Best Bond film?

[Goldeneye]

Who said Fleming wouldn't agree with a reboot? CR is based on the novel Fleming wrote. The only reboot attempt is showing Bond on his first assignment and making mistakes, something that happened in the novel too....

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the last statement. The movies made Bond fantastical... that will never change. The only thing that will change is how "fantastical" each movie will be. That element will always be there. And yeah, the whole reboot thing doesn't make sense. I don't think Fleming would be objected to showing film audiences how Bond got his license to kill and became the man we all know.

Who said Fleming WOULD agree with a reboot? And no, this reboot changes everything; from his looks to his attitudes to his background setting and even his supporting characters. Bond is a cold war agent, that's how Ian Fleming wrote him; not a modern Americanized version of EON.

Ok, let's say Brosnan's was brought into a modern age, but still he was a cold war agent. A "relic of cold war" as said by his lady M. His background was a reminder of the films and actors who have come before him.

It is also possible that the number of years between the Cold War Era and the Modern Era was lessened within 9, 1 year even just a month. This is fiction; however, being fictional doesn't mean that the forward movement of time isn't present. It doesn't also mean that something happened within the universe that causes James Bond to be suddenly moved into the present day or rather a parrallel world that has no connections with the past suddenly existed. This isn't just like DC (Detective Comics) Universe, but the reboot of James Bond looks just like it.

Bond films have always evolved with the times, set in the present climate they are in. They've never been set in 1952.

It's the one reason they have stayed successful, and relevant!

And with today's climate, post 9/11, we are suddenly in an era very similar to the Cold war again, only this time a different threat. So Bond suddenly looks more relevant now than he has ever done.

Or do you think the producers should ignore the current 9/11 terrorist threat, and still pretend Bond is fighting a Cold War with SMERSH...?

If the 9/11 terrorism was such a concern for movie goers wouldn't DAD have been the first rejection by the audience? Escapism was the order of the day in 2002, back when the 9/11 tragedy was freshly emblazoned on the world consciousness.

The new era of fear is nothing like the cold war. Who are the good guys and can you point out the bad guys?
I can't. There is no one country, no one organization to point at and say it's them, they are the bad guys. The cold war was painfully clear cut on this.

James Bond hasn’t fought the cold war since TLD, and you are right the Bond of the movies successfully evolved past it. But the movies never became a reflection of current events.

Mentioning TLD strange how Afghanistan became a country that would once again be important to our world view.

The connection Casino Royale had with today’s terrorism is a laughable. Daniel Craig's insistence the terrorists do it for money is completely opposite of what is happening right now in the streets.
In today's atmosphere pretend terrorists and the mysterious Mr. White are irrelevant. Not to mention a poor story arc. (IMHO)

Who will care about the menacing Mr. White when the real bad guy is in a cave? This is the problem with trying make James Bond realistic. Even in the cold war Bond was fantastic, exotic, and in a way carefree.

Casino Royale can't have its cake and eat it to. Unrealistic and realism do not make good bedfellows. Bond’s very birth was in an unreal world.

[The Sweeney]

If the 9/11 terrorism was such a concern for movie goers wouldn't DAD have been the first rejection by the audience? Escapism was the order of the day in 2002, back when the 9/11 tragedy was freshly emblazoned on the world consciousness.

True. DAD ignored it, and failed as a film because of it. Comparing it to more gritty, down-to-earth, stunt-driven action thrillers like Bourne and Batman, which did reflect post 9/11 in its attitude, DAD suddenly looked weak in comparison. Probably the worst film ever made, and a big mistake by EON.

The new era of fear is nothing like the cold war. Who are the good guys and can you point out the bad guys?
I can't. There is no one country, no one organization to point at and say it's them, they are the bad guys. The cold war was painfully clear cut on this.

True, the war on terrorism is different to the Cold War, but it is a global threat that exists, the same way a threat existed with the Cold War.

James Bond hasn’t fought the cold war since TLD, and you are right the Bond of the movies successfully evolved past it. But the movies never became a reflection of current events.

