Who here is neither pro nor anti Craig?

Brosnan_fan

Personally I have nothing against Daniel Craig (I thought he was OK in Layer Cake), nor am I any sort of fan; I simply do not feel he is suited to play James Bond, period.

I will be sitting out Casino Royale as I dislike the direction the Broccolis are taking with the Bond franchise, but I do not hold that against Craig himself.

To all who will be seeing the film, I sincerely hope you enjoy it, as for 2+ hours the Bond torch will be well and truly passed to a new man.

JCSuperstar

I don't prefer the way the Brocollis were handling this either, but it's not stoppiung me from seeing the movie. I love 007, and and since kidhood, and I have no personal issues with Craig, I will wait to see the performance, and then judge him as 007, and only then will I judge him with.

caractacus potts

I dont think I ever seen him in a movie before so I have precisely no opinion

as for the direction the producers are taking the series:
it sounds like theyre finally paying respect to the source material again
and if it ends up being a little too much of a downer?
well, we'll always have the Peter Sellers/Orson Welles version
maybe make a megamix somehow and the perfect version will be somewhere in between

Jimmy

I'm curious, what is it about the direction you are not fond of? Because for me, that's one of the biggest selling points of the film, it finally feels like the series is moving forward.

glidrose

Brosnan_fan wrote:

Personally I have nothing against Daniel Craig (I thought he was OK in Layer Cake), nor am I any sort of fan; I simply do not feel he is suited to play James Bond, period.

I will be sitting out Casino Royale as I dislike the direction the Broccolis are taking with the Bond franchise, but I do not hold that against Craig himself.

To all who will be seeing the film, I sincerely hope you enjoy it, as for 2+ hours the Bond torch will be well and truly passed to a new man.

I'm curious. What is it about the new direction that you dislike? Too serious, gritty, not enough gadgets? Don't like the reboot concept?

Brosnan_fan

glidrose wrote:

I'm curious. What is it about the new direction that you dislike? Too serious, gritty, not enough gadgets? Don't like the reboot concept?

To me this is NOT a Bond movie - if they're trying to give us James Bond's first assignment, then Judi Dench should definitely NOT be playing M. And there's no Moneypenny or Q (which means it's not a movie with gadgets), and what the hell is Felix Leiter doing here? The Broccolis are truly screwing around with our treasured memories.

As to the movie itself, after having watched the trailer I gather something unpleasant would happen which I feel has no place in the world of Bond (maybe they are becoming a bit too serious), therefore will definitely be sitting this one out.

glidrose

Brosnan_fan wrote:

glidrose wrote:

I'm curious. What is it about the new direction that you dislike? Too serious, gritty, not enough gadgets? Don't like the reboot concept?

To me this is NOT a Bond movie - if they're trying to give us James Bond's first assignment, then Judi Dench should definitely NOT be playing M. And there's no Moneypenny or Q (which means it's not a movie with gadgets), and what the hell is Felix Leiter doing here? The Broccolis are truly screwing around with our treasured memories.

As to the movie itself, after having watched the trailer I gather something unpleasant would happen which I feel has no place in the world of Bond (maybe they are becoming a bit too serious), therefore will definitely be sitting this one out.

I take it you've never read any of the novels then, because unpleasant things happened to Bond all the time, and they were very serious in tone too.

To me, this IS how Bond should be.

742617000027

I'd never sit a Bond movie out just because I didn't like the actor. If it was Hugh Grant in an Octopussy remake, I'd still go and have a look to see what's going on.

I'm looking forward to CR, and have been since Martin Campbell attatched his name to the project. This sounds like another pro-Brosnan, anti-Craig arguement, even though you say it isn't.

Ian Fleming didn't think Sean Conery was suited to play James Bond, but he changed his mind after seeing his performance, even if it wasn't as literary accurate as perhaps Fleming had hoped.

I'm going to see CR with an open-mind, happy that the series is making a change, and so far, everything I thought needed changing with Bond (style of story, lack of gadgets, silly characters) is happening, so I'm ecstatic with the new direction the Broccolis are taking.

Dan Same

Brosnan_fan wrote:

To me this is NOT a Bond movie - if they're trying to give us James Bond's first assignment, then Judi Dench should definitely NOT be playing M. And there's no Moneypenny or Q (which means it's not a movie with gadgets), and what the hell is Felix Leiter doing here? The Broccolis are truly screwing around with our treasured memories.

