James Bond In Skyfall - Part 10

[spidey-dude]

I like and agree with everything you said except the Brad Bird suggestion. I would like Danny Boyle direct a Bond film.

ooooooh I'm on board for that, can't believe I left him out to be honest!

 

[Brian Braddock]

Ultimately, they're different actors with different strengths but I feel in retrospect that perhaps Craig's a bit more of a better 'all-rounder' as I always felt Pierce was absolutely great at handling/selling most aspects of portraying Bond save one; with the exception of Goldeneye I never really bought his on-screen hand to hand combat (kind of strange with a legend like Vic Armstrong in your corner) - his punches for the most part kind of came off as limp-wristed (for want of a better word) for me; something I dont think anyone can level at Craig.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Ultimately, they're different actors with different strengths but I feel in retrospect that perhaps Craig's a bit more of a better 'all-rounder' as I always felt Pierce was absolutely great at handling/selling most aspects of portraying Bond save one; with the exception of Goldeneye I never really bought his on-screen hand to hand combat (kind of strange with a legend like Vic Armstrong in your corner) - his punches for the most part kind of came off as limp-wristed (for want of a better word) for me; something I dont think anyone can level at Craig.

Brosnan's only good fight was with Alec.

In "Tomorrow Never dies" at the printing factory Brosnan's punches come off really weak.

He never sells the impact.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I think a CR with Brosnan could have been good. Provided that we understand that Bond at the start of CR (like in the novels) has been working intelligence for quite a few years and has been stationed at Station J (Jamaica) to keep an eye on Cuba and South America. He returns to Casino Royale in France, not Montenegro where his presence is taken for granted because he pretty much supported himself for years gambling there.

It would be like Dr No coming before FRWL. They did those out of order and nobody seemed to care. His Beretta failed him in FRWL and he almost got killed. They replace it with the Walther in Dr No. But when they got around to doing FRWL they left out that scene when the Beretta snagged.

 

[marvelrobbins]

As far as timeline goes back In 1999 Michael wilson said evey bond film takes place In present.so when Timothy dalton and Pierce Brosnan played Bond we
are Into a comic book style liding timeline.The previous films still happened.Bond's a veteran of cold war

With craig there Is no way at all you can connect his films to any of the others.calling skyfall 23rd film or saying it's 50th annivarsy of dr no(since now
you are saying It as well as most other Bond films never happened) eon Is trying to have It both ways rebooting bond and still caliming Casino Royale,QoS,and Skyfall are Bonds 21,22,and 23.That Is major reason I don'like idea of 007 legends.Is warner brothers calling Man of steel the sixth Superman film and the planned batman reboot the 8th batman film?Is Sony going to call the Amazing Spider-Man 2 the fifth Spider-man film? Of course not.If they want to do annivary they should do a this marks the 60th annivary of Ian fleming writing casino Royale.

with regard to Pierce Brosnan pople forget after Moonraker roger moore did a very down to earth bond film In for Your eyes Only.Brosnan was more than capable of doing It.Eon's we want to be faithful to book line Is BS.Cover for them not wanting to pay the money he was asking for another film after he
fullfilled his contract.I was very upseat at what they did.Brosnan was first Bond who was basiclly fired.But the rebooot I had been even more critical
of.My attitude now with films Is how much does It feel like classic Bond series.Skyfall may tune out to feel the most like a Bond film since Brosnan
left.Brosnan and Connery are my favorate bonds so I will always defend them.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I think a CR with Brosnan could have been good. Provided that we understand that Bond at the start of CR (like in the novels) has been working intelligence for quite a few years and has been stationed at Station J (Jamaica) to keep an eye on Cuba and South America. He returns to Casino Royale in France, not Montenegro where his presence is taken for granted because he pretty much supported himself for years gambling there.

It would be like Dr No coming before FRWL. They did those out of order and nobody seemed to care. His Beretta failed him in FRWL and he almost got killed. They replace it with the Walther in Dr No. But when they got around to doing FRWL they left out that scene when the Beretta snagged.