TLD - AIDS aware Dalton sleeps with one woman. GE, Brosnan can no longer get away with flirting with Moneypenney - her character changed! And definatlely current trends with films like LALD and MR.

Mentioning TLD strange how Afghanistan became a country that would once again be important to our world view.

Very true.

The connection Casino Royale had with today’s terrorism is a laughable. Daniel Craig's insistence the terrorists do it for money is completely opposite of what is happening right now in the streets.
In today's atmosphere pretend terrorists and the mysterious Mr. White are irrelevant. Not to mention a poor story arc. (IMHO)

If EON had decided to make the bomber a Muslim, do you seriously think that would have been a wise move to make?

Who will care about the menacing Mr. White when the real bad guy is in a cave? This is the problem with trying make James Bond realistic. Even in the cold war Bond was fantastic, exotic, and in a way carefree.

Casino Royale can't have its cake and eat it to. Unrealistic and realism do not make good bedfellows. Bond’s very birth was in an unreal world.

Apparently many people do care for this new world shown to us in CR. I could now go on to mention the praise CR has got from different quarters, but I don't think I need to, as you know this already.

[Jedi007]

Bond films have always evolved with the times, set in the present climate they are in. They've never been set in 1952.

It's the one reason they have stayed successful, and relevant!

And with today's climate, post 9/11, we are suddenly in an era very similar to the Cold war again, only this time a different threat. So Bond suddenly looks more relevant now than he has ever done.

That's what I've been talking about. Bond films DO evolved with the times, set IN THE PRESENT climate they are in, YET they are all part of the same timeline, no matter how rough the continuity they have or connected into.

That's why Brosnan's Lady M is acceptable, because she has male M (as originally wrote by Fleming) before her. It shows that time moves forward. It shows that from the Cold War Era, James Bond was moved into the Modern Era. No problem with that.

EON's (not Fleming's) Casino Royale wasn't just like the rest. It claims to be the original beginning, the one Fleming wrote, but we know it is very false, a very big lie. Bond's REAL and original beginning is that he is a Cold War agent, that he got a male M. EON's CR claiming to be the first is not like that; it resets the timeline and messes with James Bond history. They have even the supposed-to-be-last-M as the very first M.

Moore's Bond and those who follow after him is supposed to be the continuation of Connery's Cold War Bond. I accept it is a new history that Ian Fleming doesn't wrote, but rather, a continuation of other writers to his work. That's what is supposed to be done with the upcoming Bonds. But no, the EON just reset as if the past history doesn't matter just to fit their own definition of the FILM Bond character that has made James Bond famous.

This is jusn't like a computer that can be easily be rebooted. The James Bond first and real film timeline, even though it is fictional, has built its own history, and is to be respected. This isn't even just like the Batman franchise. Aside that Batman belongs to a fantastical universe, it wan't just the films that made him famous. Batman was made famous throughout various forms of media, and in each incarnation, his characters differs from the others. James Bond was only made famous in a FILM which, I would say again, has its own timeline and own history.

[The Sweeney]

Bond films have always evolved with the times, set in the present climate they are in. They've never been set in 1952.

It's the one reason they have stayed successful, and relevant!

And with today's climate, post 9/11, we are suddenly in an era very similar to the Cold war again, only this time a different threat. So Bond suddenly looks more relevant now than he has ever done.

That's what I've been talking about. Bond films DO evolved with the times, set IN THE PRESENT climate they are in, YET they are all part of the same timeline, no matter how rough the continuity they have or connected into.

That's why Brosnan's Lady M is acceptable, because she has male M (as originally wrote by Fleming) before her. It shows that time moves forward. It shows that from the Cold War Era, James Bond was moved into the Modern Era. No problem with that.

EON's (not Fleming's) Casino Royale wasn't just like the rest. It claims to be the original beginning, the one Fleming wrote, but we know it is very false, a very big lie. Bond's REAL and original beginning is that he is a Cold War agent, that he got a male M. EON's CR claiming to be the first is not like that; it resets the timeline and messes with James Bond history. They have even the supposed-to-be-last-M as the very first M.

