The name's Bond. James Bond. Skyfall

Daniel Craig is my favourite bond and Casino Royale is my favourite Bond movie.

This. Bond grew up when Craig took the role

Whilst QOS wasn't as good as Casino Royale (obviously) I personally dont think it's that bad a film.

Looking forward to this, 2012 is going to be an epic year for films; The Avengers, New Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, The Wolverine, The Hobbit and now this. Just hope the world doesn't end before they've all be released ;)
 
Daniel Craig has a dark side to him that is a Bond must.

Timothy Dalton had it also.

The fight scenes in CR and QoS were as realistic as they can be and although I enjoyed QoS, it wasn't a patch on CR.

Judi Dench as M is the icing on the cake.
 
Daniel Craig is bloody brilliant as Bond, when he was announced I refused to accept this blond bloke could carry off the suave, sexiness, danger and just general coolness of Bond but he does that and delivers so much more. I find him a lot more engaging and he's a lot deeper than other Bonds as he has a definite dark side which others have lacked.
I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale, and would put it up there as one of my favourite Bonds. I also enjoyed QoS for what it was, yes it wasn't quite a Bond film but still a very enjoyable watch and enjoyed seeing Bond being tested on a personal level stronger than he has before.
I can't wait for this new Bond.
Agree with Von above, Judi Dench is the definitive M. Can't think who could replace her.
 
Worst part about Quantum of Solace was that camera that could take a photo of the back of your ear and piece together a shot of your face :p

2012 is too far away :(
 
Worst part about Quantum of Solace was that camera that could take a photo of the back of your ear and piece together a shot of your face :p


I thought it was quite good....abit like supergoogle trawling through billions of photos to find an exact match....or something like that


Someone mentioned Batman - what about Christian Bale for Bond?
 
Glad the next one is finally confirmed... Craig's a fine Bond, QoS was pants but Casino Royale is up there in my top 5, or 10... :D Trouble is this just means I'll have to put off finally buying a James Bond box collection for another film.

DC is not suave though ...

Brosnan was an awesome bond, even in the cheesy films.

I always found Brosnan slimy, rather than suave. Roger Moore had it in spades though. :D
I thought it was quite good....abit like supergoogle trawling through billions of photos to find an exact match....or something like that


Someone mentioned Batman - what about Christian Bale for Bond?

I reckon he'd be another Dalton, playing it cold, distant with a bit of menace just under the surface, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
 
Brosnan was the best Bond full stop, he also got the worst films/directors/scripts to work with and still felt bond-ish.

The books don't really mean anything, 90% of people who watch the films haven't read the book, they can basically be seen as two separate entities. People liked the Bond filmes, the new bond films as of Casino, are an entirely different series of films, and no one told anyone.

Taken on their own, they are rubbish films :p

Casino Royale might have grittier action which may or may not be closer to the books(i've not read them) and I don't really care if they are a completely different style, its just a rubbish film thats well shot with stupid action. I love that if the camera jumps around fast and the punches are shot to look harder, the action is deemed better, at least since Bourne Identity.

The film is what I hate, the story is rubbish, the sitting in a casino playing cards while trying to be witty and failing miserably throughout, was simply boring, the epic fail of the mid film "action sequence" - must attach electrodes to my man boobs. Then whacking someone in the balls a lot.

That Bond comes across as stupid throughout, not witty, and not at all charming. Craig looks a bit weird, isn't charming but gets the girls? Older bonds make much more sense when picking up the women(not a lot, but some :p ).

QoS, is just rubbish, in every way, start to finish, horrific story, some woeful casting, ridiculous over the top unbelievable action. It was as non sensical and badly done as the later Brosnan films, asides from the action looking better shot, more high def and less embarassing like in Die another day with the drill going through the ship etc, it had the same embarassingly poor feel to it.

I'd quite happily see Brosnan back as Bond, with Goldeneye era scripts, darker, better action, whatever, but a much more "epic" bond villian/story line, but one thats coherant.
 
This. Bond grew up when Craig took the role

It's funny that Bond should grow up by going back to the very first book in a sort of re-boot of the series.

Brosnan was the best Bond full stop, he also got the worst films/directors/scripts to work with and still felt bond-ish.

Sean Connery was the best Bond, Timothy Dalton was pretty decent or at least possibly could have been with a few more films to prove himself. The rest have varied between good and poor but they'd be the top two for me.

The books don't really mean anything, 90% of people who watch the films haven't read the book, they can basically be seen as two separate entities. People liked the Bond filmes, the new bond films as of Casino, are an entirely different series of films, and no one told anyone.

Perhaps but if the films aren't really related to the books then should they still be called Bond? It's a bit like the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes - it has very little to do with the Holmes depicted in the books and nothing to do with the Basil Rathbone Holmes so it might as well be another fictional character yet they've used the Holmes IP to sell it to customers.
 
Good good - hopefully better than the last one. We haven't had a ski chase for some time maybe we could get one in this film - or maybe they realise they will never reach the excellence of the one in OHMSS and not bother.
 
Couldn't get into Daniel Craig in either of the last two films I must say.

Something will have to be significantly different to impress me with this next Bond movie.

In terms of personality I don't think any of them have ever eclipsed Sean Connery:


For me Connery, Moore and Brosnan all suit the character much more than Craig.

It's nothing to do with his acting ability necessarily for me, just his whole package doesn't fit in my eyes.

There was no need to try and copy the action-style pace of the Bourne Trilogy because Bond is not (in my eyes) that way about things.

That said, I'm not the biggest fan of the series or anything so this is purely a casual fans opinion.
 
The only good thing about QoS was Olga Kurylenko.

I will not watch another Bond film with Daniel Craig in it, as he looks like a plumber and not like Bond in the slightest. He only does one facial expression that could basically be anything, which does not make good acting, it's like they just carved him out of stone and plonked him on the set (for reference - see this pic: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm555324416/tt0830515. I get the impression that it's the Steve McQueen fans and the men who buy magazines that have aftershave adverts featuring bald chested men in little shorts on the back are the Daniel Craig fans and that's why he hasn't been fired or lynched thus far.

Between his horrible miscasting and the lame Bourne emulation/shakycam I have had it with contemporary Bond films.
 
Last edited:
I will not watch another Bond film with Daniel Craig in it, as he looks like a plumber and not like Bond in the slightest.

To me this makes it more believable. He does look a bit more industrial, but this is part of what convinces me that he could actually kick someone's arse all about the place. You are obviously into the downright corny Bonds, as brought about by Roger Moore in particular ;).

The crane scene at the start of Casino Royale was amazing.
 
Back
Top Bottom