RE: James Bond Series

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: James Bond Series

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: James Bond Series

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: James Bond Series - 10/11/2012 10:39:53 PM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

I have expanded at length on my thoughts up thread on the link in my sig. I consider CR, QoS, and SF, to be a cohesive trilogy which I have dubbed the James Bond Origin Trilogy. I fear the acronym JBOT is not the best...

Interesting article. But you lost my endorsement when it came clear you're on of "those" that believe each Bond actor is playing a different person. Also, I was surprised that you thought Casino Royale was a prequel when its a reboot, just like Batman Begins. It was even nicknamed Bond Begins for awhile during production. But then I also know people who still insist Nolan's trilogy are prequels to Tim Burton's films. Even after DKR...

Did you read the article?

a) I never said it was a different person. Clearly each of them is playing James Bond. You just have to consider each actor as a reboot of sorts. There is no physical way that Brosnan's Bond in 1995 (let's say he's 45, tops) can be the same as Connery's bond in 1962. He would have been 12 in 1962. No, rather you have to consider the Bonds as their own logic, the same character, but reimagined for a newer generation. Casino Royale is more explicit in this than the others in actually taking Bond right back to his beginning.

b) I never say that CR is a prequel... I don't mention the word reboot either, true enough, but I think "fresh start" is pretty clearly more indicative of a reboot than a prequel.

Unless your comment on it being a prequel comes from the fact that I am describing the three newest films as the Origin Trilogy. I'm not sure how it isn't: it's dealing with Bond's origins. It's this Bond, with origins in our timeline, rather than having these set in the early 60s, but it's still an origins story. I'm not sure how it can be considered to not be.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to Vadersville)

Post #: 211

RE: James Bond Series - 10/11/2012 11:20:47 PM

Vadersville

Posts: 2905
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

I have expanded at length on my thoughts up thread on the link in my sig. I consider CR, QoS, and SF, to be a cohesive trilogy which I have dubbed the James Bond Origin Trilogy. I fear the acronym JBOT is not the best...

Interesting article. But you lost my endorsement when it came clear you're on of "those" that believe each Bond actor is playing a different person. Also, I was surprised that you thought Casino Royale was a prequel when its a reboot, just like Batman Begins. It was even nicknamed Bond Begins for awhile during production. But then I also know people who still insist Nolan's trilogy are prequels to Tim Burton's films. Even after DKR...

Did you read the article?

Yes I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

a) I never said it was a different person. Clearly each of them is playing James Bond. You just have to consider each actor as a reboot of sorts. There is no physical way that Brosnan's Bond in 1995 (let's say he's 45, tops) can be the same as Connery's bond in 1962. He would have been 12 in 1962. No, rather you have to consider the Bonds as their own logic, the same character, but reimagined for a newer generation. Casino Royale is more explicit in this than the others in actually taking Bond right back to his beginning.

From your article: "Timothy Dalton�s Bond is clearly, in 1987, not the same Bond who defeated Goldfinger in 1964" To me that read as you being in the camp of James Bond being a codename passed on with the designation of 007. But even with your theory above doesn't hold water. Of course it's the same Bond. And yes, Bond would be ancient from the timeframe between Dr.No and Die Another Day if the dates of the films were the exact dates of the films release but the series doesn't work that way. Bond is set whenever the films come out and he's always late thirties - early/mid forties. As you actually say, Bond (as a film franchise) has its own logic. But the continuity from Connery to Brosnan is one canon, not many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

a) I never say that CR is a prequel... I don't mention the word reboot either, true enough, but I think "fresh start" is pretty clearly more indicative of a reboot than a prequel.

From your article: "The clarity of the timeline became muddied: The film was set today (2006), but Bond was a new agent, and M was still Judi Dench, who had been M since Brosnan took over in 1995." Seeing as your referring to CR being in the timeline of the original films and yet being set during Bond's first days as an agent, it does come across that you're under the assumption that is a prequel, to me at least. One thing that the prequel camp tend to hang onto or moan about is Judi Dench as M. To me, whilst in both Brosnan and Craig's films she called M and is 007's boss, they are two completley different characters.

By the way, I enjoyed reading your articles on the Star Trek movies, when are you gonna do the others? It's Novemeber already!

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 212

RE: James Bond Series - 10/11/2012 11:24:51 PM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

With Bond it's easier not to investigate too closely. The M is vaguely irksome, but not destructively so. CR is not a prequel though. All the different actors are all playing the same person, but you just have to assume the character has changed his date of birth. Essentially the same as the Simpsons. If they had aged from year one, Bart would now be 33, and Lisa 31...