Thank you.One thing that many seem to forget In the novel Fleming didn't have Bond on his first mission.Bond has been In Intelligence quite some time and a refernece Is made to how he earned his 00 status.The book didn't start with this.EOn's claims of we want to be faithful to book and that Is why we couldn't use Brosnan Is BS especilly when you consider Bond was not a rookie In novel.And being faithful to novels hasn't been a huge concern for them In past.The casino Royale novel does set up Bond's struggles against Smersh and It helps to understand his attitude towards woman becaue he learns of Vesper's betrayal.And let's remember when they did You Only Live twice before On her majestr's secret service they really hurt a poential great arc on film.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I have no problem seeing it as all one guy. I find that this gulf occurs with those who have not read the books. Since day one they were never done in order and the connective tissue between them have been minimized or cut altogether.

Then there's the fact that even Ian was sliding the timeline. In Griswald's Chronologies book it's adressed that Bond early on in the series is born in the 'teens, but halfway through the novels he's born in the '20s to make his father and uncle's work in WW1 make more sence and his work in WW2 fit. Then it slides some more with the coming of the cold war and Dr No where Bonds has to keep an eye on "that man in Cuba."

Then you can jump to John Gardner's series where he was instructed to freeze Bond in time and wake him up in the 80's. Thus sliding the events of his life up further. On and on to the last book by Deaver Carte Blanch which has Bond just turning 31.

It's not so much the year in which things happen, but rather the order in which they happen. Ian always intended for him to be a contemporary character. His parents death, his being kicked out of Eaton, his bumming around France supporting himself on gambling, his years in intelligence, his 6 years being stationed at Station J all happened.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Thank you.One thing that many seem to forget In the novel Fleming didn't have Bond on his first mission.Bond has been In Intelligence quite some time and a refernece Is made to how he earned his 00 status.The book didn't start with this.EOn's claims of we want to be faithful to book and that Is why we couldn't use Brosnan Is BS especilly when you consider Bond was not a rookie In novel.And being faithful to novels hasn't been a huge concern for them In past.The casino Royale novel does set up Bond's struggles against Smersh and It helps to understand his attitude towards woman becaue he learns of Vesper's betrayal.And let's remember when they did You Only Live twice before On her majestr's secret service they really hurt a poential great arc on film.

Your welcome. Now you just watch how long it takes for someone who never cracked a book to say "But it's not the same thing, the movies and books are different." When it clearly is. Him getting his 00 in CR was their first misstep. But then they built the story around him being inexperienced ... which if they followed the book he wouldn't have been. I also hate it being called an origin story too.

 

[Ajendo]

Bond is and has always been a contemporary character. End of story.

The sooner people accept that fact, the sooner people can stop whining about certain changes.

 

[Ajendo]

Your welcome. Now you just watch how long it takes for someone who never cracked a book to say "But it's not the same thing, the movies and books are different." When it clearly is. Him getting his 00 in CR was their first misstep. But then they built the story around him being inexperienced ... which if they followed the book he wouldn't have been. I also hate it being called an origin story too.

But that's the thing though, the films and the novels ARE different. The films are loosely based on and influenced by the novels.

 

[ChickenScratch]

... And 2 posts later there it is. Where they differ, the novel is correct and the movie is wrong. Simple.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Actully the films from Connery though Brosnan's sliding timeline was actully consent with books.They really should have had craig justcontinue without the reboot nonesense.
Audences had been wiling to accept changes to Bond's age with recasts and still view It as same guy.George lazenby was younger than Sean Connery.People accepted both
Dalton and Brosnan as same guy.Moore was different than Connery.Dalton different than Moore.Brosnan had elements of Bonds before him.Plus It would have made sense of Judi Dench still playing M.

Plus besides seeing exactly how he got his 00 status at begining what did we really learn about bond that we didn't already know.Goldeneye established his parents died In
Climbing accident and we only get a biref hint at It.Yes In novels Bond's relationship with Vesper sets up his attitude toward women In later book.But In novel Bond was
planning to purpose to her and there was no huge action scene at end.She committed surcide(which they did a differet variation on In film) and Bond found her surcide note.
ery different In Book.So they calim tfrom EON they wanted to be faithful to Book and that Is why they didn't use Brosnan and had to reboot(when they will admit that Is what
they did which they often won't) that Is BS.

 

[Ajendo]

... And 2 posts later there it is. Where they differ, the novel is correct and the movie is wrong. Simple.

