Well that's why I ended with "just goes to show". In other words, what means something to one person, may meaning nothing to someone else.

You are a Bond connoisseur X, not just for the cards, but for the films. You glimpse a SPECTRE ring and you pick it up as new. You see Mr. White and connect him to Quantum. You notice a change in music. This is the stuff that you get out of that trailer and it shows how much you are invested in the Bond universe, which is fantastic.

I on the other hand didn't pick up half of it and I didn't get excited about the half I did see. I don't care about Bond's family tree, or his apartment. I don't care if SPECTRE got new jewelry, or if it holds conventions. I forgot where Mr. White is supposed to be and I'm not sure what you mean by enhanced production values, Bond movies never came off as looking cheap.

What I want to see in an action movie trailer is action. I want to see stunts and stuff blowing up. The studio shows the audience the best bits to get them interested in going to see the film and I know you don't agree with me here, but this trailer did not have the best bits. It was not interesting to me as someone who was never a Bond expert, but also as someone who has not been very appreciative of the Bond films since the Craig era began. These last movies are better acted, better made, and possibly more realistic as spy thrillers, but I'm sorry, they are not fun and Craig as Bond is just depressing to me.

Subjective tastes aside, the irony of what you're saying Raven, and I mean no offence when I say this, is that the films are made by Bond connoisseurs for Bond connoisseurs, to use the word you've used.

But what on earth am I talking about???
Brosnan and his 'tone' of Bond films was the last choice of Cubby before he passed away. When Babs & Wilson took over they tried to mix things up with links to Bonds past (Paris Carver/Teri Hatcher was going to be Sylvia Trench from Dr No/FRWL) but they changed their mind, a subtle nod was given in The World Is Not Enough to Bond's marriage to Tracy/Diana Rigg in OHMSS (cue ski scene!). We were given the first info about Bonds parents in GoldenEye, Rosamund Pike was a hairs breadth from being called Gala Brand (the Bond Girl's name in the Moonraker novel) but they bottled it and so on. Ultimately they tried to inject more passion, thematic experiments and nerdy links to the books and films than ever before, but still the producers could not put their own stamp on their inherited 'action vehicle'. As much as Brosnan's films were loved at the time, are are still loved by many, continuing in that vein they were painting themselves into a corner, dramatically speaking.

The producers had got the rights to Casino Royale in '99, and then when the Bourne films and the like like came along and showed it could all be done a bit better (in some respects), I'm not surprised the producers saw this as the best time to reinvent the franchise. I hate the word 'reboot' with Bond, as the series had no real chronological order, and every new Bond actor brought a new tone and feel to thee series with them. What really happened was the producers finished Cubby Brocolli's era and got to start their own with no baggage and pick their own Bond no less. It's no secret Barbara didn't love Brosnan like Cubby did. And boy are they 100% in Craig's corner.

So what we have now are two producers who are reported, by the writers, directors and stars who work with them, to know every line of all the Bond films that have passed before, and who know Fleming's novels inside out equally well. People bang on about directors like Sam Mendes, and yes they bring their own individual flair, but make no mistake, these films are Babs & Wilson's babies all the way, and they run through the new era like the lettering through a stick of rock. That's why the more, shall we say, devoted fan such as myself sees everything I did in the trailer, because they are super fans too. Not just overbearing, money injecting, shareholder producers. Their passion is invested too.

Brosnan is my favourite Bond and his films were far more fun and better for it IMO, and I will agree with you Raven that sometimes Craig depresses me as Bond, despite his talent inside and outside of Bond. However the producers are, and were savvy business people, and they captured lighting in a bottle with Craig. The media joked Brosnan was too old in Die Another Day (he was a good looking 51) but the producers stopped the rot before it set into the public consciousness. Brosnan had one more in him at least, but cutting him loose allowed them to avoid all the Connery is too fat jokes, the Roger more is too old jokes etc. and they tapped into the mood at the time and made the series their own. And it's paid off BIG TIME. Consistent critical praise for a series previously seen by many as a bit sad and passé, and the films have turned into super blockbusters making obscene amounts of money. Skyfall took over a $1billion on it's own (the same as Brosnan's four combined) and I don't think there is anything to discourage the producers from continuing down the same path when everything is telling them their current approach is working. And if they hadn't taken this approach, we wouldn't have the serious heavy hitting talent interested in the series, behind and in front of the cameras. *cough* Ralph Fiennes *cough*

As for the trailer... they've been fighting behind the scenes to bring SPECTRE back to the big screen for decades, and after years of legal wranglings, I would have been shocked to not see the 'fan moments' in the trailer such as the SPECTRE octopus ring.
This is a teaser and one that sets up the reintroduction of the mysterious organisation many will not be familiar with, the film is called SPECTRE after all! They may not be the 'best' bits to some, but they are arguably the most important.

