Whats with the snobs!?!

[Octoberist]

The same way people now turn their noses up at Burton's Batman. I enjoyed Batman Begins and Batman 89 equally. Different styles but both solidly good movies. People act like 89 wasn't a "Batman movie" it was a Burton film. WTF? Every artist brings something to something they create.


Casino Royale was a damn good film. And so was Brosnan's GoldenEye and Connery before him. All the films kept the character of James Bond intact(whether or not the actor was liked) People see the newest thing and act like what came before wasn't just as cool or maybe better. That's how society is today i guess. That's why we buy a new phone with new features (we probably barely use), but the basic function remains.

When people pick sides, usually it's like people online in most cases. I don't think it really represents the entire population as a whole at all. The people who loved Casino Royale and respect the old movies are usually (dare i say it) the more level minded than the people who would go "This is better, that is better." wahh

How can anyone neglect the significance of Burton's Batman is beyond me. I fell in love with Batman as a kid thanks to Burton.

However, I also love Batman Begins. I like them both and for different reasons. We can't neglect the past with anything...only b/c it's the reason why the new movies exist.

 

[DACrowe]

Fans are fickle. They'll stick with this style until someone makes a bad Bond movie with it (I doubt Bond 22 will be it) and they'll say it is dreary and boring and not light hearted and fun like the "classic '60s Bonds" and that it is not true to the roots.

Someone will change that and it will be happy and praised as the new savior on these boards. It goes in cycles. Goldfinger was a departure into the silly and fantasy and fans loved it. It went too far and they disliked it. Then TSWLM was pure cheese and fantasy but a good movie. Fans are back. Then came Moonraker so it was back to "gritty Bond." Then it went light again, then dark.

I remember when Goldeneye got this exact same praise as "the best Bond since the '60s" and "Brosnan/Campbell saved the franchise." Really just change Craig's name to Brosnan on these boards and if the internet was this large in 1995 it'd be the same exact thing.

Then Brosan was in a few duds. Well he sucks. We need to get back to the roots. Even though GE was hailed by fans as a return to the roots from the '80s and Dalton (which was hailed as a return to the roots from Moore's movies in 1987). Crap, I remember on these boards when DAD came out and got mostly good reviews and its light-hearted and Moore-esque tone was "a return to the roots of beloved '60s Bond movies."


Same song different dance. I loved CR, for the record. Among my top 5 (along with two Bonds not from the '60s) and i think Craig plays the brutal side of Bond fantastically. Best since Connery in that regard (albeit I think Moore, Brosnan and even Dalton captured diff. aspects that are as of yet, not highlighted by Craig).

All I know is people say "Moneypenny is too small and not needed" or "I don't think we need the Q self-parody" even though it is in fact a staple of the franchise....they say that now. But when there is a bad serious Bond movie or even mediocre fans will be complaining about how boring Craig is and how his movies got away from the '60s roots of Bond movies. That is a garuntee.

As for CR breaking formula...hardly. It gave the formula a breath of fresh air and a new coat of paint. But all the pieces were still there. It still flowed like an action movie and that is why the first 45 minutes on repeat viewing are so uninvolving as the rest of the movie, because it was beefing up the story for the formula. If it escaped formula they would have filmed the novel and not needed two chases in the beginning of the movie, one involving a truck and several LARGE explosionsand. They would not need a big showy climax of a collapsing building in Venice to allow Vesper to commit "suicide."

Same formula, new equation. That is why it works. No escape though. As long as it is in the hands of producers, there never will be. And honeslty if it did fans would be on here talking about how it "strayed from the roots."

 

[Agentsands77]

Goldfinger was a departure into the silly and fantasy and fans loved it. It went too far and they disliked it.

The direction was taken too far and they disliked the fact that it had been taken too far. Not the fact that it had happened at all. GOLDFINGER has always been remembered fondly.

But when there is a bad serious Bond movie or even mediocre fans will be complaining about how boring Craig is and how his movies got away from the '60s roots of Bond movies. That is a garuntee.

It's not quite a guarantee, though I will concede it's certainly possible. Maybe Craig will depart from the role after doing 3-4 fantastic Bond entries, and will be held up as a sacred cow of the franchise forever more. There's a first time for everything, and so there's still the possibility (far fetched though it is) of a near-perfect tenure.

That said, there will probably come a day when people will complain of a bad "serious" Bond movie, but this does not mean that it will necessarily entail that people will complain about Craig. Connery had DAF, but everybody still treasured his earlier films as well as the star himself. Even after DAD, a lot of fans were still treasuring Brosnan and GOLDENEYE while hating the direction the franchise had taken.

We are left with the question where Bond can go after Craig, though. It's one that must be based entirely in speculation, but it's still worth discussing. I may be entirely wrong in this prediction, but I do think the franchise is on its last legs. CASINO ROYALE has brought some freshness to the franchise for now with a different approach, but that can only last so long. After this whole "gritty, Flemingesque" angle, I don't see any exciting angles left open to the cinematic Bond.

But all the pieces were still there.

