Why I dislike the new James Bond movie

[+Gepard 11,322]

To say it in the first line, as action thriller the new James Bond movie is acceptable.

But a James Bond movie had to be more than an action thriller.

I expect to see and listen all the small details which i love and miss this time.

I expext the "My name is Bond, James Bond"

I expect that he drinks his martinis "shaken, not stired"

I expect to see Moneypenny and her neverending "love" to Bond.

I expect to see Q and his funny toys.

and

and

and

Finaly i expect to see James Bond as a british Gentleman with all his noblesse, snobism, sexism and his stiff upperlip. I expect to see James Bond as a Lion under the cover of the gentleman, not as a Rambo immitation in a smoking.

[+Dave 2,322]

Have you ever read the novels? The current James Bond is 90% like him in the books, than what the movies turned him into.

[column5 63]

Have you ever read the novels? The current James Bond is 90% like him in the books, than what the movies turned him into.

 

I have to agree with Dave, the new incarnation is truer to the books than any of the previous ones. I like them all, but the formula was really wearing kind of thin during the Pierce Brosnan era.

[Ruggbutt 45]

The new Bond rawks! He's a real human, with flaws and he's able to be physically hurt. No more "superhero". I liken the new Bond to the new Batman. There's a darkness about him that every one can relate to.

[+Dave 2,322]

In the books he is more assassin that spy. He racks up some good body counts in the books. Other than Craig, Sean Connery played him closer as the way Ian Fleming wrote him. I liked Brosnan as Bond, but by that time he was super human. This reboot of the series is exactly what it needed.

[+DoctorQuest 125]

In the books he is more assassin that spy. He racks up some good body counts in the books. Other than Craig, Sean Connery played him closer as the way Ian Fleming wrote him. I liked Brosnan as Bond, but by that time he was super human. This reboot of the series is exactly what it needed.

 

Absolutely agree. Go back and watch "Dr. No" again. Very few toys, etc. and VERY close to the original novel. "Casino Royale" is also very similar to the original book with the biggest change being the substitution of Texas Hold'em for Baccarat as the card game of choice. The few gadgets were realistic and low key.

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

I guess it depends on how one is understanding the whole serie... For those who read the books, it might be quite faithful.

I personnaly think that all good things must end. Now it's something like 1 james bond per year? I think it's quite too much, especially since I'm fond of the 60's and 70's ones. Past those ones...

[+SkippyBing 8]

No it's pretty much every other year, the last one was out in November '06. I think they were doing a similar rate around the 'Spy Who Loved Me' phase.

[FastCargo 412]

I'd have to agree with others here. Though I've never read the books, I was beginning to find the whole Bond schitck kind of boring...too 'plastic'.

 

I like the new Bond and look forward to seeing QoS. I'd also agree Sean Connery played it closer to the original...and surprisingly, I thought Tim Dalton did pretty respectable as well. I know folks don't give him a lot of credit for Bond, but I liked the way he did it.

 

FastCargo

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

No it's pretty much every other year, the last one was out in November '06. I think they were doing a similar rate around the 'Spy Who Loved Me' phase.

Well, at that time, it was not like it had been some 20 James Bond behind, only ten...

I mean, I've got the feeling those guys are no more telling me stories, but just wanting my money: "hey, let's make another James bond!"

[+Dave 2,322]

I'd have to agree with others here. Though I've never read the books, I was beginning to find the whole Bond schitck kind of boring...too 'plastic'.

 

I like the new Bond and look forward to seeing QoS. I'd also agree Sean Connery played it closer to the original...and surprisingly, I thought Tim Dalton did pretty respectable as well. I know folks don't give him a lot of credit for Bond, but I liked the way he did it.

 

FastCargo

 

Timothy Dalton did a fantastic Bond. Very very very much like the books indeed.

[Fubar512 1,350]

I guess it depends on how one is understanding the whole serie... For those who read the books, it might be quite faithful.

I personnaly think that all good things must end. Now it's something like 1 james bond per year? I think it's quite too much, especially since I'm fond of the 60's and 70's ones. Past those ones...

 

You mean you want them to slow down, to release Bond movies at the same pace they did back in the 1960s?

Dr. No = 1962.

From Russia with Love = 1963.

Goldfinger = 1964

Thunderball = 1965

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

You got a point...

Actually, I don't want a slow down of the show. I would like it to stop, and them making something new. I just can't help associating Bond movies with the 60's-70's, fighting Spectre or some Super vilain or rogue commie.

Now, when I heard "come along, we'll watch the new James Bond", I'm just "Seriously, another one again? It's the same thing rehashed."

Soon, there will be more James Bond movies than TNG Star Trek episodes.

Actually, I'm not saying that those film suck (indeed, some recent ones with Brosnan were quite cool), and I'm enjoying them quite correctly when they are broadcoasting in TV, but cinema... I would just fell fooled just like "d'oh, they got me again!".

[Fubar512 1,350]

Personally, I feel that the Brosnan films were quite tacky....not quite as bad as some of the Moore films, but certainly not up to the standards of the first two Connery films. Danial Craig's Bond breathes new life into the series.

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

I've quite liked the first one with Brosnan (what the frak was the name? Goldenthing... Gold Member, it's Austin Power, right? ), but I think it was especially the video game on Nintendo 64 that I loved.

The one with Sophie Marceau was quite crappy, and the one with the stealth boat... watchable, but not so great. I'vn't seen the one set in North Korea yet.

[macelena 1,070]

What the are you all complaining about?

Seen these girls, as nice as aircraft? That´s enough.

