Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think I was living in Asia the first time I saw Man with the Golden Gun. It might have been the first Bond film I saw all the way through although I knew he existed. I loved it. Its still one of my favorites. But I also think the Bond stories peaked in the Roger Moore era, whether you liked him as Bond or not. Moonraker, Octopussy, and so on. While I love the grittier Daniel Craig, the plots just aren't living up to the actor, and truthfully I don't need Bond and his family roots. I prefer some greater stakes and I am just not feeling it in these films. Specter was a huge let down.

I like to pretend that the Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton eras didn't happen. Pierce would have been fine had he followed Roger Moore, but by the time he came on his look was a little too late. And Timothy was gritty like Daniel Craig but also kind of goofy looking and the movies sucked.

I am really not sure where they go after 25. I think part of the problem with Bond and the focus on Bond himself goes beyond people's interest in the character, but also the UK just doesn't have the kind of presence in the world as it used to. It seems his role in international affairs has to be shared with his uncovering his roots because I am not sure it makes that much sense for Bond to be taking on some of the crazier plot lines he has in the past. It is more shadow work now, which is fine, in a secret war where most of it should be, but I just think that the movie plots have been a little bit of a waste on a great, great choice to play Bond.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45265336

and Boyle is out/gone due to creative differences.

Yeah beat me to it.

Could you change the title? Say, changing it to Danny Boyle not directing anymore, or something?

It's a shame about Boyle, because I rate him highly, and he's usually the last person to pull the plug on a project, so the 'creative differences' must be bad.

Enthusiasm reduced by 50% with Boyle out. Shame.

Any rumors as to what the "Creative Differences" were this time around?

According to Chris Evans on Radio 2 this morning (no, not that one, the annoying ginger one), it's because he disagreed with Daniel Craig about the casting of a villain.

I am beginning to think that Bond is about played out.

It does seem a bit odd that Daniel Craig has enough influence over the casting process that Boyle had to leave over it, rather than overruling him. Unless the studio was behind Craig?
But is it common for actors to have that kind of influence? Seems a bit weird, really, especially when the actor in question has made it quite clear he's sick of the franchise and this is probably his last one.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
It does seem a bit odd that Daniel Craig has enough influence over the casting process that Boyle had to leave over it, rather than overruling him. Unless the studio was behind Craig?
But is it common for actors to have that kind of influence? Seems a bit weird, really, especially when the actor in question has made it quite clear he's sick of the franchise and this is probably his last one.

In a situation like this where you are doing a run of a specific style of Bond, I would assume Craig has a lot of say. They absolutely need him for another Bond, otherwise they need to start a new series. He is the face of it all.

Not sure what villain they could possibly come up with after spectre. Spectre already felt like the Craig era finale.

Only thing I can think of as a "villain" now is that they make it that all the Bond Girls deaths were staged and also that all of them were pregnant. Then a radicalised child service agency realises they all share a father and tries to hunt down Bond.
Hold on, Contacting the studio right now!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am beginning to think that Bond is about played out.

I've felt this for a long time. I was born in '81 so saw a few of them on TV as a young kid before the long lull of the early 90s. GoldenEye was great, but I couldn't get in to any of the later Brosnan ones. I couldn't stand the first Daniel Craig one and never watched any after. I might have had the second Craig one on the TV once in the background when painting.

I have got a lot of time for the classic Bonds but making more is a mistake. They're very much of their time and that time is done. Would you get behind a relaunch of the Carry On films*?

* Disclaimer: I love the Carry On films but you could see the decline in quality late in the run and any attempt to do them now would be a failure as:

a) They would stick to the original spirit and be horribly outdated
b) They would be all new and cynically cashing in on the name
c) They would be done in an ironic way that nobody wants

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45586462

Beasts of No Nation director Cary Fukunaga has been named as the director of the next James Bond film.

Fukunaga, who is also directing new Emma Stone Netflix series Maniac, replaces Danny Boyle, who dropped out, blaming "creative differences".

"We are delighted to be working with Cary," said producers Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.

"His versatility and innovation make him an excellent choice for our next James Bond adventure."

Filming will begin at Pinewood Studios on 4 March.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Best not come over to Britain, because that's a crime that will see you get 10 years in the Tower of London.

In other words, just long enough to get the Alex from Clockwork Orange treatment in seeing all of the Bond films back to back


Question, do y'all extradite to UK??

