Jump to content

James Bond 23


Phil Jackson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

That franchise is desperately in need of bringing on a top-tier director with a lot of talent. Same thing the Batman franchise did with Nolan.

 

I read a headline somewhere yesterday, though, which said that the new Bond flick was on hold, due to MGM being nearly bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That franchise is desperately in need of bringing on a top-tier director with a lot of talent. Same thing the Batman franchise did with Nolan.

 

I read a headline somewhere yesterday, though, which said that the new Bond flick was on hold, due to MGM being nearly bankrupt.

I read the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, am I missing something here? I agree that Mendes (or any top director) will be good for the franchise.

 

The two most recent pictures were okay (better than the farce of the last couple Brosnan flicks), but the new Bonds lack the humor, panache, gadgets -- basically the fun -- that makes Bond what he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two most recent pictures were okay (better than the farce of the last couple Brosnan flicks), but the new Bonds lack the humor, panache, gadgets -- basically the fun -- that makes Bond what he is.

 

I think a lot of that has to do with Daniel Craig as he has taken the character in a more 'bad-ass' direction for the past two. Do I think this is bad? No, I loved Goldeneye (which was a lot of fun) the same as which I loved Casino Royale. I think that Bond's character will obviously change depending on the actor that plays it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I am agreeing with this, I'm interested by the new films as they are just different, but these latest incarnations are more in lines with the original novels, no?

 

 

I'm not surprised you are interested in more gagets, Tom :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trevor Swaim
these latest incarnations are more in lines with the original novels, no?

 

Yes, very much so. The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books.

 

With the possible exception of Timothy Dalton as is considered by many to be the closest of all on-screen Bonds to the character in the novels. His movie "The living daylights" is one of my favorites among Bond movies, and I severely dislike Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have liked all of the actors who've played Bond. The issue for me is not the actors, but the scripts. To me, For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me were kind of the sweet spot. Amazing locales, tons of gadgets, amazing babes, bad guys with amazing lairs.... but above all that, Bond actually had to do some "spy" work back then, instead of just muscling his way through everything with machine guns. Imagine that: a spy movie that involves actual spying and doing some detective work.

 

The franchise hit its absolute lowest point with the Brosnan film where he drives an invisible car and partakes in one ludicrous CGI scene after another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The franchise hit its absolute lowest point with the Brosnan film where he drives an invisible car and partakes in one ludicrous CGI scene after another.

That was hardly Brosnan's fault, it's not like he wrote the scripts. AS Bond, he was passable, not the greatest which is reserved for Connery and not the worst which is reserved for Rodger Moore. As I said, to me Connery WAS the one and only James Bond but oddly enough, the most interesting Bond was George Lazenby. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character.

 

With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character.

 

With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that?

 

The current Alexa has a 16x9 sensor. The older ARRI D21 has a 4x3 sensor so is well-suited to using 2X anamorphic lenses. ARRI is releasing a 4x3 sensor version of the Alexa with an optical viewdfinder, and I'm sure Roger Deakins is first in line to get one, but I don't know if enough would be available to shoot the next Bond film in anamorphic. Not to mention, Deakins is not a fan of anamorphic lenses anyway so I suspect the next Bond film will be shot with spherical lenses like the last two were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character.

 

With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that?

 

The alexa can unsqueeze anamorphic images in viewfinder and monitor out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David and Keith,

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad to get straight information from people who use the equipment as opposed to the company's sales info. It doesn't really make too much difference, I'm excited to see where they go with the next installment.

 

~D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, very much so. The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books.

 

Are you kidding? FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S are VERY close adaptations, and the case can be made for THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER as well ... only dif on RUSSIA was the film actually ADDED complexity by introducing SPECTRE.

 

The Craig films take some stuff from Fleming, but it is so out of context (not to mention bone-stick stupid in plotting and execution) that it seems only like lip service to me (having said that, I still enjoy QUANTUM "OF SOLACE quite alot, in spite of the ADD editing and the huge miscasting error of hiring a guy who looks like he lost an acid fight to play James Bond.) CASINO was just so moronic and audience insulting, as though pro spies would keep secret info on their cellphones! What, nobody MEMORIZES stuff anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding? FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S are VERY close adaptations, and the case can be made for THUNDERBALL and GOLDFINGER as well ... only dif on RUSSIA was the film actually ADDED complexity by introducing SPECTRE.

 

The Craig films take some stuff from Fleming, but it is so out of context (not to mention bone-stick stupid in plotting and execution) that it seems only like lip service to me (having said that, I still enjoy QUANTUM "OF SOLACE quite alot, in spite of the ADD editing and the huge miscasting error of hiring a guy who looks like he lost an acid fight to play James Bond.) CASINO was just so moronic and audience insulting, as though pro spies would keep secret info on their cellphones! What, nobody MEMORIZES stuff anymore?

 

KH I'm going to let you know about the "actual names" rule of the forum. I will also suggest you go back and actually read the origional books. Daniel Craig (ouside of being blonde) is damn near perfctly fitting to Flemming's description of the character. He's a lethal, almost thuggish, killer. He's not a pretty boy clown with one-liners. (And that is the end of my fanboy rant)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH I'm going to let you know about the "actual names" rule of the forum. I will also suggest you go back and actually read the origional books. Daniel Craig (ouside of being blonde) is damn near perfctly fitting to Flemming's description of the character. He's a lethal, almost thuggish, killer. He's not a pretty boy clown with one-liners. (And that is the end of my fanboy rant)

 

I'm waiting with baited breath to hear about the actual names rule (I go as TREVANIAN on most boards, but use my real name here), but in the meantime, I'd suggest YOU reread the books -- I've owned them all in hardcover for well over a quarter-century and reread them (except SPY WHO LOVED ME) with increasing regularity ... even wrote some damned good analysis of Fleming way back in my distant youth, and professionally I covered QoS for ICG magazine. Dalton is probably closest to bookBond, and Connery is a thing unto himself ... but Craig would probably be best cast as LeChiffre's tall henchman in the CR novel, or maybe Felix Leiter AFTER the sharks had at him (biting up his face instead of his limbs, since Craig's grotesque features mark him as more Gollum-like than 007ish.)

 

I hate quoting from James Cameron, but with Craig's visage, you just 'have to look with better eyes' to see how wholly inappropriate he appears as Bond. And that's not even getting into the infantile film CR notion that is trying to pass this oldster who looks even older off as a rookie double-0. Would work with Henry Cavil as Bond in 2006, but not this guy, no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Film Gears

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...