The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Quantum of Solace
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-03-2008, 03:48 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default Its only my opinion but...

The Bonds are the best in this order:

Connery
Dalton
Graig
Lazenby
Brosnan
Moore
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-03-2008, 09:14 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

I think I said this already somewhere else when Bond-as-reboot came up, so I'll keep the repetition short:

I felt Brosnan benefitted strongly with better scripts, more serious stories and characterizations. On the flip side, I think Dalton suffered terribly in the part with very weak scripts. Tim's era in the franchise was its most unfocused, though no fault of his own. With Brosnan, the franchise was steered more in the direction of the better classic Bonds of old, but I think they were too worried about placing his character in the current social climate to make him "relevant" again.

In CR, Bond once again was unapologetically James Bond, and the film emphasized his flaws as a man (and agent) rather than smoothing them over with lots of panache and suave stylings.

"Give me a vodka martini, dry."
'Shaken or stirred, sir?'
"Do I look like I give a damn?"

That said volumes about the new 'old Bond.'
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-04-2008, 02:09 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

I find myself saying this alot on here, but yeah Mission, totally agree there! Dalton wasn't all that bad. He was in only two movies if I remember right, but both were weak story-wise. The ingredients just didn't jell with him. Brosnan, IMO, probably made only one decent film, Goldeneye, but he still carried well in the others, he just embodied the role so well. But with the CR and now new Bond film, it's a totally different animal. I like it, but draw no comparison to the other Bond pictures. It may be the same with this new Trek movie, who knows?
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-04-2008, 04:43 PM
Quark's Avatar
Quark Quark is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 2,622
Default

After watching Dalton several times as James Bond, I've grown to get used to him. He is my second favourite 007. I'm so glad I didn't grow up with Roger Moore as James Bond. He was just too light-hearted and it was hard to take him seriously. In addition, not only was he almost sixty when he did his last one, he actually started to look old and had. The girls he got with were young enough to be his daughters.

Brosnan
Dalton
Connery
Moore
Craig
Lazenby
__________________
*The word "dabo" means "I will give" in Latin, and "Gold" in Aramaic.

J.J. "Binks" Abrams is taking over sci-fi!
Fans Expendable
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-11-2008, 08:41 PM
Tiberius1964's Avatar
Tiberius1964 Tiberius1964 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston View Post
Yeah, I agree, he's also closer to how Bond was portrayed in the book Casino Royale. When I first read it I was surprised at how rough and ruthless he was, he didn't seem like the movie Bonds at all, though they were Ruthless, they were just much more charming and suave than the way he's depicted in the book. Kinda like Dracula I suppose, you have Lugosi, the suave, good looking, charming Dracula and then there's the Dracula of the book, very different...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Indeed, and I think that's one of the reasons CR was so successful -- it didn't rest on the franchise's laurels of a suave, debonair, cool spy. Craig's Bond is an active, vulnerable agent confronting a dangerous world and getting punished in the process.

I had the good fortune to read the CR book before the film came out and was quite pleased at the connections. Until then, I 'applauded' the Brosnan films for being more like the old Connery days, but watching them now, they pale in comparison to this new Bond era.
Hi, Livingstone & Mission. I understood that, as CR was a reboot of Bond (kinda like "Bond Begins"), we're seeing a British agent who is not yet "James Bond" - the ruthless killer and womanizer who is also capable of being polished, suave, and cultured; and who has a definitive flair in everything he does.

You certainly see the ruthless killer and womanizer in CR, and you see a few baby steps toward the suaveness (is that a word?), such as when he preens in the mirror in his "dinner jacket". But he's not there yet. That was why he never said, "Bond. James Bond." until the end...

And I do have to admit, that in "Die Another Day" when Brosnan...uhh, I mean Bond...gets into the bad guy's ice racer and takes off across the lake with the Icarus beam chasing him...and the bad guy's techie looks up and says, "Uhh, Boss? He just beat your best time," I said to myself, "This is what a Bond film feels like!"