Um, are you serious??? The movies aren't wrong. The novels are the novels, the movies are the movies. It's simple. The movies and I repeat, are LOOSELY based on the source material (the novels). It's not rocket science. The movies aren't interpreting the novels as they are 100%. To people who are able to think clearly, we call them adaptations. Get over yourself.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

... And 2 posts later there it is. Where they differ, the novel is correct and the movie is wrong. Simple.

You are like the Kurosawa of this thread. That was a compliment by the way.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Um, are you serious??? The movies aren't wrong. The novels are the novels, the movies are the movies. It's simple. The movies and I repeat, are LOOSELY based on the source material (the novels). It's not rocket science. The movies aren't interpreting the novels as they are 100%. To people who are able to think clearly, we call them adaptations. Get over yourself.

Oh, look how upset you get. No, I'm not gonna change my opinion about it. I've been reading and watching Bond longer than most of you have been alive and I err on the side of the novels. Don't like it, avert your eyes.

Superman and Batman are based on a source material, but I don't see the type of bile being spewed at it like Ian gets. Maybe he should have written funnybooks instead.

 

[marvelrobbins]

A point Is there was ways they could do Casino Royale as true 21st bond film and not reboot with a fifth film by Borsnan or Craig just taking over without a reboot.And It would fit with novel.Craig was old enough you could buy he has been In Intelligence for awhile.And even then remember Goerge Lazenby was 29 when he played Bond.

some act like Casino Royale was a perfect adaptan of novel.It wasn't.And being faithful to novels has never been EON's major concern.If It was they would have none done
You Only Live Twice before On Her Majestry's secret service.

 

[Ajendo]

Oh, look how upset you get. No, I'm not gonna change my opinion about it. I've been reading and watching Bond longer than most of you have been alive and I err on the side of the novels. Don't like it, avert your eyes.

Superman and Batman are based on a source material, but I don't see the type of bile being spewed at it like Ian gets. Maybe he should have written funnybooks instead.

LOL you're a funny guy. This is Bond not superman or batman, I'm sure those fans have their own issues and really I couldn't care less. You know nothing about anyone here. So, you think just because you've read the novels and watched the movies for decades I should imagine, that makes you a supreme authority on the subject matter? Like I said, get over yourself. You're no more an authority on Bond than someone who could have got the Bond bug 6 months ago.
I'm not trying to change your mind on anything. I appreciate and expect you to believe what you want to believe but when you start crying about how the films are wrong and how the movies did this and did that and go off on one of your yawn fests, don't be surprised when you're regarded as some insufferable, jumped up idiot.

 

[Ajendo]

A point Is there was ways they could do Casino Royale as true 21st bond film and not reboot with a fifth film by Borsnan or Craig just taking over without a reboot.And It would fit with novel.Craig was old enough you could buy he has been In Intelligence for awhile.And even then remember Goerge Lazenby was 29 when he played Bond.

some act like Casino Royale was a perfect adaptan of novel.It wasn't.And being faithful to novels has never been EON's major concern.If It was they would have none done
You Only Live Twice before On Her Majestry's secret service.

That right there is a glaring truth in which EoN has never tried to hide and something chickenscratch fails to comprehend.

 

[ChickenScratch]

LOL you're a funny guy. This is Bond not superman or batman, I'm sure those fans have their own issues and really I couldn't care less. You know nothing about anyone here. So, you think just because you've read the novels and watched the movies for decades I should imagine, that makes you a supreme authority on the subject matter? Like I said, get over yourself. You're no more an authority on Bond than someone who could have got the Bond bug 6 months ago.
I'm not trying to change your mind on anything. I appreciate and expect you to believe what you want to believe but when you start crying about how the films are wrong and how the movies did this and did that and go off on one of your yawn fests, don't be surprised when you're regarded as some insufferable, jumped up idiot.

Oh, personal attacks because I don't see things your way? Why don't you calm down and go crack a book open. Gotta love that nerd rage. No I won't get over myself, I've an opinion and idea of the character from yes, decades of knowledge with the character.

No I don't know about anyone here. Except where it's obvious where some get it and some don't.