Edit: on the subject of villains, I had gotten the impression that Casino Royale was a sort of reboot of the Bond "timeline" which would open the writers to any number of classic villains to choose from.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am beginning to think that Bond is about played out.

Restart needed or just accept that Mission Impossible is now a better Bond Film than Bond.

Spectre was awful.

Start again and either go for something different like a black guy or a woman (Atomic Blonde was also better) or go retro and try to match the recent Man from Uncle - not sure they will.

I think the modern Bonds have many merits. The set pieces, chase scenes and location shoots are still awesome, there's some very good acting, and some good bits of dialogue.

But somehow it's lost an indefinable sparkle and seems to sit uneasily between Bourne, Kingsmen and Mission Impossible.

I think this is because it's gone a bit too dark and gritty, and lost most of the sense of fun that uplifted a lot of Bond films before Daniel Craig joined.

I guess I'm saying that I prefer Bond to be a bit more escapist.

Modern Bond's finest hour was parachuting the Queen into the Olympic Stadium in 2012.

Everything seems to have gone downhill since then.

Britain today is a pretty miserable and uneasy place. We don't need a national hero (even if a fictional one) who's also gone all miserable and uneasy.

More Daniel Craig bond can't be a bad thing - unless it's another specter.

 Xenomancers wrote:
More Daniel Craig bond can't be a bad thing - unless it's another specter.

Can you guys who hate Spectre explain to me what's up?? I happen to really like it, and am curious why the haters hate it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
More Daniel Craig bond can't be a bad thing - unless it's another specter.

Can you guys who hate Spectre explain to me what's up?? I happen to really like it, and am curious why the haters hate it.

I did not like the ending at the house. It didn't feel bond like. The movie was all over the place too. It had some great scenes - don't get me wrong. The ending just kills it for me. Part of it is that I have high standards for bond films after Casino Royale.

I found it boring. Why? I think the pacing was off, and there was never much of a sense of dread or tension.

When Bond escapes the compound is a low point in the no-tension game.

I disagree in the light-hearted nature of future Bonds. We have that in plenty of spy fare now. He needs to stay about where he is at on the "serious" level and not go "Over-the-Top". IM and the Spy remakes are all ready "Over-the-Top". However, one thing that separates Bond from Bourne is that he can use the cool government tools, while Bourne can't.

They need to pinpoint what makes Bond different from IM, Man from Uncle, Bourne, and highlight those points. Those things are the fact that he does have a leash to work with, he gets the toys, he is a lone wolf, and he is a psychological disaster zone.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tomorrow Never Dies is the best Brosnan, some of the problems with goldeneye are smoothed out, Brosnan is more comfortable in the role and Jonathan Pryce is superb.

Skyfall was a great film, best Daniel Craig one by far. I liked the way they inverted the typical bond film, all the exotic island locations were near the start of the film and it withdrew to a small more personal location at the end.

I liked Die Another Day! to some degree. Overall not great (Denise Richards is terrible), but it has a great moment when he shoots Elektra King without flinching. Just bang, dead.

Connery is still the best Bond as he is the best at the instant switch from witty/pleasant to murderous killer without remorse.

I would probably rank the Bonds (best to worst): Connery, Dalton (like Connery he physically looks like Bond and was fantastic at his ability to be coldly ruthless at the drop of the button, the movies just weren't very good), Craig, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby.

Craig is blonde, and has no business playing James Bond. However, he does exude a ruthless bastard motif that Bond needs.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
More Daniel Craig bond can't be a bad thing - unless it's another specter.

Can you guys who hate Spectre explain to me what's up?? I happen to really like it, and am curious why the haters hate it.

Slow, poor plot, the chase scene in the cars was very slow and poorly done - compare to other spy films it was just bad - I guess they could only drive the cars at about 5 mph as they were so expensve.
Hardly used charaacters, lack of use of the bond theme, lack of humour
D Craig and pretty much everyone else looked like how the film felt to me - old and tired.
Weak and unconvincing villan.
Terrible ending.

Did not like Skyfall either.

I think one thing Bond has lost is the "class" and its not just Bond, its the modern UK no longer has it either. Old Bond was at the end of an era in TV and the UK where some of the old class system still hung about. Today a lot of it is gone, there are still bits here and there, but its far more muted than it once was.