Not quite all. There are a lot of elements of Bond's iconography in CASINO ROYALE, but that's to be expected with "Bond Begins," and nearly every time they appear, there's a twist on them to separate them from what came before. CASINO ROYALE intentionally subverts a lot of the Bond iconography.

But there are some biggies. The villain dies 2/3s of the way through the film, and not by Bond's hand. The latter third of the film is a love story. The film doesn't end with Bond and a girl together. The film also doesn't cycle around a villain's plot, per se. Bond is tortured, does not escape, and goes to the hospital. A lot these things are quite big changes, IMO, and they're not on the "no Moneypenny/Q" level.

The success of such changes also indicate that more freedom can be taken with the sequel, which is really what I mean by "CASINO ROYALE meant freedom from the formula." It's less about the nature of CASINO ROYALE and what it means for the following films. If EON fails to take advantage of that, EON will have squandered the potential of the Craig era.

If it escaped formula they would have filmed the novel and not needed two chases in the beginning of the movie, one involving a truck and several LARGE explosions.

Well, they would have needed something in the beginning of the movie. Fleming's novel is not only too short to film, it cheats. Bond's story arc isn't really contained within Fleming's novel... Fleming makes the shortcut by telling us about it, but never shows it. The film can't do that (show, not tell, is a clear-cut rule of film).

Thus the film goes to great lengths in the first third to establish Bond's character, the themes of the story, as well as establishing the plot of the film... it's not just there to provide action (and the action actually fulfills both goals, rather than being there for its own sake).

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But there are some biggies. The villain dies 2/3s of the way through the film, and not by Bond's hand. The latter third of the film is a love story. The film doesn't end with Bond and a girl together. The film also doesn't cycle around a villain's plot, per se. Bond is tortured, does not escape, and goes to the hospital. A lot these things are quite big changes, IMO, and they're not on the "no Moneypenny/Q" level.

Even some of these we have seen before.

1) Red Grant was killed well before the ending of FRWL, and like Le Chiffre the real villains were the ones backing him. Even the fact that Bond didn't kill Le Chiffre himself but was actually about to be killed before being rescued isn't unique to the series. He never got to kill Largo either.

2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also a love story and also ends in tragedy.

3) Bond's in traction (played for humour, admittedly) at the end of Octopussy.

4) Several times Bond hasn't escaped during torture, but had to be rescued (ex. The World is Not Enough) or the villain decided not to kill him for other reasons (ex. Goldfinger, Live and Let Die).

5) Licence to Kill is completely focused around Bond. The villain's plot is barely focused on at all (less so than in CR) and Bond's main motive is getting revenge for Leiter.

I agree with DACrowe. We see this all the time. Bond is just noticeable because there are so many films. We've seen lots of complaints about serious Bonds before, notably OHMSS, FYEO & LTK. The fans don't know what they want at all.

 

[Agentsands77]

Even some of these we have seen before.

Yes, but in smaller doses.

We've seen nearly everything before in the franchise... it's nearly impossible to do something that's entirely radical and entirely foreign to the franchise. But when I say it breaks formula I don't mean "it's done something that absolutely hasn't been done before" (though CASINO ROYALE, of course, has a few moments like that). I simply mean it takes the road less traveled in a number of major areas, and walks that road boldly.

1) Red Grant was killed well before the ending of FRWL, and like Le Chiffre the real villains were the ones backing him. Even the fact that Bond didn't kill Le Chiffre himself but was actually about to be killed before being rescued isn't unique to the series. He never got to kill Largo either.

Sure, but it's not exactly the same. Red Grant was a glorified henchman, so his earlier death wasn't really the loss of "the villain." Rosa Klebb is really the villain of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Le Chiffre is the villain of CASINO ROYALE, just like Largo was the villain of THUNDERBALL. And watching him die by another baddie's hand, when Bond has never laid a hand on him the entire movie long... that's really rare.

2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also a love story and also ends in tragedy.

Granted. But that was the only other Bond film to have done that (and didn't receive a good audience response when it did that), so going that route isn't appealing to "formula."

3) Bond's in traction (played for humour, admittedly) at the end of Octopussy.

As you say, it's played for humor, and it's indicated that Bond's faking it. Have we ever really seen Bond in a hospital for injuries, in a way that it seems like he legitimately came near death? No.

5) Licence to Kill is completely focused around Bond. The villain's plot is barely focused on at all (less so than in CR) and Bond's main motive is getting revenge for Leiter.

More or less, but again, as with OHMSS, it's rarely been done, and so it's not "formula" to go that route, especially given LICENCE TO KILL's dramatic failure.

We've seen lots of complaints about serious Bonds before, notably OHMSS, FYEO & LTK. The fans don't know what they want at all.

Actually, I've never seen people really complain about FYEO (which isn't really all that serious... it's still very much a Roger Moore Bond film). OHMSS and LTK didn't do so well when they were released.

Many of the things you mention as occurring before were from Bond films that didn't do too well... that were, in short, failures. That's what made CASINO ROYALE such a risky venture. Pre-CASINO ROYALE, the human, gritty Bond has mostly failed. That approach to Bond has now had success (and CASINO ROYALE goes more boldly with that approach than any previous installment). That's really where CASINO ROYALE stands out in the legacy of the franchise.

