Daniel Craig confirmed as new James Bond

[Hunter Rider]

- We’ll be finding out a lot more about the origins of many a Bond symbol. “We’ll learn the ingredients of his martini mix – you should try it, it’ll kill you,” says Campbell. “and a lot of the embryonic Bond things: how he gets the Aston Martin, how he mixes his martini”.

I Liked this part from the press conference,good to see he will be keeping the Aston and not driving that crappy Fiat that was rumoured a few months back

 

[Tojo]

Didn't Jaws find a lady friend and fall in love I think his evil days are behind him now.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

One think fans of the books should remember is that these movies are, and have always been, made for the mass audience, not the fans.

 

[Everyman]

This is definately true. The only villains we've seen more than once in Bond films are Blofeld and Jaws (and he only appeared twice). Jaws is still alive in the franchise's continuity, and could easily make a return. Scaramanga took a bullet, but had one of the least climatic and convincing death scenes in any Bond movie. He could make a return. Doctor No supposedly died by sliding down a ladder. That simply won't do. We could have Doctor No reappear and attempt to reboot SPECTRE. I'd love that.

Jaws sadly turned into a buffoon, I wonder if he can come back anyway, since he has been away from the movies for quite a while. Same thing for Dr No and Scaramanga, which is a shame since he was potentially a very threathening villain, but the movie was so bad he was never exploited to his fullest potential.

I think they should reinvent a recurring enemy organisation, like SPECTRE. Maybe not SPECTRE (I think they can't for legal reasons) but something more modern, but the same genre. It would have been great had Alec Trevelyan been a field operator in a larger criminal organisation in Goldeneye.

 

[echostation]

why are you guys worrying about the script when it's being majorly majorly rewritting and polished by the guy who wrote Crash and Million Dollar Baby...

 

[Dr. MIX]

Excellent choice, he'll do fine.

 

[Everyman]

why are you guys worrying about the script when it's being majorly majorly rewritting and polished by the guy who wrote Crash and Million Dollar Baby...

That's the good news, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't worry. Tamahori was a respected director, and he made that awful DAD... Purvis and Wade still wrote the first version of the script of Casino Royale, and it is enough to kepe worried. This franchise has made mistakes in the past, even with capable people at the helm.

 

[Everyman]

Didn't Jaws find a lady friend and fall in love I think his evil days are behind him now.

Just in case you didn't see my replie:



You are caricaturing my words, and it is an ad hominem argument (and a falalcious one at that). NO, I don't want big explosions, I had my overdose with DAD, thank you, and neither me nor the franchise recovered from it yet. Is it clear enough? I want to go back to the sources as much as any Bond fan: a lot of time spent playing golf, canasta, roulette, a lot of time spent with Bond ordering dinner (and commenting on the drinks, food, etc), a lot of time spent with Bond actually SEDUCING a woman, drinking, establishing characters, etc. I am all in favor of going back to Bond's roots, if by that you mean back to what makes the character and story works, with a movie with minimal action (but when it happens it actually makes the plot go forward, and isn't there merely for eye-candy) and more atmosphere and character development. DO I MAKE MYSELF PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR? Next time, read the whole bloody post.

Okay, now about a Bond being static. Well, he is, and was as early as in the Fleming's novels. Read Umberto Eco's essay about it, he explains it better than me. His success as a franchise relies on a repetition of the same plot points, the same schematic characters, including Bond himself. It doesn't mean you cannot explore this character. It means that Bond, to survive and exist (and endure such a popularity) needs to be esentially unchanged (upper class, snobbish British spy, drinker and womanizer, epicurian but ready to sacrifice this for QUeen and Country). He is an archetype, and you don't change an archetype, not his essence anyway. This is why I am very skeptical about this prequel idea. Because, yes Bond hasn't changed in nearly 50 years, and it is partially the reason for his success. Yes, he has an origin, but the viewer didn't need to see it so far, partially because of the loose continuity. Going back to a time when he is a beginner in the 00 section is a sort of prequel, although a limited one. I am not saying it's not going to work, but I am skeptical. And a reboot/prequel or restart, as it was mentionned here and in different medias, could mean a destruction of the minimal continuity there is in the franchise, or a radical transformation of Bond as a character. There is a danger, and I don't think we can ignore it.

And thisis my answer about you treating my arguments of ******ed (just to make things clear...):

1)The movie franchise gained a life of its own, from very early on.

2)I did read some James Bond novels, thank you...

3)Being a connaisseur doesn't give you the right of being patronising, or dismissive towards people who disagree with you. Neither does it give you the right to be intellectually dishonest and distort or invent the arguments of a person.

 

[regwec]

Just for the hall of it, here is another "official" shot of Craig from Eon, that I do not think has been posted. Apologies if it has.

If Craig appears like this on screen, then I cannot imagine better aesthetic casting.

 

[Tojo]

One think fans of the books should remember is that these movies are, and have always been, made for the mass audience, not the fans.

....and this is a good opportunity to atleast try and take the real fans into consideration, even if it is only for parts of the film, and indeed for one film only.