Moore's Bond and those who follow after him is supposed to be the continuation of Connery's Cold War Bond. I accept it is a new history that Ian Fleming doesn't wrote, but rather, a continuation of other writers to his work. That's what is supposed to be done with the upcoming Bonds. But no, the EON just reset as if the past history doesn't matter just to fit their own definition of the FILM Bond character that has made James Bond famous.

This is jusn't like a computer that can be easily be rebooted. The James Bond first and real film timeline, even though it is fictional, has built its own history, and is to be respected. This isn't even just like the Batman franchise. Aside that Batman belongs to a fantastical universe, it wan't just the films that made him famous. Batman was made famous throughout various forms of media, and in each incarnation, his characters differs from the others. James Bond was only made famous in a FILM which, I would say again, has its own timeline and own history.

The timeline EON created is very loose, with only a couple of references made throughout the entire series (FYEO and LTK have Tracy references, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and MR had a recurring character). I've always judged each film individually, never as a follow-on to the previous film (if I did, then I'd hate OHMSS, as Blofeld would recognise Bond straight away!)

So this timeline never really bothered me. All I was concerned with is that EON don't mess up the story or film itself. And IMO they didn't. CR as a film was near perfect. That was my only real concern - not that it follows the rest of the series in continuity terms.

With regards the novel itself, they've taken the best bits from the book and adapted it to modern times - sensibly IMO. The film feels very Flemingesque, and the romantic Venice scenes remind me very much of OHMSS, especially with Arnold going into John Barry overload!

[Jedi007]

The timeline EON created is very loose, with only a couple of references made throughout the entire series (FYEO and LTK have Tracy references, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and MR had a recurring character). I've always judged each film individually, never as a follow-on to the previous film (if I did, then I'd hate OHMSS, as Blofeld would recognise Bond straight away!)

Still they are connected, still each actor's Bond is a Cold War agent, as written by Ian Fleming. The inconsistency between YOLT, OHMSS, and DAF can be easily explained, since, as you said, it is a loose continuity, but still, there is a continuity.

Why would they even try to make references to other movies if they don't want them all connected and instead want them to stand alone as individual films?

And why do they have to update everything? So that they have no difficulty saying that this is a beginning despite that the setting is post-9/11 world? That is not what Fleming has created, and that reason is very lame.

[The Sweeney]

The timeline EON created is very loose, with only a couple of references made throughout the entire series (FYEO and LTK have Tracy references, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and MR had a recurring character). I've always judged each film individually, never as a follow-on to the previous film (if I did, then I'd hate OHMSS, as Blofeld would recognise Bond straight away!)

Still they are connected, still each actor's Bond is a Cold War agent, as written by Ian Fleming. The inconsistency between YOLT, OHMSS, and DAF can be easily explained, since, as you said, it is a loose continuity, but still, there is a continuity.

Why would they even try to make references to other movies if they don't want them all connected and instead want them to stand alone as individual films?

And why do they have to update everything? So that they have no difficulty saying that this is a beginning despite that the setting is post-9/11 world? That is not what Fleming has created, and that reason is very lame.

If I thought the film suffered in any way because of this, then I would agree with your viewpoint.

Fortunately for me it doesn't.....

[Jedi007]

If I thought the film suffered in any way because of this, then I would agree with your viewpoint.

Fortunately for me it doesn't.....

No, I don't say that the movie suffers; I want to say that this is wrong. And to correct what is wrong is what we are exactly doing here. For if we do not say what is wrong or right then people, especially those who really knew nothing about everything James Bond, would blindly accept what they have been told to believe. And that's what just the Brocollis has done to the poor 21st century audiences.

[The Sweeney]

If I thought the film suffered in any way because of this, then I would agree with your viewpoint.

Fortunately for me it doesn't.....

No, I don't say that the movie suffers; I want to say that this is wrong. And to correct what is wrong is what we are exactly doing here. For if we do not say what is wrong or right then people, especially those who really knew nothing about everything James Bond, would blindly accept what they have been told to believe. And that's what just the Brocollis has done to the poor 21st century audiences.

