They most certainly stretched the envelope to the edge with the names for those characters .....
Posted on 12/04/2014 7:27:16 AM PST by C19fan
With just a day to go before the new Bond announcement, a newly- surfaced interview with Daniel Craig from 2012 may shed some light on where the series might be headed. When Craig was hired to help reboot James Bond, he knew that he wanted to make a serious film — both because he is a serious actor, and because a certain other spy spoof had made it impossible to do a goofy 007.
"We had to destroy the myth because Mike Myers f—-ed us," the actor told Bond fan publication MI6, referring to Myers’ remarkably successful Austin Powers series. ”I am a huge Mike Myers fan, so don’t get me wrong, but he kind of f—-ed us, made it impossible to do the gags.”
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I agree. I’ve long been sick of the constant ‘reflexive’ nature of the current culture, and how there’s a self-conscious, ironic tinge to just about everything. Ironic or sarcastic subtexts to every line of dialogue.
It’s probably one of the big reasons I seem to appreciate old movies more and more with each passing year. It’s just so refreshing to see people speaking and talking in a straight-forward manner, and comporting themselves as serious adults. That’s become such a rarity in modern American culture.
I’ll say. Two breathtakingly beautiful women.
The recent Casino Royale was excellent. Action, grit, swank.
and one liners, too
Quite. The movies got too comedic, unto campy, heading straight into stupid. Austin Powers just took it to the logical conclusion.
Glad they did a “reboot”, taking it back to awesome-yet-believable, Bond having unbeatable skills but having to work & struggle mightily to achieve & win - and having barely-beatable villains to match.
I go back to Barry Nelson CBS live theatre presentation of Casino Royale with Peter Lorre.
They most certainly stretched the envelope to the edge with the names for those characters .....
At least they didn't bring their massive egos into the equation the way Craig presumes to do, and they (along with Sean Connery, the best, and even Brosnan, who was surprisingly good) had that air of instinctive refinement and culture that was very much a part of 007 as Fleming wrote him; Craig is coarse, base, and crude no matter how fancy the tux he's wearing; the "real" 007 was classy and elegant even in rags as he was slitting a bad guy's throat from ear to ear.
I thought this after seeing Craig's premiere as Bond -- and feel it triply as I've learned since that Craig is a screaming anti-gun leftist.
Ian Fleming would be rolling over in his grave if he saw how badly Hollywood botched 007 in the 21st Century.
Daniel Craig should be happy, his Casino Royale was the best bond film ever IMHO.
Agree with most of your comments. However, I like the ruthlessness. He doesn’t have the wit or humor of Brosnan or Connery, neither did Dalton.
Some say they Dalton and Craig (lacking suave) were more toward the authors intent.
I wanted Clive Owen, but I think the ship has sailed. I think Craig has one more after this one.
Agreed, I thought Casino Royale brought the series to a new high level - the best plot ever, the best most realistic action, and Bond still was the cool ladies man.
As a kid I read all of the Ian Fleming Bond books and always visualized Bond as bit of a professional thug in spite of his sophistication. The mid-period Bond movies (after Connery thru Brosnan) were just goofy. Craig and the current movies bring back the thug-Bond. I like them.
Believable? {^) Not even the books were believable! Awesome, yes -- but even reading the action parts, one knew that the things James was doing/surviving, were absolute impossibilities!
Not for nothing did Bond's creator go on to create Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! Which Hollywood promptly mangled.
Yes, Bond was ruthless, but Craig has a cruelness about him. Bond was a natural sophisticate and ladies' man, but Craig, though handsome, is a pretender who has to work at it. The real Bond, as Fleming wrote him, had feelings and emotions; Craig strikes me as a self-obsessed psychopath.
I really think Ian Fleming would have preferred Craig as a villain. Heck, former Bond villain Sean Bean would make a better Bond than Craig! *sigh*
Then again, maybe a friend of mine is correct when he says, "I never read the book -- it just spoils the movie!" {^)
” If Daniel Craig wants to blame anyone for a ‘serious’ Bond, he can blame Mat Damon and his Bourne movies for raising the action bar.”
I think it is a cross between Mike and Mat. It made Bond need to take its own route. I think it is a much better result now since the first bond movies weren’t really “by the book”.
Yeah I think beans time has passed
Just read the bond books
Vaguely related ... "GetTV" (old movie channel) recently showed The Southern Star with George Segal and Ursula Andress. She was as gorgeous in that as in Dr. No, or anything else ...
What were they ready to go back to the ridiculous clown show Bond of the Roger Moore era? I don’t believe the franchise could survive that a second time, certainly not for me. Thank God we got Connery before the smarmy, effete Moore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.