Purvis and Wade are already writing Bond 22. If i was being cynical, i would expect them to revert to Brosnan era trash. But in an ideal world they'll just use the Connery era as a template and tweak it for the modern day.

 

[Hunter Rider]

....and this is a good opportunity to atleast try and take the real fans into consideration, even if it is only for parts of the film, and indeed for one film only.

Purvis and Wade are already writing Bond 22. If i was being cynical, i would expect them to revert to Brosnan era trash. But in an ideal world they'll just use the Connery era as a template and tweak it for the modern day.

That "real fans" stuff is bull**** as if being a fan of the 40 year legacy of movies and not a fan of the books means your less of a fan

 

[JLBats]

That "real fans" stuff is bull**** as if being a fan of the 40 year legacy of movies and not a fan of the books means your less of a fan

Frankly, it does. If someone on the street claims to be a fan of Batman because he's seen the movies, how would you feel as a reader of the comics?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Frankly, it does. If someone on the street claims to be a fan of Batman because he's seen the movies, how would you feel as a reader of the comics?

I wouldn't have a problem with it,i hate that stupid real fans crap,these characters have been brought to life in more than one medium,being a fan of the portrayl in the movie medium as opposed to the books makes no difference

 

[Tojo]

You are caricaturing my words, and it is an ad hominem argument (and a falalcious one at that).

I don't even know what 'Ad Hominem' and 'Falacious' means

In any case, i wasn't caricaturing anything. You were the one who used the words re-start, re-boot and prequel, none of which, perhaps for the exception of 'prequel', can be used for this film.

NO, I don't want big explosions, I had my overdose with DAD, thank you, and neither me nor the franchise recovered from it yet. Is it clear enough? I want to go back to the sources as much as any Bond fan: a lot of time spent playing golf, canasta, roulette, a lot of time spent with Bond ordering dinner (and commenting on the drinks, food, etc), a lot of time spent with Bond actually SEDUCING a woman, drinking, establishing characters, etc. I am all in favor of going back to Bond's roots, if by that you mean back to what makes the character and story works, with a movie with minimal action (but when it happens it actually makes the plot go forward, and isn't there merely for eye-candy) and more atmosphere and character development. DO I MAKE MYSELF PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR? Next time, read the whole bloody post.

Well what are you so bloody worried about then? I can't understand why you think seeing a Casino Royale type Bond will ruin the character forever. To be honest, he isn't entirely that different from post Casino Royale Bond. It's not like he undergoes a Bruce Wayne like transformation(i.e-Batman Begins). This film is going to be grittier, which means one step forward to the real Bond, which means more character. Craig wouldn't have accepted the job had the script been full of dumb one-liners and non-stop action.

We still see a drinking, smoking, womanising, ruthless killer of a man who likes Golf. He is an established 00 Agent in CR, just like he is in Dr.No, Thunderball etc. The noly difference is that he falls in love, it goes wrong and he becomes even harder than he was before. It's not Bond Begins. In the novel, this is about his 3rd yr in the Service. I don't see the problem.

Okay, now about a Bond being static. Well, he is, and was as early as in the Fleming's novels. Read Umberto Eco's essay about it, he explains it better than me. His success as a franchise relies on a repetition of the same plot points, the same schematic characters, including Bond himself. It doesn't mean you cannot explore this character. It means that Bond, to survive and exist (and endure such a popularity) needs to be esentially unchanged (upper class, snobbish British spy, drinker and womanizer, epicurian but ready to sacrifice this for QUeen and Country). He is an archetype, and you don't change an archetype, not his essence anyway. This is why I am very skeptical about this prequel idea. Because, yes Bond hasn't changed in nearly 50 years, and it is partially the reason for his success. Yes, he has an origin, but the viewer didn't need to see it so far, partially because of the loose continuity. Going back to a time when he is a beginner in the 00 section is a sort of prequel, although a limited one. I am not saying it's not going to work, but I am skeptical. And a reboot/prequel or restart, as it was mentionned here and in different medias, could mean a destruction of the minimal continuity there is in the franchise, or a radical transformation of Bond as a character. There is a danger, and I don't think we can ignore it.

As i said, he is an established agent in CR. He has an established relationship with M, and is still experienced. he's even already weary of his job. Sure, he is abit raw and makes mistakes(just like he's always done in the films), but it makes it very clear that he not just some rookie on the job. He's already seasoned, world travelled and cynical. This is not a radical transformation of the character, because it's something that has always been there, but been left untouched. Even if it was a re-boot, do you think this will ruin an already dwindling franchise? In financial terms, the franchise is as strong as ever, certainly, but if audiences are made to watch crap like DAD for longer then that'll drop away. After some crap films Batman re-booted, and that worked wonders and gave credibility to the franchise.

And thisis my answer about you treating my arguments of ******ed (just to make things clear...):

1)The movie franchise gained a life of its own, from very early on.

2)I did read some James Bond novels, thank you...

3)Being a connaisseur doesn't give you the right of being patronising, or dismissive towards people who disagree with you. Neither does it give you the right to be intellectually dishonest and distort or invent the arguments of a person.