Have fun!
__________________
Tiberius1964
"Having is not so pleasurable a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-11-2008, 08:48 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Hi back at ya Tiberius

That's what I liked about Casino Royale, he wasn't Bond until that last scene. Everything that happened to him in that movie helped shape who he would become. I really liked what they did with it. That ending was probably one of the best moments out of any Bond movie and they topped it off with the old 60's style guitar track for the theme, it wasn't all slick and jazzed up as the more recent Bonds were.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-12-2008, 02:33 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

The thing is if you look at the history of the Bonds they've attempted (in their own way) back to basics before. There is a clear cycle from 'Dr No' that they start more realistic then gradually escalate until big budgets and high-concept ideas take over, then around 'OHMSS' they go back to basics with the gritty Bond who loses his wife. Then Moore takes over and being the 1970s they end up sending him into space in 'Moonraker' (maybe one of the silliest - yet I do like it!), So they again return to more grounded Bond with 'For Your Eyes Only', stayed realistic for Dalton then began to become more outlandish under Brosnan (who was himself one of the best I think) reaching it's peak with 'Die Another Day' - huge box-office but critics were starting to tire having seen Bourne etc come along so this is just another reboot, but unlike the others it takes us right back to seeing Bond before he became Bond, which was the film's greatest triumph thus relauching Bond for the more demanding audience of today. But if he stays in the role long enough the cycle will likely repeat again.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-12-2008, 06:54 AM
Tiberius1964's Avatar
Tiberius1964 Tiberius1964 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
The thing is if you look at the history of the Bonds they've attempted (in their own way) back to basics before. There is a clear cycle from 'Dr No' that they start more realistic then gradually escalate until big budgets and high-concept ideas take over, then around 'OHMSS' they go back to basics with the gritty Bond who loses his wife. Then Moore takes over and being the 1970s they end up sending him into space in 'Moonraker' (maybe one of the silliest - yet I do like it!), So they again return to more grounded Bond with 'For Your Eyes Only', stayed realistic for Dalton then began to become more outlandish under Brosnan (who was himself one of the best I think) reaching it's peak with 'Die Another Day' - huge box-office but critics were starting to tire having seen Bourne etc come along so this is just another reboot, but unlike the others it takes us right back to seeing Bond before he became Bond, which was the film's greatest triumph thus relauching Bond for the more demanding audience of today. But if he stays in the role long enough the cycle will likely repeat again.
Absolutely affirmative on that cycle idea. You can hear it in the theme songs - every time a new actor takes over as Bond, the theme song is macho, aggressive, etc (e.g., Thunderball, Live and Let Die). As time goes on with that actor, the theme music tends to become more romantic (e.g., Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only).

I remember hearing or reading an interview somewhere with one of the original producers of the Bond series - it might have been Cubby Broccoli himself. Anyway, this person said, "Every time we start planning another Bond picture, we say to ourselves, 'We're going to do it like From Russia With Love.'" And then the producer complained that the picture always ends up spiralling out of control, with more and bigger stunts and special effects set-pieces, etc.

There has been, in cinema, a tendency to try to do things bigger and better - that every movie has to top all the previous movies for the number, intricacy, and "eye-poppingness" of the stunts - and Bond films not only competes with the previous Bond films, but Bourne, XXX, and all the other action-adventure films out there. There seems to have been enormous pressure to have Bond be the best - and best was measured in the quality of the stunts.

Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging back toward more character development, interaction, etc. We can keep the technical stuff we've learned in the last 20 years of focussing on how to stage stunts, how to do special effects, etc., but hopefully the need to push the envelope in every film is slowly dying away...
__________________
Tiberius1964
"Having is not so pleasurable a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-12-2008, 07:59 AM
Don Farnsworth Don Farnsworth is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 295
Default

The trailer is better than all the bond films of the last 20 years put together (Casino Royale excepted).
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-12-2008, 01:21 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius1964 View Post



There has been, in cinema, a tendency to try to do things bigger and better - that every movie has to top all the previous movies for the number, intricacy, and "eye-poppingness" of the stunts - and Bond films not only competes with the previous Bond films, but Bourne, XXX, and all the other action-adventure films out there. There seems to have been enormous pressure to have Bond be the best - and best was measured in the quality of the stunts.

Hopefully, the pendulum is swinging back toward more character development, interaction, etc. We can keep the technical stuff we've learned in the last 20 years of focussing on how to stage stunts, how to do special effects, etc., but hopefully the need to push the envelope in every film is slowly dying away...

Agreed, I think 2002 was an interesting year for Bond because of the films you mentioned. You had established Bond in 'Die Another Day', and two competitors in 'XXX' and 'Bourne'. The first aping the Bond idea of bigger explosions are better, the latter going down to guile, smarts and old-fashioned techniques. 'XXX' proved you can't ape Bond as it was less successful, but Bourne clearly got into the minds of the Bond producers who realised thay had gone to far in the visual direction, forcing them to re-evaulate Bond and what he was and how to keep him viable. Thus - Reboot!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.