If QOS is more like a normal Bond film....

[carl stromberg]

If QOS is more like a "normal" Michael G. Wilson penned Bond film with twice as much action, and a more normal Bond, can we not have out usual type of Bond actor back?

One of the main reasons put forward for Craig's casting was that the Bond character in Casino Royale needed a "great actor" to portray it. That is why all the thousands of charming, suave, young actors who actually looked like Ian Fleming's James Bond were overlooked.

If this is a more normal Bond film, why have we got Daniel Craig again? He simply does not look the part, and does not have the charisma to portray the typical cinematic Bond.

Are those fans of Craig not going to complain? Are they not fed up with the typical Michael G Wilson Bond film that we have seen after 1995?

[Kristatos]

Personally, if I come out of the cinema saying "I still don't think Daniel Craig looks like Bond, but that's my only complaint about the film", then I'll be pretty content.

[English Agent]

Personally, if I come out of the cinema saying "I still don't think Daniel Craig looks like Bond, but that's my only complaint about the film", then I'll be pretty content.

Well done 'Kris.....'

I mean at the end of the day who is perfect for the role?
We all have our own opinions...........

We have all watched the Bond series with different Bonds, some we prefer more than others.......

But at the end of the day if you enjoy the films.........thats the main thing.
Isn't it?

EA

[stockslivevan]

I disagree, I find Craig very charismatic for the role. He looks a lot more polished in QOS than CR with a better haircut, suits and he's suppose to be more control of himself than reckless. IMO, it worked well for CR and I was all for it, but it wouldn't work if they stretched out the rookie Bond act.

Bond has learned his lesson in CR, he's become more aware of his actions and will be more professional. Of course he'll think of his next mission as some sort of revenge, but that's fine. It was done in the novel Live and Let Die with Bond wanting to get back at SMERSH for what happened in CR. In QOS the only things that change are the organization and plot, but the motivation is still there.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more about it. Craig's Bond is suppose to evolve through time, so perhaps in Bond 23 the final touches will be put and you'll have a very polished Bond.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Personally, if I come out of the cinema saying "I still don't think Daniel Craig looks like Bond, but that's my only complaint about the film", then I'll be pretty content.

If Daniel Craig does not ruin the movie for you, then I think you will be quite content next November.

[Kristatos]

Personally, if I come out of the cinema saying "I still don't think Daniel Craig looks like Bond, but that's my only complaint about the film", then I'll be pretty content.

If Daniel Craig does not ruin the movie for you, then I think you will be quite content next November.

I think Paul Haggis is more likely to ruin it for me than Craig. How this mediocre hack got a reputation as a great writer is a bigger mystery to me than the casting of Craig.

[James]

Something more akin to a traditional Bond film would mean a more entertaining couple of hours in the cinema but the Daniel Craig factor is a big issue for me. I expected CR to be a really good film with a miscast lead. It turned out to be an overrated film with a miscast lead. If they made an enjoyable film more in the spirit of the cinematic Bond I'd admit the film was fun but I don't really see the point of that with DC. They might as well go for more lip-wobbling and trying to be Jason Bourne (which they have if early reports are any indication).

[The Sweeney]

My big fear is a Brosnan type Bond film, starring Daniel Craig. You all may be pleased by the film itself, but the guy not playing Bond.

However, I may think the guy playing Bond is ok, but despise the film itself, which is much, much worse!!

How ironic would that be, if you all ended up enjoying QOS more than me......

[Kristatos]

My big fear is a Brosnan type Bond film, starring Daniel Craig. You all may be pleased by the film itself, but the guy not playing Bond.

If CR had tanked, that may have been a distinct possibility, but I can't imagine that happening now. They've promised more action, but I wouldn't read too much into that. CR was unique among Bond films in only having two major action setpieces (three if you count Venice), both of which were in the first half of the film. I'm guessing, or at least hoping, that it will be a 60's-style, rather than a Brosnan-style Bond film. No shortage of action in the 60's Bond movies, and as Phil Gerrard said on afjb, anyone who objects to action scenes probably shouldn't watch Bond films.