 

[Mr Jide]

I agree with DACrowe. We see this all the time. Bond is just noticeable because there are so many films. We've seen lots of complaints about serious Bonds before, notably OHMSS, FYEO & LTK. The fans don't know what they want at all.

FRWL is a serious Bond movie and there isn't anything wrong with it at all. Its my second favourite Bond movie and if all Bond movies from here on end ended up like it, that'll be great.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

FRWL is a serious Bond movie and there isn't anything wrong with it at all. Its my second favourite Bond movie and if all Bond movies from here on end ended up like it, that'll be great.

So is Dr. No. But there have been other serious Bond films in the past and fans have complained about some of them. In the case of LTK in particular which is probably the darkest film in the series, there are numerous complaints.

DACrowe is right. As soon as Craig is in a film of lesser quality (and it will happen if he's in more than a couple), fans are going to be asking for his head. Just look at the Spider-Man franchise. SM2 was arguably the best superhero movie ever made, and after the very next film (which wasn't even that bad) fans are trying to run Sam Raimi & Tobey Maguire out of the business.

Many of the things you mention as occurring before were from Bond films that didn't do too well... that were, in short, failures. That's what made CASINO ROYALE such a risky venture. Pre-CASINO ROYALE, the human, gritty Bond has mostly failed. That approach to Bond has now had success (and CASINO ROYALE goes more boldly with that approach than any previous installment). That's really where CASINO ROYALE stands out in the legacy of the franchise.

I deliberately chose those films that I mentioned because they weren't as successful. But as mentioned above, serious Bond has worked long before Casino Royale with the first two Connery films.

This isn't a knock on Casino Royale either. It is probably one of my top five Bond films, but it isn't as groundbreaking as people think.

 

[Mr Jide]

So is Dr. No. But there have been other serious Bond films in the past and fans have complained about some of them. In the case of LTK in particular which is probably the darkest film in the series, there are numerous complaints.

But the thing with LTK is, the story was to cliche with what was going on in typical 80s action movies. Some people simply felt as though it didn't feel like Bond and it didn't help with Dalton seemingly coming off as too wound up and uptight. Craig's Bond is a derpature from the norm in terms of his character but he still embodied the Bond character more so than Dalton ever did.

DACrowe is right. As soon as Craig is in a film of lesser quality (and it will happen if he's in more than a couple), fans are going to be asking for his head.

Well, DACrowe said fans are fickle and that I agree with. However, I think its one of the reasons why Craig wants to simply do 3 movies. Connery sequencially pulled of 3 excellent performances in very good Bond movies. As long as care is taken it is very possible for Craig to have a clean sheet but simultaneously, he and his movies could dwindle the way Brosnsn's did.

Just look at the Spider-Man franchise. SM2 was arguably the best superhero movie ever made, and after the very next film (which wasn't even that bad) fans are trying to run Sam Raimi & Tobey Maguire out of the business.

Personally, I'm not too on TMags or Raimi and I seriously dislike sm1 and 2. I think their slightly less than average considering what they should and could have been and want a new cast. However, I thought sm3 was fantastic but saying that, I do find it odd that people who were praising TMags and Raimi for the past 2 movies have done a complete 180 just because sm3 wasn't better than sm2. That sort of logic is highly questionable.

But as mentioned above, serious Bond has worked long before Casino Royale with the first two Connery films.

QFT

This isn't a knock on Casino Royale either. It is probably one of my top five Bond films, but it isn't as groundbreaking as people think.

I think that with the way the Bond movies have been as of late and the horrible way DAD turned out, factor that in with, the exciting qualities of the Bourne movies and shows such as 24 and with the surreal doubts and hate there was against Craig, CR managed to impress on every level and injected some much needed awesomeness back into the Bond movies.

 

[Agentsands77]

As soon as Craig is in a film of lesser quality (and it will happen if he's in more than a couple), fans are going to be asking for his head. Just look at the Spider-Man franchise. SM2 was arguably the best superhero movie ever made, and after the very next film (which wasn't even that bad) fans are trying to run Sam Raimi & Tobey Maguire out of the business.

Well, I want Maguire and Raimi out. But that's only because I didn't particularly like SM1 or SM2, and SM3 was just the final straw.

But as mentioned above, serious Bond has worked long before Casino Royale with the first two Connery films.

Sure, but those films were before Bond became an icon, a staple of pop culture. But yes, CASINO ROYALE is very much a return to the style of the first two Connery films, I think... with some new stuff thrown in, of course.

It is probably one of my top five Bond films, but it isn't as groundbreaking as people think.

It isn't that groundbreaking. But seeing as repetitive and "safe" the Brosnan era had become, seeing a film like CASINO ROYALE was the last thing I expected to happen. Especially when they cast Daniel Craig, which was oh-so-risky.

 

[SpyderDan]

Haha cool, I've never been called a snob before.

Anyway, I said that, because it'd just be ****ing boring to have Moneypenny back. They'd have her doing the same stupid **** she did in the Connery films, the same schtick and it wouldn't be done nearly as well. If they came close to how she was portrayed in GoldenEye, then fine, but I have always found the running Moneypenny gag superflous.