|
Post by The Dark Knight on May 2, 2006 15:41:34 GMT -5
I hope Daniel Craig can pull it off...
|
|
|
Post by TheJoker on May 2, 2006 23:49:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on May 3, 2006 14:27:51 GMT -5
[shadow=purple,left,300]I don't want to see this movie. I was going to give Daniel Craig the benefit of a doubt, but after seeing this teaser, he not only doesn't look like Bond, but he doesn't sound like him either. Not to mention that MGM's decision to start the Bond franchise over again in the 21st Century is completely idiotic.
I wish MGM went with Quentin Tarantino's idea for a Bond origin, which was set back in the 60s.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by Jack-Ups on May 3, 2006 14:36:53 GMT -5
No offense to blond people but James Bond does not have Blond hair!!!!! And J-man your right about it being ridiculous of when the origin of Bond is set!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on May 3, 2006 16:24:42 GMT -5
[shadow=purple,left,300]I don't want to see this movie. I was going to give Daniel Craig the benefit of a doubt, but after seeing this teaser, he not only doesn't look like Bond, but he doesn't sound like him either. Not to mention that MGM's decision to start the Bond franchise over again in the 21st Century is completely idiotic.
I wish MGM went with Quentin Tarantino's idea for a Bond origin, which was set back in the 60s.[/shadow] I'm not bothered one way or the other since Ive never been much of a Bond fan... only a casual viewer at best. BUt I'll say I havnt been at all impressed or interested by the latest choices and direction here. I understand too that besides all these changes, this film is also supposedly all but entirely void of any "Bond gadgets" and the whole "super spy" angle. I realize this wouldnt be the first installment to shift gears that way, but I cant believe THIS would be the best candidate for trying to survive w/o that element?. Oh well, I didnt have any intention of seeing it to begin with and I have no particular "fondness" or "attachment" to the franchise or character.
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on May 4, 2006 0:02:53 GMT -5
The trailer was cool, but the way they handled the origin story was just wrong. Judi Dench was not the first M. What they did actually makes me kinda mad. Kinda ruins 40 yrs of Bond. Had the idea to go see this in the theatres just to keep it from bombing even worse than it will, but im now thinking of just waiting to rent it.
|
|
|
Post by vishman007 on May 6, 2006 20:52:18 GMT -5
Yeah, they should have brought in a man for M if it was Bond's first mission. Darn, why do they have to ruin things! Hopefully it will still be a good movie besides that little setback.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on May 6, 2006 21:14:19 GMT -5
I consider myself a pretty high level bond fan...and I'm NOT pleased with this 'new direction'
|
|
|
Post by vishman007 on May 7, 2006 9:27:04 GMT -5
I read they may make a direct sequel to Casino Royale for release next year. They want a 007 movie in 2007. They should have just released Casino Royale next year and not done crazy things.
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on May 7, 2006 15:57:16 GMT -5
the last good Bond movie was Goldeneye-the rest have been Trite,Tired and predictable. I agree having Judi Dench as M(was idiotic when first thought up)but as bonds origin?MGM have lost their marbles.time to give Bond a rest I think
|
|
wavedash
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 120
|
Post by wavedash on May 7, 2006 17:44:09 GMT -5
How many people were complaining when Ra's Al Ghul became involved in the origin of Batman?
I'm just saying that it's ok to reinvent things because you might be pleasantly surprised at the result. Too early to say yet whether this will be good.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on May 7, 2006 18:06:13 GMT -5
the last good Bond movie was Goldeneye-the rest have been Trite,Tired and predictable. I agree having Judi Dench as M(was idiotic when first thought up)but as bonds origin?MGM have lost their marbles.time to give Bond a rest I think [shadow=purple,left,300]I loved Goldeneye (Probably in the top 5 Bond films for me) and thought 90% of Die Another Day was alright. I hated Tomorrow Never Dies and thought The World is Not Enough was a bit boring even though it had some intense action sequences. I liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond, but the stories just didn't cut it. Overall, I like Judi Dench as M but if they're doing a new spin on this series, they're not only messing with continuity, but they're probably going to tick off a lot of die-hard 007 fans.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on May 8, 2006 15:11:06 GMT -5
Goldeneye was great because it ahd a story sunk in realism.rogue MI^er temas up with hardliner Soviets-instant Gold.Now Casino Royale may benefit from its groundedness. in any case it will be better than a media mogul starting wars to sell newspapers-man what rubbish. Brosnan could have been the GREATEST Bond hands down(best since Connery at least)but yeah J-Man the stories let him down
|
|
|
Post by vishman007 on May 8, 2006 19:16:00 GMT -5
How many people were complaining when Ra's Al Ghul became involved in the origin of Batman? I'm just saying that it's ok to reinvent things because you might be pleasantly surprised at the result. Too early to say yet whether this will be good. Yeah, but how can you restart 44 years of Bond movies. Goldeneye was the best Brosnan movie. Tomorrow Never Dies and World is Not Enough both had terrible villains. Die Another Day was an okay action movie, but a terrible Bond movie. Man I hope this is good.
|
|
wavedash
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 120
|
Post by wavedash on May 8, 2006 20:34:07 GMT -5
[quote author=vishman007 board=generaltalk thread=1146591362 post=1147133760 Yeah, but how can you restart 44 years of Bond movies.
[/quote]
How can you redo over 60 years of a character who has seen many portrayals from many writers and artists?
|
|
|
Post by vishman007 on May 8, 2006 21:12:55 GMT -5
There have been many interpretations of Batman done already in the comics, cartoons and other movies. Sometimes he catches his parents killer, sometimes he doesnt. But having Bond's origin now, especially with Judi Dench as M is wierd. Even in Goldeneye people mention how the new M is a woman and how strange it is. This would make it seem M was a woman since Bond started. Not saying that it will be a horrible movie just because of that, but I dont like where it is going.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on May 16, 2006 14:15:42 GMT -5
i'm not much of a bond fan, but have seen most of the original films, and have seent eh Brosnan films also, but i feel that although Brosnan had "the look", his films were all absolutely terrible. that special "magic" just wasn't there, in any of them.
i mean, half an hour after watching any of them, i can't remember most of what happened, nothing sticks in my memory as a great moment. they were just generic action movies with a big name attached to them with ludicrous plots thrown in.
to be honest, i'm looking forward to Daniel's interpretation of the character. although he looks like a thug in a suit, i think it's gone in the right direction, instead of pretty-boy Brosnan using crazy gadgets to get him out of every situation.
i know the gadgets are key to the spy world of Bond, but maybe just some raw fighting skills will prove more interesting?
perhaps this film should have been just an action film not attached to the Bond name, and perhaps they shouldn't have even made the Brosnan films in the first place? they seem to be the weakest links in the Bond series.
i'm only a very casual movie watcher, and not a Bond-expert or superfan at all, but these are my thoughts.
|
|