 

If any of these made a spot asking us to watch the film, i would get

poor just to obey her. Involuntarely, just an instinctive move

[+Gocad 26]

I'vn't seen the one set in North Korea yet.

 

Don't waste your time with that one. It's utterly ridiculous, not only because Madonna is in it. The Bond producers must have been doing some bad drugs when they conceived that one. Then again, the 19th Bond wasn't that much better either.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Gocad

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

I'm also of the oppinion that the original "Bond" Sean Connery is unbeatable, and second place goes to Tim Dalton. But Brosnan is a solid third, since most of his movies included the typical Bond franchise. IMHO I don't mind the Bond of the books being different from the Bond in the movie. I haven't read them all but Moore was the worst. IMHO Craig's flippant manner reminds me of Moore, so I don't like him that much, I prefer Dalton's dry style. Also, a Bond movie should include, of course the "My name is Bond, James Bond" line, the Martini shaken not stirred, Monneypenny's love, M's berating, and Q/R/(S?)'s gizmos, a super-villain with a BIG uber-evil machine/device that gets destroyed in the end, a combat-car that is built to destroy things rather than just weave through traffic and bring Bond from place A to B, oh, and last but not least, a watch with capabilities to leave us dazzled as to how it is possible (as if anything else in the movie was). Not all of Connery's movies covered all aspects in each movie, but they established these criteria. All of Brosnan's movies covered it too I think except Goldeneye (the car was worthless but at least the old Aston Martin made an appearance). The only reason why Casino Royale can be given some slack for only wrecking cars and not even being a movie that ends with the end - and at that it's the first of the Bond movies to have a continuation, giving true meaning to the end credits phrase "Bond will be back" or something like that - is that it's supposed to portray James Bond as a newbie. But James Bond must be the british gentleman macho with babes, watches and automobiles who will beat unlikely odds and destroy great villains, saving the world from peril. Anything else just isn't James Bond.

Edited November 6, 2008 by TX3RN0BILL

[sparkomatic 7]

the only thing better would be Sparkomatic, the Movie...yeah, you know you want it...

[+Dave 2,322]

Anything else just isn't James Bond.

 

My friend, what you said above isn't Bond. Its what the movies turned him into. James Bond comes from the mind of Ian Flaming, his books are the standards by which the movies should of taken after. The most movie Bonds is Bond only by name. Craig was the closest to the books followed by Connery. As much as I love the Bond series and I own every movie, I think Mr Fleming would be quite disappointed to see what they have done to his James Bond. But unfortunately to those that have only seen the movies, you are missing out on who and what James Bond really is and therefore your frame of reference is very very tainted. Read the books and find out what the series really is about then get back to us. Its the only way you will truly understand.

 

the only thing better would be Sparkomatic, the Movie...yeah, you know you want it...

 

 

Do they still make X rated movies?

[JediMaster 451]

You have to enjoy the films for what they are. Of course the Moore films are nothing like the books, even in his day they had a sort of "reboot" after Moonraker. That film went literally to new heights in the post-Star Wars era that was followed by the very retro-plot For Your Eyes Only where the whole thing was about a code machine and a woman's revenge.

The Dalton movies had their faults, but as mentioned the portrayal of Bond wasn't one of them. The Bond "women" in his 2 flicks were among the worst they had, and the villains weren't that great. Robert Davi is a good actor, but he's not suited to those types of films. Joe Don Baker...has he ever been good?

[+Dave 2,322]

The Dalton movies had their faults, but as mentioned the portrayal of Bond wasn't one of them. The Bond "women" in his 2 flicks were among the worst they had, and the villains weren't that great.

 

Dead on JM.

[+SkippyBing 8]

Bear in mind prior to Goldeneye, Bond had only asked for a 'Martini shaken not stirred' about three times in all the previous films put together and he doesn't say 'the name's Bond, James Bond' in all of them either. Those were details that had stuck in the public's imagination and which the producers decided to run with when they relaunched the franchise with Brosnan.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Of course the Moore films are nothing like the books, even in his day they had a sort of "reboot" after Moonraker. That film went literally to new heights in the post-Star Wars era that was followed by the very retro-plot For Your Eyes Only where the whole thing was about a code machine and a woman's revenge.

 

The first two Moore films were not the out-of-control gadget fests that the next two were, but they did not fare well at the box office. A survey performed by Eon Productions in late 1975, showed that Bond fans wanted to see "more action and gadgets", and "The Spy Who Loved Me" was the result. It did very well, especially when one takes into account that (at the time) it was competing with Star Wars for ticket sales.

 

With MoonRaker, it appeared that Eon adhered to the principle of "If a little action & gadgetry is good, then a lot more of the same must be great!". It tanked....and Eon went back to basics with "For Your Eyes Only", which was probably the best of the Moore films, though Moore seemed a bit out of his element, attempting to portray Bond in a manner that was more suited to Connery, or even Lazenby.

[+Jug 99]

The first two Moore films were not the out-of-control gadget fests that the next two were, but they did not fare well at the box office. A survey performed by Eon Productions in late 1975, showed that Bond fans wanted to see "more action and gadgets", and "The Spy Who Loved Me" was the result. It did very well, especially when one takes into account that (at the time) it was competing with Star Wars for ticket sales.

 

With MoonRaker, it appeared that Eon adhered to the principle of "If a little action & gadgetry is good, then a lot more of the same must be great!". It tanked....and Eon went back to basics with "For Your Eyes Only", which was probably the best of the Moore films, though Moore seemed a bit out of his element, attempting to portray Bond in a manner that was more suited to Connery, or even Lazenby.

Connery is Bond, Bond is Connery....anything else is less........!