potential for a real solid plotline, compelling characters, great actors, and it just totally fell flat.
If I want a gratuitously violent movie I can watch John Wick. I expect something different out of a Bond movie. Daniel Craig seemed to be a pretty solid Bond through Skyfall and then it all fell apart.
I'll watch it when Amy Schumer is Jane Bond
jill money wrote:
The Daniel Craig era has ruined James Bond, and he is the worst to play him just due to how he changed the character.
I don't mind a franchise modernizing, removing offensive tropes, and changing with the times. In fact, I'm in favor of removing all those aspects. They HAVE to be removed. However, you can still do this without fundamentally changing the character. Daniel Craig and the producers fundamentally changed the character of James Bond. You can remove the sexism and racism without transforming the character to have completely different basic motivations and emotional basis.
The film version of James Bond was always primarily motivated by pure self satisfaction and gratification, AND loyalty to the crown. Historically that was displayed with emotionless sex, using women, and the enjoyment of killing people, all while humoring himself with his silly jokes. He had never been motivated by healing personal emotional wounds (heck, he was immune to emotional wounds) or out of love for any individual with the exception of Felix. To properly modernize the character, James Bond should still be primarily motivated by self satisfaction and loyalty to the crown, but could be displayed by different things of what purely satisfies Bond. Killing in cold blood while enjoying it and joking to himself could stay. The Craig films however did away with all those motivations except for a few flash instances. He retired like 4 times (yes loyalty DID bring him back) but his primary motivations through much of Daniel Craigs arc was out of mourning or almost depression, not anything to do with pure gratification. Yes Bond had loved women before, but any love for a women or others was far far far down on the list of what motivated him through all the films. The Daniel Craig James Bond isn't really James Bond anymore, just in name. There is nothing wrong with Daniel Craig's character, it just is a different character than James Bond. One could make a different film with his character and just call him by a different name. Nobody is stopping such a film to be made if that's what the producers want to make. Just don't call him JAMES BOND.
Although not a great film, Pierce Brosnan's performance in Tomorrow Never Dies was perfectly in line with who James Bond IS. That was the single greatest performance of James Bond post Sean Connery. Heck I think Die Another Day is the worst James Bond film, but its STILL absolutely James Bond. Make a modern/more realistic/better scripted of that James Bond (without offensive tropes) and THAT would be great!
I think the next step going forward is for the next film to be a period piece. We don't NEED James Bond to exist in the 2020s for the films to be successful and relevant.
This ^
If we have movies such as "The Last Duel," which are based on something from 1000 years ago or whatever, you'd think we could have 007 movies based on the 50s or 60s, when you could still have cool gadgets that aren't immediately dated or whatever, or the brilliant Q or whoever plugged an archenemy's laptop INTO A GOVERNMENT NETWORK and about ended life on earth. Just do intrigue and what-not, in 007 spy style, and stop trying to be futuristic, since Samsung just came out with something better and your movie is not even through post-production.
Mad Men was a popular series. Base a James Bond movie on that same era, and it will be just as fun to watch as any Bond movie in the past 40 years.
I haven't watched a full Bond movie in 20 years, I caught part of one of the Craig movies when it was on one of my movie channels, it seemed more Jason Bourne than James Bond.
Two Jason Bourne movies were enough.
jill money wrote:
The Daniel Craig era has ruined James Bond, and he is the worst to play him just due to how he changed the character.
I don't mind a franchise modernizing, removing offensive tropes, and changing with the times. In fact, I'm in favor of removing all those aspects. They HAVE to be removed. However, you can still do this without fundamentally changing the character. Daniel Craig and the producers fundamentally changed the character of James Bond. You can remove the sexism and racism without transforming the character to have completely different basic motivations and emotional basis.
The film version of James Bond was always primarily motivated by pure self satisfaction and gratification, AND loyalty to the crown. Historically that was displayed with emotionless sex, using women, and the enjoyment of killing people, all while humoring himself with his silly jokes. He had never been motivated by healing personal emotional wounds (heck, he was immune to emotional wounds) or out of love for any individual with the exception of Felix. To properly modernize the character, James Bond should still be primarily motivated by self satisfaction and loyalty to the crown, but could be displayed by different things of what purely satisfies Bond. Killing in cold blood while enjoying it and joking to himself could stay. The Craig films however did away with all those motivations except for a few flash instances. He retired like 4 times (yes loyalty DID bring him back) but his primary motivations through much of Daniel Craigs arc was out of mourning or almost depression, not anything to do with pure gratification. Yes Bond had loved women before, but any love for a women or others was far far far down on the list of what motivated him through all the films. The Daniel Craig James Bond isn't really James Bond anymore, just in name. There is nothing wrong with Daniel Craig's character, it just is a different character than James Bond. One could make a different film with his character and just call him by a different name. Nobody is stopping such a film to be made if that's what the producers want to make. Just don't call him JAMES BOND.
Although not a great film, Pierce Brosnan's performance in Tomorrow Never Dies was perfectly in line with who James Bond IS. That was the single greatest performance of James Bond post Sean Connery. Heck I think Die Another Day is the worst James Bond film, but its STILL absolutely James Bond. Make a modern/more realistic/better scripted of that James Bond (without offensive tropes) and THAT would be great!