Sure we still have things like fox hunting (now drag hunting not actual fox hunting) but even those who take part are no longer the "upper class" and vary from just the super-rich to being a general everyone at the local ponyclub comes out for the day.


I think that is one thing they are missing which bleeds into the whole structure of the old style of Bond. Ontop of that its a bit like the Simpsons - Bond has done most things that Bond needed to do to work as a film. Stretching it out mostly sees Bond either adapting to things so new that they are nothing like "bond" or rehashing things of the past.


I've felt for a long while that Bond has run his course and should be let out to retire and pave the way open for a new modern spy thriller that adapts and creates a new character who is free to develop their own way in a different world. Bond is of the old world and much like you can't keep Dad's Army going past the end of WW2 you can't keep Bond going.

As far as bond goes - the new age ones are all really good. All the Brosnan films were cool. Specter is just the worst of them.

As far as the older ones go - they are a little before my time. They don't age very well. I have the same opinion about them as I do about Original startrek. At the time I bet they were great but film is just so much better these days.

Unlike Music - Music from this time period is 10 times better than the stuff being produced today.

I'd kinda/sorta mostlly agree with you - however the music is a little misleading. We only really hear the good and great music from the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. I'm a huge Etta James, Otis Redding fan, etc. I agree a lot of modern music is absolute gak, but we're biased because we don't hear most of the poor music from the past. We just get the highlight reel.

I'd say of the last twenty years there have been three stand-out Bond films for me. Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and Skyfall. I think the Craig films were more solid as a whole (though Spectre was the worst). Even the oft-lamented Quantum of Solace has some really fantastic Bond moments, but was dropped on its head with a lame eco-terrorism plot and a super crappy ending. The chases, action scenes, etc. though always surprise me when I re-watch it.

The later Brosnan films were...pretty cringy, but Goldeneye is just a perfect blend of the "more serious" new school, and yet the same campy fun/sarcasm as the old school. Oh, and while we're on the topic. License to Kill, Power weapons on Facility, no Oddjob.

When I re-watched QoS it amazes me how tightly it links to Casino Royale.

QoS was better than Spectre. Or at least more entertaining. Skyfall was bad, the entire plot relied on the bad guy being able to accurately predict every single persons actions. Lazy writing.

Since CR, there had not been a good Bond villain. Or story.

If they do recast James Bond, they definitely need someone with a proper mix of offputting charm, and the ability to be incredibly menacing. I'd love to see someone like Jason Statham or Karl Urban given a crack at it.

 Elbows wrote:
I'd kinda/sorta mostlly agree with you - however the music is a little misleading. We only really hear the good and great music from the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. I'm a huge Etta James, Otis Redding fan, etc. I agree a lot of modern music is absolute gak, but we're biased because we don't hear most of the poor music from the past. We just get the highlight reel.

I'd say of the last twenty years there have been three stand-out Bond films for me. Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and Skyfall. I think the Craig films were more solid as a whole (though Spectre was the worst). Even the oft-lamented Quantum of Solace has some really fantastic Bond moments, but was dropped on its head with a lame eco-terrorism plot and a super crappy ending. The chases, action scenes, etc. though always surprise me when I re-watch it.

The later Brosnan films were...pretty cringy, but Goldeneye is just a perfect blend of the "more serious" new school, and yet the same campy fun/sarcasm as the old school. Oh, and while we're on the topic. License to Kill, Power weapons on Facility, no Oddjob.

Proximity mines! MUAHAHA.

Yeah I agree - Casion Royale and Goldeneye are my favs during my time. Then it's a tos up with QoS and Skyfall or maybe even Die Another Day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oStJL39dVUs
Always liked this song


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
If they do recast James Bond, they definitely need someone with a proper mix of offputting charm, and the ability to be incredibly menacing. I'd love to see someone like Jason Statham or Karl Urban given a crack at it.

Statham might be going too far. Before Craig there was a lot of hype about a possible Gerard Butler cast as Bond. I think that would have been pretty incredible. Also - good call on Urban - I think I'd rather seem him as bond more than Butler.

I have always thought Clive Owen would be good.

I can't help but think Shoot 'Em up probably killed Owen's chances of Bond.

I was under the impression that film was a response to his being passed over for the role.

Statham's too gruff - Bond's smoother than that - and Gerry Butler? No thanks.