I'm not a connaisseur and i didn't invent anything. I replied to that one post of yours without distorting a single piece of it.

 

[regwec]

We still see a drinking, smoking, womanising, ruthless killer of a man who likes Golf.

Alas, the director has said that Bond will not smoke in Casino Royale, as it is a bad example to children. He will still no doubt be able to drink heavily, have unprotected sex with strangers, and shoot people, however. People are stupid.

 

[Tojo]

That "real fans" stuff is bull**** as if being a fan of the 40 year legacy of movies and not a fan of the books means your less of a fan

Do you know how many people flooded the Batman boards giving their opinion on how Batman Begins hsould be made and they didn't even follow the comic books?!

If you haven't read a Fleming novel, then you won't know how James Bond was meant to be. The true James Bond.

The movie franchise created it's own Bond out of thin air, essentially, and only showed touches of what he really is. However, each era is very diverse from eachother. i.e-The Connery era is different to the Moore era which is different to the Dalton era, which is different to the Brosnan era. Which each actor, the Jamed Bond films change.

So, each set of fans, respectivley, have had their 'era'. Now the book fans want to see one film where James Bond is done justice, even if it is not done to it's fullest potential(which the studio won't allow).

 

[Tojo]

Alas, the director has said that Bond will not smoke in Casino Royale, as it is a bad example to children. He will still no doubt be able to drink heavily, have unprotected sex with strangers, and shoot people, however. People are stupid.

Oh yeah i read that.....haha. Campbell is a bit of a dumbass. Or maybe that's the producers who issued that ultimatum

 

[Hunter Rider]

Do you know how many people flooded the Batman boards giving their opinion on how Batman Begins hsould be made and they didn't even follow the comic books?!

If you haven't read a Fleming novel, then you won't know how James Bond was meant to be. The true James Bond.

The movie franchise created it's own Bond out of thin air, essentially, and only showed touches of what he really is. However, each era is very diverse from eachother. i.e-The Connery era is different to the Moore era which is different to the Dalton era, which is different to the Brosnan era. Which each actor, the Jamed Bond films change.

So, each set of fans, respectivley, have had their 'era'. Now the book fans want to see one film where James Bond is done justice, even if it is not done to it's fullest potential(which the studio won't allow).

I agree but Thats got nothing to do with what i was saying,i was saying that one set of fans is no realer than the other,

 

[Tojo]

I agree but Thats got nothing to do with what i was saying,i was saying that one set of fans is no realer than the other,

A man who has collected Batman comics since 1939 is realer than a 14yr old boy who's read half of Hush Volume 1 because he liked Jim Lee's art

 

[neobido9999]

That "real fans" stuff is bull**** as if being a fan of the 40 year legacy of movies and not a fan of the books means your less of a fan

it makes you a fan of mostly crap things

 

[Kevin Roegele]

A man who has collected Batman comics since 1939 is realer than a 14yr old boy who's read half of Hush Volume 1 because he liked Jim Lee's art

If there's one most embarassing thing that fanboys do, it's claim others aren't as 'proper' fans as they are. It makes me cringe.

 

[regwec]

But Tojo does have a point, here. Most people would agree that the original intellectual property for a character or a story is the "truest" version. The Bond of Flemming's novels is a more or less consistent character, in a more or less consistent world. The Bonds of the films have been very diverse, ranging from Connery's machismo to Brosnan's effeminacy; their adventures have varied from the fairly gritty narcotics saga of "License to Kill" to the absurd sci-fi camp of "Die Another Day"; and their worlds have varied from early 1960s/post WWII to some sort of bizarre futuristic environment seen in "Moonraker"

The films have taken a lot of different approaches, with a lot of different actors, and have never had a single mood. The books are the solid, unwarped spine of mythology to which all other incarnations of James Bond will always refer.

 

[Tojo]

If there's one most embarassing thing that fanboys do, it's claim others aren't as 'proper' fans as they are. It makes me cringe.

I don't really care. I'm not gonna lie, that is how i see fandom.

 

[Tojo]

But Tojo does have a point, here. Most people would agree that the original intellectual property for a character or a story is the "truest" version. The Bond of Flemming's novels is a more or less consistent character, in a more or less consistent world. The Bonds of the films have been very diverse, ranging from Connery's machismo to Brosnan's effeminacy; their adventures have varied from the fairly gritty narcotics saga of "License to Kill" to the absurd sci-fi camp of "Die Another Day"; and their worlds have varied from early 1960s/post WWII to some sort of bizarre futuristic environment seen in "Moonraker"

The films have taken a lot of different approaches, with a lot of different actors, and have never had a single mood. The books are the solid, unwarped spine of mythology to which all other incarnations of James Bond will always refer.

That's eeeeeeeexaclty it.

*wipes tear*

 

[Tojo]

it makes you a fan of mostly crap things

haha lol. The Bond films are fun to watch and are camp and a massive part of pop culture, but they are nothing beyond that. So why bother re-creating it?