[The Sweeney]

If CR had tanked, that may have been a distinct possibility, but I can't imagine that happening now. They've promised more action, but I wouldn't read too much into that. CR was unique among Bond films in only having two major action setpieces (three if you count Venice), both of which were in the first half of the film. I'm guessing, or at least hoping, that it will be a 60's-style, rather than a Brosnan-style Bond film. No shortage of action in the 60's Bond movies, and as Phil Gerrard said on afjb, anyone who objects to action scenes probably shouldn't watch Bond films.

I hope you are right, Kristatos....(there's a turn-up for the books. An anti-Craiger trying to reassure me about the next Bond film.)

[stockslivevan]

Sweeney, I don't think you should be too worried. DAD was made by incompetent people starring an incompetent actor and actress. The people behind QOS seem more concerned about telling a good story rather than trying to bring Bond in to the 21st century to please the MTV audience, with CGI everywhere.

[English Agent]

Sweeney, I don't think you should be too worried. DAD was made by incompetent people starring an incompetent actor and actress. The people behind QOS seem more concerned about telling a good story rather than trying to bring Bond in to the 21st century to please the MTV audience, with CGI everywhere.

Exactly........Well said 'Stocks'

[English Agent]

If CR had tanked, that may have been a distinct possibility, but I can't imagine that happening now. They've promised more action, but I wouldn't read too much into that. CR was unique among Bond films in only having two major action setpieces (three if you count Venice), both of which were in the first half of the film. I'm guessing, or at least hoping, that it will be a 60's-style, rather than a Brosnan-style Bond film. No shortage of action in the 60's Bond movies, and as Phil Gerrard said on afjb, anyone who objects to action scenes probably shouldn't watch Bond films.

I hope you are right, Kristatos....(there's a turn-up for the books. An anti-Craiger trying to reassure me about the next Bond film.)

Dont panic 'Sweeney'...................you know the film's going to be okay!!

EA

ps: In regards to the title of this thread...........what on earth is a 'normal'
Bond film supposed to mean?

[The Sweeney]

Sweeney, I don't think you should be too worried. DAD was made by incompetent people starring an incompetent actor and actress. The people behind QOS seem more concerned about telling a good story rather than trying to bring Bond in to the 21st century to please the MTV audience, with CGI everywhere.

I hope so. I guess my fear is more that it will end up being like TWINE. That was the film were the writers, directors tried to add more character and depth, yet failed miserably.

I hope EON learned their lesson from previous mistakes, and realise they have hit the jackpot now with CR, and build from there. It sounds like they are, but we won't know for sure until November.

[stockslivevan]

Sweeney, I don't think you should be too worried. DAD was made by incompetent people starring an incompetent actor and actress. The people behind QOS seem more concerned about telling a good story rather than trying to bring Bond in to the 21st century to please the MTV audience, with CGI everywhere.

I hope so. I guess my fear is more that it will end up being like TWINE. That was the film were the writers, directors tried to add more character and depth, yet failed miserably.

I hope EON learned their lesson from previous mistakes, and realise they have hit the jackpot now with CR, and build from there. It sounds like they are, but we won't know for sure until November.

The problem with TWINE was that the writing was bad and the action sequences were tacked on that didn't add anything, there was no natural flow. Even Michael Adapt went on record later saying that he wasn't satisfied with the finished product. Hopefully with Forster at the helm he'll create a flow with the emotional content and action sequences. That's all I hope for.

[Kristatos]

The problem with TWINE was that the writing was bad and the action sequences were tacked on that didn't add anything, there was no natural flow.

That and the awful miscasting of Denise Richards. I mean, OK, I can accept a nuclear scientist who looks like a supermodel as part of the fantasy world that Bond inhabits, but aren't there any actresses who look good in shorts and can at least act like they know what they're talking about when it comes to the science stuff?

[stockslivevan]

She looked more like Lara Croft too.