[Livingston]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The thing I like about the new Bond is that he brings back the idea that Bond is a dangerous guy. He has intensity, and he comes across as a bit of a sociopath. Bond is supposed to be dangerous. Moore was anything but.

That was a nice touch with Craig's Bond. That cool 'shaken not stirred' swagger was definitely replaced by something more dangerous. He's more like the Bond in the books from what I hear. I just hope they can eventually get a little of the 'shaken not stirred' back though.

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by kevin

The new Enterprise definitely is not as bad as the Daniel Craig Bond reboot...............that I can absolutely say.

Nothing is as bad as that.

Have you seen these?:

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

Maybe I'm strange, but I like the Bond reboot

And I also like the new Enterprise, although I like the TMP era refit more.

I agree with you on all counts.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

Have you seen these?:

Yep, and I would absolutely still say Quantum of Solace was considerably worse than any of them.



But then it may have a place on my top worst films I've ever seen period. And I've seen The Expendables. For all that they are not brilliant, I wouldn't place the SW prequels on that list personally.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Livingston

That was a nice touch with Craig's Bond. That cool 'shaken not stirred' swagger was definitely replaced by something more dangerous. He's more like the Bond in the books from what I hear. I just hope they can eventually get a little of the 'shaken not stirred' back though.

Me too but I guess that the old playful Bond somehow doesn't fit the times.

I have always liked the irony and distance in Bond. This new kind of hyperrealism doesn't do the trick in my opinion, it rather increases the risk that the franchise sinks into arbitrary action movie waters.

[Livingston]

Very true, that 'irony and distance' you see in Bond is something that sets it apart from every other spy genre movie. If you completely lose that quality you're going to end up being lost with all the other action/spy flicks that come out.

[kevin]

That's actually one of my feelings about the new films - to me, they don't actually have the feel of a Bond film.

The central character could have any name at all. And since the films themselves are fairly average anyway (they just don't have any rewatchability for me much) they don't stand out from the action/spy crowd already.

I'd still say cumulatively for me the Bourne trilogy is 'better' made on balance than the last two Bond films.

[horatio]

I think there is a general trend towards more realism. While Burton's Batman maintained a bit of a comic-book atmosphere Nolan's Batman doesn't.

This has many obvious advantages but there is something about a film emphasizing that it is a film. When you watch old silent movies they are of course less realistic than 'talkies' but precisely via emphasizing that it is not just a 1:1 copy of reality a movie can express itself.
I think in the case of Bond that's the, as Livingston called it so wonderfully, "shaken not stirred".

PS: While we are at it, I think that ST09 evaded this trade-off and achieved more realism without abandoning the sense of TOSish cheesiness and don't-take-yourself-to-seriously.

[FireDevlin]

Originally Posted by kevin

That's actually one of my feelings about the new films - to me, they don't actually have the feel of a Bond film.

The central character could have any name at all. And since the films themselves are fairly average anyway (they just don't have any rewatchability for me much) they don't stand out from the action/spy crowd already.

I'd still say cumulatively for me the Bourne trilogy is 'better' made on balance than the last two Bond films.

I liked the Bourne films. Too much 'shakeycam' for me personally (at least in the theater).

[kevin]

Shakey-cam in the Bourne films (and in Star Trek) doesn't usually bother me. I find it leads to a sense of 'being there' as opposed to being held at more of a distance through static camerwork.

Or the general realism that Horatio mentions. I tend to prefer it nowadays on balance. It feels more naturalistic.

But it can go too far............Cloverfield I find unwatchable because there's too much of it. Which is a shame, since I think I would like it a lot better if they had just reigned it back a little.

[horatio]

I'd say that the difference between Cloverfield and Star Trek or Dark Knight or Quantum Solace is that you sometimes have a third person perspective in the latter movies, of course nothing as extreme as a narrator but you get things like e.g. a hovering camera or some narrative distance to the characters.
Cloverfield on the other hand is totally zoomed in on its characters and can't work any other way. After all the purpose is not that you understand anything as viewer but share the confusion and fear of the characters (which are pretty flat and this is in my eyes the main weakness of Cloverfield).
A sequel might move in more conventional monster movies waters.