But it appears as though many Bond fans are happy with the new reboot decision made by EON.

And when I say Bond fans, I mean life-long fans who love the films, the Fleming novels, everything Bond basically (not just fans of Brosnan, or 21st century fans). The fans who reside on forums like Mi6, CBn and AJB. If you read enough posts on all 3 of these forums, it starts to paint a picture of true Bond fans applauding the brave new concept of CR. And it appears as though these fans are in the majority. There hasn't been that many fans opposing the film or casting on these 3 forums (AJB once had a 50:50 split between anti and pro Craig fans, now that demographic too has changed once the film was released).

Let's face it, this forum has given the anti fans a channel, a voice to sound off their opinions, yet how many have actually joined up since it opened?

I am beginning to think there are only a handful of people out there who don't actually like Craig and CR, judging from the overwhelming success of CR, both critically AND commercially (I don't think this has happened before. It's usually one or the other). I realise this won't really be the case, and that there are many fans out there who aren't pleased with the new direction, but if you take a look at all the Bond forums out there (including this one) to get a very rough average of the Bond fan community, then it does appear as though CR has been a massive hit.

There's no denying that.

[Skywalker]

I posted earlier that OHMSS was one of my fav's. I actually watched it again last night and was slightly disappointed. I can't put my finger on one particular reason it just did not meet up to expectation.

Also, does anyone agree that the opening fight scene on the beach reminded them of early 'BATMAN' fight scenes. All that was missing was the captions: POW; CLUNK etc....

[The Sweeney]

I posted earlier that OHMSS was one of my fav's. I actually watched it again last night and was slightly disappointed. I can't put my finger on one particular reason it just did not meet up to expectation.

Also, does anyone agree that the opening fight scene on the beach reminded them of early 'BATMAN' fight scenes. All that was missing was the captions: POW; CLUNK etc....

The problem with that fight scene in OHMSS, along with most of the other action scenes in the film, are speeded up and badly edited together.

Considering Hunt was an editor himself, it quite suprised me how bad the editing was on OHMSS in some places.

Having said that, I still really like OHMSS.....

[PierceBrosnanBond]

These MI6 people are so easy to wind up!

Hey, MI6 is a good website.

CB.n on the other hand is the most one sided fanboy website I've ever seen.

[James]

I used to really like Cbn but at some point it turned into an Eon crony site. Their forum is a complete joke now.

[The Sweeney]

I used to really like Cbn but at some point it turned into an Eon crony site. Their forum is a complete joke now.

I think it does become boring if everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. What's the point of a forum if everyone agrees with each other?

AJB at least used to have a 50:50 split, but even that has changed now. Mi6 has a majority of Craig fans, but at least a few anti fans too to keep it interesting and lively.

[Jedi007]

But it appears as though many Bond fans are happy with the new reboot decision made by EON.

And when I say Bond fans, I mean life-long fans who love the films, the Fleming novels, everything Bond basically (not just fans of Brosnan, or 21st century fans). The fans who reside on forums like Mi6, CBn and AJB. If you read enough posts on all 3 of these forums, it starts to paint a picture of true Bond fans applauding the brave new concept of CR. And it appears as though these fans are in the majority. There hasn't been that many fans opposing the film or casting on these 3 forums (AJB once had a 50:50 split between anti and pro Craig fans, now that demographic too has changed once the film was released).

Let's face it, this forum has given the anti fans a channel, a voice to sound off their opinions, yet how many have actually joined up since it opened?

I am beginning to think there are only a handful of people out there who don't actually like Craig and CR, judging from the overwhelming success of CR, both critically AND commercially (I don't think this has happened before. It's usually one or the other). I realise this won't really be the case, and that there are many fans out there who aren't pleased with the new direction, but if you take a look at all the Bond forums out there (including this one) to get a very rough average of the Bond fan community, then it does appear as though CR has been a massive hit.

There's no denying that.