(Re Star Trek: Thanks! I know, I'm getting behind. Same with the Tarantino ones. I'm catching up this weekend with last month's articles so I still have enough time this month for this month's articles...!)

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to Vadersville)

Post #: 213

RE: James Bond Series - 11/11/2012 9:33:03 PM

Dirk Miggler

Posts: 831
Joined: 14/1/2009

With the figures Skyfall is doung surely Mendes and Craig are coming back for another ? Makes you laugh at the stick Craig's recieved in his tenure, his Bond has appealed to the audiences like no other.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 214

RE: James Bond Series - 11/11/2012 10:33:05 PM

giggity

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/3/2012

Craig will most definitely return. I think he wants to get out a bond film every two years (like the producers do aswell) and finish the two films he has left in his contract before he turns 50.

Mendes, i'm not so sure. He's been asked about his failed Preacher adaptation and he said that he got to live out what he wanted to do for Preacher with Skyfall (meaning he wanted to do a big action blockbuster). He's also said how tired it's made him and with the plans to get a new film out every two years I don't think Mendes would return to something so exhausting which doesn't fulfil him creatively. He has said he would return if there was another story he felt he wanted to tell and needed to be told but tbh after this trilogy of films looking into Bond as a deeper character and seeing what makes Bond tick and getting under his skin. I don't know if there's much more they could look into at the moment, I think the next two Bond films will be more traditional Bond films and I don't think Mendes will be up for that.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 215

RE: James Bond Series - 12/11/2012 10:21:35 AM

spark1

Posts: 5792
Joined: 18/11/2006

13 reasons to live DAD-

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/11/10/james-bond-die-another-day/

it had me at the opening surfing scene.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 216

RE: James Bond Series - 12/11/2012 1:59:40 PM

Vadersville

Posts: 2905
Joined: 30/9/2005

I still really like Brosnan as Bond but nothing excuses Die Another Day.

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to spark1)

Post #: 217

RE: James Bond Series - 12/11/2012 9:36:47 PM

directorscut

Posts: 9867
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dirk Miggler

With the figures Skyfall is doung surely Mendes and Craig are coming back for another ? Makes you laugh at the stick Craig's recieved in his tenure, his Bond has appealed to the audiences like no other.

No.

Adjusted for inflation his films come nowhere near Goldfinger or Thunderball which grossed more than $500 million in the US alone.

Adjusted for inflation all of Brosnan's films outgross Craig's, as do as of Connery's except Dr. No.

_____________________________

Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Dirk Miggler)

Post #: 218

RE: James Bond Series - 12/11/2012 9:41:11 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1643
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

I still really like Brosnan as Bond but nothing excuses Die Another Day.

Die Another Day is very silly in places but its a lot more fun than any of Craigs outings.

_____________________________

'' Sir Godfrey, on a mission, i AM expected to sacrifice myself ! ''

(in reply to Vadersville)

Post #: 219

RE: James Bond Series - 12/11/2012 10:00:15 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18905
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dirk Miggler

With the figures Skyfall is doung surely Mendes and Craig are coming back for another ? Makes you laugh at the stick Craig's recieved in his tenure, his Bond has appealed to the audiences like no other.

No.

Adjusted for inflation his films come nowhere near Goldfinger or Thunderball which grossed more than $500 million in the US alone.

Adjusted for inflation all of Brosnan's films outgross Craig's, as do as of Connery's except Dr. No.

Actually you are incorrect about the Brosnan films - all the Craig movies are going to outgross them.

1. Thunderball 1965 Sean Connery $1,014,941,117
2. Goldfinger 1964 Sean Connery $912,257,512
3. Live and Let Die 1973 Roger Moore $825,110,761
4. You Only Live Twice 1967 Sean Connery $756,544,419
5. The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 Roger Moore $692,713,752
6. Casino Royale 2006 Daniel Craig $669,789,482
7. Moonraker 1979 Roger Moore $655,872,400
8. Diamonds Are Forever 1971 Sean Connery $648,514,469
9. Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig $622,246,378
10. From Russia with Love 1963 Sean Connery $576,277,964
11. Die Another Day 2002 Pierce Brosnan $543,639,638
12. Goldeneye 1995 Pierce Brosnan $529,548,711
13. Skyfall 2012 Daniel Craig $518,600,000
14. On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969 George Lazenby $505,899,782
15. The World is Not Enough 1999 Pierce Brosnan $491,617,153
16. For Your Eyes Only 1981 Roger Moore $486,468,881
17. Tommorow Never Dies 1997 Pierce Brosnan $478,946,402
18. The Man with the Golden Gun 1974 Roger Moore $448,249,281
19. Dr. No 1962 Sean Connery $440,759,072
20. Octopussy 1983 Roger Moore $426,244,352
21. The Living Daylights 1987 Timothy Dalton $381,088,866
22. A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore $321,172,633
23. License to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton $285,157,