As to the movie itself, after having watched the trailer I gather something unpleasant would happen which I feel has no place in the world of Bond (maybe they are becoming a bit too serious), therefore will definitely be sitting this one out.

I completely and totally agree. I will be seeing CR, however, simply because it is a Bond film.

words

The jury is out on Craig with me. I like some stuff i've seen disliked other stuff. I don't think we can pass final judgement till we see the movie. So I guess that makes me neither pro or anti.

Loeffelholz

I think my position is well known (see: my signature )...any questions, PM me )

caractacus potts

Brosnan_fan wrote:

...and what the hell is Felix Leiter doing here?

yeh what is Felix Leiter doing in Casino Royale?
he wasnt in the Peter Sellers version
who do these filmmakers think they are tampering with established 007 history?
and just who is this Ian Fleming guy people keep droning on about and why does he keep looking for a free ride off the James Bond franchise?

if they really want to do this remake right: Bond is supposed to be American, Leiter is English, and Vesper is French but thats not what any of their names are

Dan Same

caractacus potts wrote:

yeh what is Felix Leiter doing in Casino Royale?
he wasnt in the Peter Sellers version
who do these filmmakers think they are tampering with established 007 history?
and just who is this Ian Fleming guy people keep droning on about and why does he keep looking for a free ride off the James Bond franchise?

if they really want to do this remake right: Bond is supposed to be American, Leiter is English, and Vesper is French but thats not what any of their names are

Caractacus, you have to understand that for some of us, such as myself and presumably Brosnan_fan, we are more interested in the cinematic Bond than the literature Bond. Certainly, we might prefer to separate out the two as there are certain things which feature in the books that I, for one, would be less than thrilled to feature in the films. Alot of people talk about how all these unpleasant things happen to Bond in the books; he gets beaten up, tortured, drugged etc... These things might work well in the books but I personally would not want them to happen in the films. That is why, for example, I wasn't all that happy that Bond was captured and tortured in DAD and then failed to escape, and why alot of the things about CR don't particularly excite me.

glidrose

Dan Same wrote:

caractacus potts wrote:

yeh what is Felix Leiter doing in Casino Royale?
he wasnt in the Peter Sellers version
who do these filmmakers think they are tampering with established 007 history?
and just who is this Ian Fleming guy people keep droning on about and why does he keep looking for a free ride off the James Bond franchise?

if they really want to do this remake right: Bond is supposed to be American, Leiter is English, and Vesper is French but thats not what any of their names are

Caractacus, you have to understand that for some of us, such as myself and presumably Brosnan_fan, we are more interested in the cinematic Bond than the literature Bond. Certainly, we might prefer to separate out the two as there are certain things which feature in the books that I, for one, would be less than thrilled to feature in the films. Alot of people talk about how all these unpleasant things happen to Bond in the books; he gets beaten up, tortured, drugged etc... These things might work well in the books but I personally would not want them to happen in the films. That is why, for example, I wasn't all that happy that Bond was captured and tortured in DAD and then failed to escape, and why alot of the things about CR don't particularly excite me.

That's fair enough. One man's meat is another man's poison, and all that...

I think what doesn't work is when EON try and compromise, and attempt to do both in one film (OTT gadgets, humour - and then a swift change of gears back into something very serious). This was my main problem with some of the Brosnan films.

At least with the Moore films, you knew what you were getting, and what was to be expected. With that frame of mind, it was very easy to sit back, relax, and appreciate the films for what they were.

The Brosnan films slid too much from one side to the other for my liking, so any serious, Fleming attempts didn't carry off effectively enough.

At least with CR, Dan, you know pretty much what to expect with this particular film. You may not like the gritty, darker tone of Bond, but at least you would have no high expectations now going in to see this one.

spiderman

I am pro-Craig, I only think longer hair would suit him better for the role, but that is my only complaint (like he had them in original press conference - after he arrived on the boat .
You can check it above - Glidrose icon, that is his best looks

I have no problem with both versions of Bond, more lighter one - my favourite is Octopussy or more serious one - my favourite is Licence to Kill, so another Licence is alright with me

Dan Same

glidrose wrote:

The Brosnan films slid too much from one side to the other for my liking, so any serious, Fleming attempts didn't carry off effectively enough.

It certainly fits DAD. Captured and tortured at the beginning, and by about halfway through, Bond had basically forgotten all about it. 8-)

glidrose wrote:

At least with CR, Dan, you know pretty much what to expect with this particular film. You may not like the gritty, darker tone of Bond, but at least you would have no high expectations now going in to see this one.

That's certainly true.