Okay, I'm neither dumb nor narrow-minded enough not to recognize Casino Royale's box office as well as critical success. And yes, it seems like many fans who have once objected the restart of the Bond franchise have been won over to the other side, but that is because they let themselves be fooled while those who make the Bond films have succeed in lying to us and fooling us.

The new Casino Royale movie is neither the start nor the prequel; it was a reboot, and that was their first lie. In the reboot, they made huge changes to the character we have known for 40 years.

They made him a modern-day agent, when he is not; They made him arrogant and egoistic, when he is not; They make him act like a street thug, when he is supposed to be disciplined during his stay in the military; They make James Bond a comic book character by rebooting the franchise; Numerous changes which made EON disrespectful of Fleming, and it was all a lie.

Yes, Casino Royale is a success, but like a corrupt president, the Brocollis have lied to many people just to insure they win. And no, nothing will change even though I tell people that CR was a lie. I do not own James Bond, but neither do the siblings. They could continue on and on twisting the character they didn't even create. More people would probably forget all about this and continue to watch the movies in the future. Still, THEY LIED.

[The Sweeney]

But it appears as though many Bond fans are happy with the new reboot decision made by EON.

And when I say Bond fans, I mean life-long fans who love the films, the Fleming novels, everything Bond basically (not just fans of Brosnan, or 21st century fans). The fans who reside on forums like Mi6, CBn and AJB. If you read enough posts on all 3 of these forums, it starts to paint a picture of true Bond fans applauding the brave new concept of CR. And it appears as though these fans are in the majority. There hasn't been that many fans opposing the film or casting on these 3 forums (AJB once had a 50:50 split between anti and pro Craig fans, now that demographic too has changed once the film was released).

Let's face it, this forum has given the anti fans a channel, a voice to sound off their opinions, yet how many have actually joined up since it opened?

I am beginning to think there are only a handful of people out there who don't actually like Craig and CR, judging from the overwhelming success of CR, both critically AND commercially (I don't think this has happened before. It's usually one or the other). I realise this won't really be the case, and that there are many fans out there who aren't pleased with the new direction, but if you take a look at all the Bond forums out there (including this one) to get a very rough average of the Bond fan community, then it does appear as though CR has been a massive hit.

There's no denying that.

Okay, I'm neither dumb nor narrow-minded enough not to recognize Casino Royale's box office as well as critical success. And yes, it seems like many fans who have once objected the restart of the Bond franchise have been won over to the other side, but that is because they let themselves be fooled while those who make the Bond films have succeed in lying to us and fooling us.

The new Casino Royale movie is neither the start nor the prequel; it was a reboot, and that was their first lie. In the reboot, they made huge changes to the character we have known for 40 years.

They made him a modern-day agent, when he is not; They made him arrogant and egoistic, when he is not; They make him act like a street thug, when he is supposed to be disciplined during his stay in the military; They make James Bond a comic book character by rebooting the franchise; Numerous changes which made EON disrespectful of Fleming, and it was all a lie.

Yes, Casino Royale is a success, but like a corrupt president, the Brocollis have lied to many people just to insure they win. And no, nothing will change even though I tell people that CR was a lie. I do not own James Bond, but neither do the siblings. They could continue on and on twisting the character they didn't even create. More people would probably forget all about this and continue to watch the movies in the future. Still, THEY LIED.

A lie? Is that the way you see CR?

I saw DAD a lie. A blatant piss-take of the Bond legacy, a license to go and f*ck up a perfectly good character and franchise with garbage involving embarassing one-liners, laughable CGI effects (what happened to real stunts), invisible cars, comedy villains - making Austin Powers look like a serious movie.

DAD was about as far removed from Fleming as you could get, and I'm sure he must have turned endlessly in his grave when this film came out to haunt us all. It was the biggest disgrace to Fleming, a huge disgrace to the franchise, and a massive disgrace to movies in general.

DAD was the lie - not a small white one. A big, massive, horrible black one. EON had got away with slowly destroying the character that Fleming originally created with films like YOLT, DAF, MR, etc. but they always tried to rectify themselves afterwards by bringing Bond back down to earth afterwards. With DAD, it went one step too far.