Skyfall has a good chance of getting into the top five adjusted for inflation but unlikely to get to the heights of Goldfinger and Thunderball.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to directorscut)

Post #: 220

RE: James Bond Series - 15/11/2012 1:55:34 PM

spark1

Posts: 5792
Joined: 18/11/2006

is this the best book on the bond films ever?-

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/interview_paul_duncan.php3?t=&s=&id=03371

well, its the heaviest.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 221

RE: James Bond Series - 15/11/2012 10:28:14 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1643
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

How Casino Royale should have ended..http://youtu.be/byku-4Sl4zE

_____________________________

'' Sir Godfrey, on a mission, i AM expected to sacrifice myself ! ''

(in reply to spark1)

Post #: 222

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 1:11:38 AM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

How the fuck did Live and Let Die do so money?

Oh and the Daltons being some of the lowest make me sad.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Cool Breeze)

Post #: 223

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 10:25:29 AM

spark1

Posts: 5792
Joined: 18/11/2006

klienmann on bond movie titles-

http://movieline.com/2012/11/15/skyfall-james-bond-title-sequence-danny-kleinman-007/#utm_campaign=homepage&utm_source=maincolumn&utm_medium=carousel&utm_content=slot3

good show, danny.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 224

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 11:12:35 AM

Vadersville

Posts: 2905
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

How the fuck did Live and Let Die do so money?

Oh and the Daltons being some of the lowest make me sad.

Probably because it was a new actor playing Bond. My dad remembers seeing it as a kid and said it was huge at the time. Funnily enough its the only Moore film I can enjoy. And yeah, that is gutting about Dalton. I think his Bond was just ahead of its time. A lot of what he tried to do with the character is what has made Daniel Craig's so successful. License to Kill is actually one of my favourites too.

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 225

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 12:09:17 PM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

How the fuck did Live and Let Die do so money?

Oh and the Daltons being some of the lowest make me sad.

Probably because it was a new actor playing Bond. My dad remembers seeing it as a kid and said it was huge at the time. Funnily enough its the only Moore film I can enjoy. And yeah, that is gutting about Dalton. I think his Bond was just ahead of its time. A lot of what he tried to do with the character is what has made Daniel Craig's so successful. License to Kill is actually one of my favourites too.

I like how the two things that Deviation says prove AND disprove your theory. If LALD did so well BECAUSE it was a new actor playing Bond, why was that not ALSO true of Dalton's Bonds...

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to Vadersville)

Post #: 226

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 12:16:05 PM

Rhubarb

Posts: 24398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home

Live and Let Die also has the advantage of being fantastic.

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 227

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 2:47:56 PM

homersimpson_esq

Posts: 19969
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

Live and Let Die also has the advantage of being fantastic.

/obligatorymentionofgrammaticalclumsinessinlyrics

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.

TREK WARS

(in reply to Rhubarb)

Post #: 228

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 3:22:58 PM

superdan

Posts: 7238
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

Live and Let Die also has the advantage of being fantastic.

Agreed.

(in reply to Rhubarb)

Post #: 229

RE: James Bond Series - 16/11/2012 4:43:55 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

I don't know how a movie which is aimed at being fun and has a really dull first half can be called fantastic.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to superdan)

Post #: 230

RE: James Bond Series - 17/11/2012 9:41:43 AM

Vadersville

Posts: 2905
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

How the fuck did Live and Let Die do so money?

Oh and the Daltons being some of the lowest make me sad.

Probably because it was a new actor playing Bond. My dad remembers seeing it as a kid and said it was huge at the time. Funnily enough its the only Moore film I can enjoy. And yeah, that is gutting about Dalton. I think his Bond was just ahead of its time. A lot of what he tried to do with the character is what has made Daniel Craig's so successful. License to Kill is actually one of my favourites too.

I like how the two things that Deviation says prove AND disprove your theory. If LALD did so well BECAUSE it was a new actor playing Bond, why was that not ALSO true of Dalton's Bonds...

I wouldn't call it a thoery. I never said that all Bond actors first films do the best money.

But yeah, according to my dad there was alot more excitement over Moore taking over the role than when Lazenby did and that remembers there being loads of hype over the new Bond for the new decade (even though Connery did the first film of the 70s). Apparently The Living Daylights was a bit of a non event following on from two Moore films that were also poorly received.

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)

Post #: 231