I think the next step going forward is for the next film to be a period piece. We don't NEED James Bond to exist in the 2020s for the films to be successful and relevant.
I can’t think of anything more horrible than “offending” someone.
The real James Bond! Agent Coach J.S 001 , License to supercoach ))
Messes with my hair, though wrote:
jill money wrote:
The Daniel Craig era has ruined James Bond, and he is the worst to play him just due to how he changed the character.
I don't mind a franchise modernizing, removing offensive tropes, and changing with the times. In fact, I'm in favor of removing all those aspects. They HAVE to be removed. However, you can still do this without fundamentally changing the character. Daniel Craig and the producers fundamentally changed the character of James Bond. You can remove the sexism and racism without transforming the character to have completely different basic motivations and emotional basis.
The film version of James Bond was always primarily motivated by pure self satisfaction and gratification, AND loyalty to the crown. Historically that was displayed with emotionless sex, using women, and the enjoyment of killing people, all while humoring himself with his silly jokes. He had never been motivated by healing personal emotional wounds (heck, he was immune to emotional wounds) or out of love for any individual with the exception of Felix. To properly modernize the character, James Bond should still be primarily motivated by self satisfaction and loyalty to the crown, but could be displayed by different things of what purely satisfies Bond. Killing in cold blood while enjoying it and joking to himself could stay. The Craig films however did away with all those motivations except for a few flash instances. He retired like 4 times (yes loyalty DID bring him back) but his primary motivations through much of Daniel Craigs arc was out of mourning or almost depression, not anything to do with pure gratification. Yes Bond had loved women before, but any love for a women or others was far far far down on the list of what motivated him through all the films. The Daniel Craig James Bond isn't really James Bond anymore, just in name. There is nothing wrong with Daniel Craig's character, it just is a different character than James Bond. One could make a different film with his character and just call him by a different name. Nobody is stopping such a film to be made if that's what the producers want to make. Just don't call him JAMES BOND.
Although not a great film, Pierce Brosnan's performance in Tomorrow Never Dies was perfectly in line with who James Bond IS. That was the single greatest performance of James Bond post Sean Connery. Heck I think Die Another Day is the worst James Bond film, but its STILL absolutely James Bond. Make a modern/more realistic/better scripted of that James Bond (without offensive tropes) and THAT would be great!
I think the next step going forward is for the next film to be a period piece. We don't NEED James Bond to exist in the 2020s for the films to be successful and relevant.
This ^
If we have movies such as "The Last Duel," which are based on something from 1000 years ago or whatever, you'd think we could have 007 movies based on the 50s or 60s, when you could still have cool gadgets that aren't immediately dated or whatever, or the brilliant Q or whoever plugged an archenemy's laptop INTO A GOVERNMENT NETWORK and about ended life on earth. Just do intrigue and what-not, in 007 spy style, and stop trying to be futuristic, since Samsung just came out with something better and your movie is not even through post-production.
Mad Men was a popular series. Base a James Bond movie on that same era, and it will be just as fun to watch as any Bond movie in the past 40 years.
Another point I thought of but missed. Michael Bay's 'The Rock' was the perfect way to end a James Bond story and bring in a daughter, similar to what No Time To Dies was trying to do. Rockets being shot at an island to stop doomsday weapon and all. Assuming Connery's character is James Bond in The Rock (not a stretch), it presented him as a parent without affecting the James Bond character at his core. He was still loyal to the crown, cool as hell, can live the high life, quick witted, and all about self gratification. He was a killing machine with no emotional wounds to heal. Daniel Craig's portrayal of the character will always be viewed as an emotional whimp in comparison, missing what makes James Bond, James Bond.
Besides a period piece, I'd also be ok bringing back Pierce Brosnan back in a story like The Rock. Return all the supporting characters from Craig's era (new M, Q, moneypenny, tanner), but in this movie it's like Craig's Bond never existed and they have no idea who Brosnan Bond is (Brosnan's M and Q are long passed). Brosnan Bond has been locked away in US maximum security prison 25 years for knowing state secrets and maybe Charles Robinson is brought back as a supporting character as the only person who knows who he is.
Eye candy
jill money wrote:
https://tenor.com/bg5VW.gif
I think you make some excellent points here. I would note that in Die Another Day you see Bond in what was (at that point in the franchise) a new light: he gets captured, tortured, and arrives in the far East in a hospital gown and long hair/ beard. The mission is about revenge to a certain extent but it is still quintessential Bond. I would argue that Brosnan brought a sort of business-man by day and spy-by night sort of quality to Bond (he presents as a banker in at least a couple of the movies and he drives a BMW in at least one (Tomorrow Never Dies)). In many of Craig's films, on the other hand, Bond is depicted as sort of a Jason Bourne-esque action hero version of himself. He also shows up out of shape and "old" (ie Skyfall) but harsher, grittier, less suave way in which Craig plays Bond in those films have steered him in a different direction. However, each of the actors who played the character brought something new to the table and were likely lambasted by some audience members for their choice. It's tricky because they would also be maligned if they chose to try to replicate someone else's portrayal of the character... that wouldn't go over too well either.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