There will be bucket loads of action in the next trailer no doubt. I hope for more fun too, which I reckon we may be getting. Craig said he wants it (and Babs gives him what he wants!), there was more of it in Skyfall, and the just released teaser poster has Craig wearing nearly the same outfit at Roger Moore in Live And Let Die (a film Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes both love).

First of all X, I take no offense to anything you are saying. I don't know if there is a website where people discuss only Bond films, we are well away from the trading cards now, but we are in the Entertainment section so I guess it's alright.

I think I have seen every Bond movie in its time, the Connery ones probably on VHS. I don't remember some of them that well and when you talk about all the cross referencing of lines to other films I will take your word for it. I will also assume that you are quite right in the commitment of the current producers. However, we are of two different attitudes about this and while I will gladly give you your credit, you must admit that I can make a couple points too, just as someone who enjoyed most of the Bond movies before and hasn't liked one since they started the make over with Craig. Yes they have made billions, I've contributed to all of them myself, so I don't know what that says except that maybe people want to see familiar characters and hope the stories are good.

Anyway, not to write an essay, Brosnan was my favorite Bond. Golden Eye and TWINE were very good movies, entertaining while still being reasonably serious. It was time for him to be changed perhaps, but with only 4 movies done I think he had at least one more good one in him. Roger Moore took it way over the top, he needed to be retired and the franchise needed to lose the campy nature it acquired with his 7 films, but TSWLM and LALD were two of the best films done by any Bond. Connery also did 7 films as Bond, one not official and of course set the standard, but his Bond was not without humor, even though the early ones were more Cold War type intrigue. I won't take up talking about the others for now, and then there was Craig.

As a non-expert and not feeling any need to pay homage to the franchise I can't stand Craig's Bond. He has done 3 movies so far. I didn't like Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, but I hated Skyfall. Craig and the producers have continued the Bond character as an anti-hero who fails at least as much as he succeeds. I get that they want serious films, but Craig's Bond is a humorless soul who is pretty much a thug for hire. He keeps losing people that he supposedly cares about too, and this was my biggest complaint about Skyfall.

The best part in Skyfall belonged to Javier Bardem. As Silva he was a villain that had a good reason. There was no way that Bond should not have been killed by Silva, he was outsmarted by him at every turn. As it was, they killed off M instead of just retiring her. What was the point of the whole movie if Silva got to kill M at the end when he could have killed her at any time before? What did Bond accomplish, other than killing a man who didn't mind it because he got what he wanted anyhow? Even that was bogus, since Bond should not have survived either except for the grace of the script, yet he is now somehow renewed to fight on in Her Majesty's secret service. For what, because he did such a good job?

I would add for clarfication that I know M died after Silva from another's bullet, but I consider it one and the same thing, since dead is dead. Craig's Bond tends to lose the women close to him rather than save them.

I could go on and on, but I guess I just don't like Bond movies anymore and it doesn't matter how better made they are, if they are not enjoyable to me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

I do admit that you make some very valid points Raven, and they are points a great many people make too. I will sit here and say that with the Craig era we are getting the best acted, the best cast, the best directed, probably the "best" Bond movies ever made. But that doesn't mean they are my favourites, I just wanted to point out that the producers are as hardcore Bond fans as anyone. I think Craig is a great actor, but Brosnan, Dalton, Connery and Moore all tick my boxes more than Craig does in the role. Even so, I enjoy the tone and the stories of the new films, and everything contained therein even if I'm not 100% sold on Craig's version of 007. Yes they are more serious films overall, but if I want it a bit more tradition I'll stick The Spy Who Loved Me in the player. Enjoy the best of both worlds etc.