Nah, my knowledge of the books, movies, being from Jamaica, having been to many of the places and talked to many of the people (including John Gardner, Raymond Benson, John Griswold, Ms Andres, etc.) involved, my degree in English Literature inform my opinion.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Bond is and has always been a contemporary character. End of story.

The sooner people accept that fact, the sooner people can stop whining about certain changes.

Well said!

 

[DKDetective]

I like this timeline, I might start using this in the way I think of the series now. There's a few things that are questionable like why would Bond be involved in Vietnam and we don't know if Craig's Bonds parents were killed in a climbing accident (although I'm expecting this to be touched upon in Skyfall).

We do know that they were killed in a climbing accident I believe. Before the release of Casino Royale, EON released an update biography for Bond in the form of a dossier compiled by Villiers for M's approval in terms of promoting Bond to Double O status.

 

[Ajendo]

Wow Chickenscratch! you really spoke to Gardner, Benson etc??? LOL, dude, I don't care if you spoke to a burning bush. It's you who clearly doesn't get it. You think the movies are somewhat insignificant because they don't follow and adhere to the novels. Well, I think 50 years of EoN doing as they please pretty much dumps all over your opinion about the movies being "wrong". The novels are what they are and the movies are what they are. They are 2 separate entities, both with a common focus, that being Bond and that's a matter of fact. End of.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Oh, personal attacks because I don't see things your way? Why don't you calm down and go crack a book open. Gotta love that nerd rage. No I won't get over myself, I've an opinion and idea of the character from yes, decades of knowledge with the character.

No I don't know about anyone here. Except where it's obvious where some get it and some don't.

Nah, my knowledge of the books, movies, being from Jamaica, having been to many of the places and talked to many of the people (including John Gardner, Raymond Benson, John Griswold, Ms Andres, etc.) involved, my degree in English Literature inform my opinion.

You make good points.

It's funny how novels are ilrelvent when someone brings up Casino Royale Is not the perfect adaptian some earlier claimed It was.

Bond wasn't even scottish In books till Feleming started to write You Only Live twice In early 1963.He didn't like sean Connery as bond till he saw
the finished DR No and added the scottish background because of Connery.And Connery was depature from Bond of novels.Bond of Novels didn't have the sense of humor of films.And the bond-Moneypenny flirtian was also Invention of films.

Much of first half of casino Royale untill Bond met Vesper was Invention by EON.

On her majestry's secret service and From russia with love were considered the most fiathful ones by EON from books even though they had changes(Tracy In book was never captured by Blofeld for example) and Goldfinger as conserded by some to be improvement plot wise from Book.In book Pusy galore was lesbian till she encounted bond(there was no way In 1994 they could have hinted at that In film except for sutile ***** saying she's Immune to Bon's charms)

The books have always been different than films and that Includes casino Royale despite what some claim.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Wow Chickenscratch! you really spoke to Gardner, Benson etc??? LOL, dude, I don't care if you spoke to a burning bush. It's you who clearly doesn't get it. You think the movies are somewhat insignificant because they don't follow and adhere to the novels. Well, I think 50 years of EoN doing as they please pretty much dumps all over your opinion about the movies being "wrong". The novels are what they are and the movies are what they are. They are 2 separate entities, both with a common focus, that being Bond and that's a matter of fact. End of.

Yet you keep reading my posts. As I said before, if I's so insufferable (your word, not mine) you should block me. Or is it that you know so little that even you begrudgingly reads my posts because I know what I'm talking about. Even if you simply make childish attempts to disagree afterwards.

Does Superman have the power to turn back time? Throw cellophane S shields out of his chest. No, but it's in the movies and those things are wrong. Just like there are many things in the Bond movies that are just that.

But to the original point before you started trolling. Yes, Brosnan could have done CR and it would have come off just as well considering CR is not a first mission story like the movie but an experienced agent with CR just being the first book in series.

 

[marvelrobbins]

every comic book,TV show,and novel adopted Into films makes changes.Some need to accept that.

Brosnan could have easily done Casino Royale.Some of things some claim he couldn't do weren't In novel.If Brosnan would have done It they still probally would have bond in first half play some role In Le Cheffee losing money and still have a action sequenze at end.They would have been a bit more bond classic style action sequenzes but less over the top.