If EON have had to put a bit of spin on CR, and use artistic license to modernise Bond, then that is what it is. Modernisation and artistic license - not lies. Blame DAD for putting them in this awful situation in the first place.

At least parts of CR is as faithful to the original novel as OHMSS and FRWL (how many other Bond films can claim that). If there are a few `lies' added to the mix, then I'm happy with that. What I would not be happy with is seeing another crappy CGI/cheesy one-liner fest trying to outdo DAD.

Now that would be a lie.

[carl stromberg]

Yes we get the message The Sweeney, you didn't enjoy Die Another Day.

Apparently the only two options for Bond 21 was another film like Die Another Day. Option one was an even more over the top version of Die another Day. I heard that Purvis and Wade were writing stupid jokes and coming up with a stupid plot where Bond travelled through time; Lee Tamohori was going to be asked back to direct; the Superman IV special effects team had been hired....

The other was to hire Daniel Craig to play a young Bond and make Casino Royale.

Apparently there were no other options. No other actors/writers/directors were avaliable.

[The Sweeney]

Yes we get the message The Sweeney, you didn't enjoy Die Another Day.

Apparently the only two options for Bond 21 was another film like Die Another Day. Option one was an even more over the top version of Die another Day. I heard that Purvis and Wade were writing stupid jokes and coming up with a stupid plot where Bond travelled through time; Lee Tamohori was going to be asked back to direct; the Superman IV special effects team had been hired....

The other was to hire Daniel Craig to play a young Bond and make Casino Royale.

Apparently there were no other options. No other actors/writers/directors were avaliable.

In that case, looks like they made the right choice for Bond 21 then.....

[Jedi007]

A lie? Is that the way you see CR?

I saw DAD a lie. A blatant piss-take of the Bond legacy, a license to go and f*ck up a perfectly good character and franchise with garbage involving embarassing one-liners, laughable CGI effects (what happened to real stunts), invisible cars, comedy villains - making Austin Powers look like a serious movie.

DAD was about as far removed from Fleming as you could get, and I'm sure he must have turned endlessly in his grave when this film came out to haunt us all. It was the biggest disgrace to Fleming, a huge disgrace to the franchise, and a massive disgrace to movies in general.

DAD was the lie - not a small white one. A big, massive, horrible black one. EON had got away with slowly destroying the character that Fleming originally created with films like YOLT, DAF, MR, etc. but they always tried to rectify themselves afterwards by bringing Bond back down to earth afterwards. With DAD, it went one step too far.

If EON have had to put a bit of spin on CR, and use artistic license to modernise Bond, then that is what it is. Modernisation and artistic license - not lies. Blame DAD for putting them in this awful situation in the first place.

At least parts of CR is as faithful to the original novel as OHMSS and FRWL (how many other Bond films can claim that). If there are a few `lies' added to the mix, then I'm happy with that. What I would not be happy with is seeing another crappy CGI/cheesy one-liner fest trying to outdo DAD.

Now that would be a lie.

At least they do not say that 'this movie will be the best of them all' about DAD unlike CR wherein they told us that this is going to be 'the beginning', and in the beginning, this is how James Bond act, which is, we know that it is not true.

And as for DAD's failure, the blame still lies on EON.

The way you're reacting seems, for me, that you are very much, for lack of suitable word, in love with the EON people even though we can clearly see that they have lied to us, that they have been playing us for a long time, and it was them that produces these Roger Moorish, crappy James Bond flicks. You could at least admit that EON is bad and wrong, the same way I admit that CR was successful.

[BondFan007]

Numerous changes which made EON disrespectful of Fleming, and it was all a lie.

This is a joke. The cinematic Bond has been different from Fleming's Bond for many years, before Craig's Bond, before Brosnan's Bond, before Dalton's Bond etc.

[BondFan007]

You could at least admit that EON is bad and wrong, the same way I admit that CR was successful.

EON has made mistakes, noone can deny that, even they have said that, but lied? are bad? You're going a bit far there, and I'd be careful if I were you as your post could be considered libellous.