I loved Casino Royale when it came out, but after repeated viewings, it's flabbiness and corny dialogue revealed it no-where near as clever as everyone makes it out to be. Quantum of Solace I was initially unsure on, but I really enjoy it now because of how lean it is, it is a very taut film and I enjoy its less conventional approach at storytelling. Skyfall is my favourite of his trio because of Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Sam Mendes, Thomas Newman (composer) and Roger Deakins (cinematographer). Craig tries more humour, at last, bless him. Its clearly not his forte but I think it helps him enormously to try - I think he bounces off his supporting cast most successfully here. It is Dench's film almost as much as his, which is in itself unusual but well deserved.

You might be shocked to hear that in certain corners of the internet where Bond is discussed exclusively, Brosnan's tenure is pretty much reviled these days. People begrudgingly admit the quality of GoldenEye, but TWINE is regarded as "one of the series' worst" (for the record they are two of my top 5). It is the in-thing to lambaste his performance and his Bond films, especially in comparison to Craig. It had even got to the point even Brosnan slags off his own performance as Bond. But how easily people forget that Brosnan's performance resurrected the franchise and opened the door for all that has followed. I actually found a line in Skyfall quite insulting to the series and many fans, when Q says to Bond "Were you expecting an exploding pen? We don't really go in for that anymore". Maybe I'm being sensitive but it felt like a slap in the face to the legions of movie goers who might prefer their Bond not quite so dour. Even the holy Connery had gadgets.

As for your criticism of Skyfall, I think you're going a bit to Scott Evil here In GoldenEye, 006 could have killed Bond in the statue park but instead gave him a chance to escape from a helicopter he had tied him into. He could have blown up the armoured train, but again gave him his not quite "6 minutes" to escape. Then when 006 had Bond on the end of a gun in the antenna shack, he stops to brag to Bond about being the better agent, meaning Bond can escape again! We've had 50 years of this script get-out nonsense so it doesn't irk me in Skyfall all that much!

Scott Evil eh, well I've been called worse.

As always I enjoy your insights X and I will have to check out those Bond discussions, not to comment, just to see what I've been missing.

Regarding our ideas on favorite films, I don't know if you are a fan of The Big Bang Theory (if you are you will know this story), but a funny episode concerned Sheldon's favorite movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. After watching it with his girlfriend Amy for the first time, she pointed out that she enjoyed it even though it had a flaw. Sheldon said there was no such thing and demanded to know the flaw. Amy told him that if you removed Indiana Jones from the plot entirely, the story would resolve itself exactly the same way without him. In other words, he did nothing.

Upon reflection Sheldon had to agree that she was right and it ruined his favorite film for him.

So here's hoping that we keep on enjoying our movies and don't look too closely.

Bringing up Scott Evil actually ties into a relevant point about the flavor of the current Bond films. Within the past year, I recall reading an interview with the current Bond producers in which they talked about how the Austin Powers films influenced the direction the series has moved in. They said that the Austin Powers movies did such an effective job of skewering the classic Bond tropes that they were forced to reconsider many of them moving forward which is why the recent films have been light on things like the crazy gadgets and such. It's interesting to see how a successful parody can influence the original subject matter.

As for Daniel Craig, while I don't particularly care for him, his Bond installments have been pretty decent. The only real problem with his portrayal of the character is that he seems to lack Bonds sense of humor. He tends to be dour and a little one note in his performance. I think that Brosnan was better in the role.

Yeah, Craig was recently quoted as saying "Austin Powers really f***** us."

Thought I would post this interview with Babs & Wilson as it touches on a lot of the things that have been discussed. (Scroll down for pics of the UK/US teaser posters, Dave Bautista from Guardians of the Galaxy as Mr. Hinx, and some shots of the Day of the Dead sequence):

http://www.comingsoon.net/movi...el-g-wilson#/slide/7

Wilson: "We want [Craig] for as long as he'll have us."



UK TEASER QUAD POSTER:

This message has been edited. Last edited by: X,

So Daniel Craig is out supposedly promoting Spectre and was asked about doing another Bond movie. His reply, "I'd rather take this glass and slash my wrists". He is ready to move on, except maybe he'd do one more for the money.

So there you have it Bond fans straight from the horse's mouth, although I would pick a different end of the animal to describe him myself. He takes a role that is iconic, gets millions of pounds for it, and than is so gracious about it all.

So I guess he can go back to making those artistic, boring and snoring movies with his wife, who was also too good to keep doing Mummy films, even though no one heard of her before that. These two are so superior they deserve each other.

I thought I read from several sources over the last few years that he had a written contract to do 5 movies. He's only done 4

I guess this is how Sean Connery felt in 1966 when he could not wait to quit

Much ado about nothing. Craig is under contract for one more film and his comment about wanting to slash his wrists is more due to fatigue from completing Spectre than it is about wanting out.

When someone shows you who he is, you should believe him.

Craig is obligated to promote a film that he has been paid a King's ransom to make. If that's not in his nature, it is part of the job he took. If he says he wants to move on, the producers should take him at his word and find someone else. Preferably someone who doesn't always look sick to his stomach.

Man, if it's this tough just playing a spy, imagine how hard it must be to be a real one...

Reading the full interview, he's hardly slamming the job. I read it as humour and I'd wager that's how it's intended... It's an 8 month shoot and he's in the significant majority of scenes. It's hardly a 9-5 job - it would consume your entire life for 8 whole months. The fitness regime alone would be killer. The interview clearly states he just came off said 8 months of filming just 4 days before the interview - of course he's joking, he's just been asked if he wants to go back to work after wrapping! His use of 'Now?' and his answer to the follow up question make that clear enough. I think, if anything, it's the old problem of tone of voice not translating over the internet.

The media is just sensationalising it all as they do about anything. Zero need to be rude about Rachel Weisz...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rwn410,

quote:

Originally posted by rwn410:
Reading the full interview, he's hardly slamming the job. I read it as humour and I'd wager that's how it's intended... It's an 8 month shoot and he's in the significant majority of scenes. It's hardly a 9-5 job - it would consume your entire life for 8 whole months. The fitness regime alone would be killer. The interview clearly states he just came off said 8 months of filming just 4 days before the interview - of course he's joking, he's just been asked if he wants to go back to work after wrapping! His use of 'Now?' and his answer to the follow up question make that clear enough. I think, if anything, it's the old problem of tone of voice not translating over the internet.

The media is just sensationalising it all as they do about anything. Zero need to be rude about Rachel Weisz...

This.

Well put rwn410. I started writing something similar yesterday but couldn't be arsed. Maybe I follow Bond too closely and too me what he is saying is all more than obvious. I'm not totally sold on Craig's interpretation of Bond, but like everything he does, he throws himself into it 100% and takes it all very seriously. He then takes a break, does another project or two and comes back to the next 'intense' Bond film. Despite him playing coy, he is doing a 5th Bond film and this was confirmed a while back after his 3-picture deal was completed. I reckon they'll offer him a King's Ransom to do a 6th film and finish on the same number as Connery.

People also seem to forget, or don't realise, that Craig has an extremely good relationship with the producers (Babs loves him) and they'll do what it takes to keep their star with them, and they have said as much publicly. Casino Royale even did so well it was reported they gave him a huge bonus beyond the salary they'd already agreed: they have looked after him from the very beginning. Not only that but Craig is extremely involved in these films and their creative decisions, he was even given a Co-Producer credit for SPECTRE, which no other Bond actor has managed these last 53 years. Craig was the one to asked Sam Mendes to direct Skyfall without any permission from the producers to do so and look how that turned out... only over a billion at the box office... the most successful British film ever made etc etc. And SPECTRE will likely beat it hands down.

I think the main problem with Craig is that he does not engage with his media 'darling' persona and people don't quite get just how dry and acerbic he can be with his comments.

Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were also close to the producers

One thing for sure, Daniel can't possibly enjoy making those ultra lame Heineken beer commercials that have been airing of late.
Even so, that's part of the job, so he grins and bears it.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
One thing for sure, Daniel can't possibly enjoy making those ultra lame Heineken beer commercials that have been airing of late.
Even so, that's part of the job, so he grins and bears it.

For the $6m/£3.88m he's reported to be getting in sponsorship deals, I think anyone would grin an bear it!

I'd be willing to drink even something as terrible as Heineken for that!

Spectre, well worth the wait!

Saw it on Thursday - I found it good enough on its own, but not a stand out entry in the franchise, there are many more that I'd watch again over it. The day of the dead opening sequence was great fun though and loved the tracking shot!

The theme sequence was very tentacle-y.