Bond or Bourne?
- Thread starter the next guy
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 36,636
- Reputation
- 3,816
- Daps
- 54,846
- Reppin
- #Targset,#Heatgang,#Byrdgang
You got me a little confused here.That's my man. The way I see bond he's it. He's the guy Fleming created
I was completely dismayed with die another day and loved what he did and love that movie
Responding to your comment about Craig and how you aren't feeling him and I'm saying that's my man. After Die Another Day I was blown. Seriously. Couldn't stand that movie and felt like Bond was just becoming a joke and a punchline so once Craig stepped in and did Casino Royale, it was exactly what I needed and wanted
Devilinurear
Veteran
Naw a spy could get infonbut they are also there to sabotage and kill targets if needed. they are just suppose to be stealthy. With all that said bound is still a shyty spy.
Of course, JB is running. The entire CIA is trying to kill him. Bourne was an assassin not a spy. Huge difference of objectives. I'm writing an espionage screenplay now. Still on the synopsis. Spies are trying to get information or informants for said information. Assassins are just going to kill their ordered targets. That's what JB did. I'm a huge Bond fan but I love em both for what they are.
True but in essence, that's an assassin. Kill and not get caught. The ways of performing the assassination to control the narrative of their target isn't information gathering. It's creating new information.
IllustratorMike
All Star
Not really a fair assessment on Brosnan seeing that the writers gave him shyt scripts to work with. Only Goldeneye stands out during his tenure.
I've read countless interviews from him stating he wanted to portray the character with a more meatier subtext (Casino Royale) but it never came to pass and was tossed to the bushes after DAD which was at the time, the franchise's largest grossing movie...
It was a film of two halves that went to shyt after he got to that ice hotel
First half was promising.
And as much as I love CR, Craig lacks the steel charm of Connery despite the dope suits he's given to work in.
Sorry, breh but SPECTRE was ass and Craig is pretty much a copy of Bourne.
Not really a fair assessment on Brosnan seeing that the writers gave him shyt scripts to work with. Only Goldeneye stands out during his tenure.
I've read countless interviews from him stating he wanted to portray the character with a more meatier subtext (Casino Royale) but it never came to pass and was tossed to the bushes after DAD which was at the time, the franchise's largest grossing movie...
It was a film of two halves that went to shyt after he got to that ice hotel
First half was promising.
And as much as I love CR, Craig lacks the steel charm of Connery despite the dope suits he's given to work in.
Sorry, breh but SPECTRE was ass and Craig is pretty much a copy of Bourne.
Im not saying its all on him but that's still a part of his tenure. He had shytty scripts that made him neither fish nor fowl. He wanted to play it serious but still wink at the audience and yeah, not entirely his fault but it is what it is.
Craig works for me man. He's charming enough when he needs to be but clearly he's an assassin playing pretend which is what Bond is. Not a playboy masquerading as a spy but the other way around. Spectre's got faults but it's nowhere near as bad as die another day...or the world is not enough...or a view to a kill..or diamonds are forever lol. I mean I could go on
IllustratorMike
All Star
Thing you have to realize, if you don't already know, is that the reason why the 007 franchise has been so lasting is that it changes with the current flavor to stay viable. That being said, there are signature mannerisms that are expected of the MOVIE character that fans of a 50 year old franchise have come to expect.
Every film you just listed is entertaining in its own right; whether that entry is your cup of tea is a different argument.
You love Craig? Cool but he isn't even the realest out of the 007s...
Dat goes to Lazenby
Thing you have to realize, if you don't already know, is that the reason why the 007 franchise has been so lasting is that it changes with the current flavor to stay viable. That being said, there are signature mannerisms that are expected of the MOVIE character that fans of a 50 year old franchise have come to expect.
Every film you just listed is entertaining in its own right; whether that entry is your cup of tea is a different argument.
You love Craig? Cool but he isn't even the realest out of the 007s...
Yeah I get it. I understand all of that which is exactly what I said to someone else about it being malleable. Even if the producers acknowledge a certain film fell short of expectations or even if an actor does, there's at least one fan out there who loves it to death. Lazenby's movie being a prime example of that, or even License to Kill. But when I talk about it being better than those movies, it's purely from a movie standpoint, not even a "this is corny" standpoint. Like there are legitimate mind boggling things in A View To A Kill that makes me feel like John Glen fell asleep at the wheel
even though the score and theme are awesome. And The World Is Not Enough has those tonal issues that Brosnan talked about, where its not sure what type of movie it wants to be and of course there's Denise Richards. Tomorrow Never Dies would be a flick where I can say there's nothing objectively wrong with it but how you feel about it comes down to the personal taste thing you're speaking of. Shyt I even love parts of Moonraker over the ones I mentioned. I feel like Pierce has one objectively great Bond movie to his name and the rest fluctuate in quality. which isn't his fault at all.
And back to what you're saying about Bond changing with the times, that's exactly why Craig was needed when he came along. After 9/11, it needed to get a bit more serious and go back to the books. They tried to put that genie back in the bottle a bit with Spectre and I don't think you can with Bond anymore. It works with Mission Impossible because no matter who's taking it seriously or not, Ethan hunt is always taking it seriously and never winking.
@IllustratorMike also let me be clear breh. No matter what, it's still a Bond movie and I will still watch it when it's on. Even if it is Diamonds Are Forever and I'll find at least some level of enjoyment out of it because it's Bond and I just love the character. There are certain iterations and films that speak to me more but they're all a part of one character and the legacy like you said. While I'm not the biggest Roger Moore fan, I recognize that had he not been the guy in the 70s, we wouldn't be here now. Same with Pierce and same with Daniel. Everyone has been perfect for their time, even Timothy. After Roger, he was the perfect anecdote and after him, Pierce was perfect. So once Daniel is done, with two of the highest grossing flicks to his name and some of the best critically acclaimed flicks of the series, the producers really have a hard task for real. Do you do a 180? Do you play it out and get someone to basically do what he did? Where do you take the series creatively and tonally now? I don't feel like those answers are as clear now as they've been in years past
IllustratorMike
All Star
The Broccolis will do what they've always done: feel the pulse of whatever tone works at the moment and move forward accordingly.
IMO, they'll try and stick with the edgy flavor seeing that Craig's rendition keeping them eating good for the last decade (that and the fact that more Bourne films coming out keeps them on their toes, so they won't rock the ship just yet) but I'm starting to see a slow shift in what moviegoers prefer to pay to see. It's crazy, breh I know...
I would not be surprised if they gradually went back on a lighter tip ala, Brosnan but not totally Moore
That is if they can't cop Craig again for a few more films.
The Broccolis will do what they've always done: feel the pulse of whatever tone works at the moment and move forward accordingly.
IMO, they'll try and stick with the edgy flavor seeing that Craig's rendition keeping them eating good for the last decade (that and the fact that more Bourne films coming out keeps them on their toes, so they won't rock the ship just yet) but I'm starting to see a slow shift in what moviegoers prefer to pay to see. It's crazy, breh I know...
I would not be surprised if they gradually went back on a lighter tip ala, Brosnan but not totally Moore
I think they'll get Craig for one more and then he's done and then they'll move to the next but I do see them sticking with the more edgy feel. I think audiences pick and choose where we want our "edginess" and maybe because we've now become accustomed to Bond being more serious and like you said, they've been
really good since 06, i think it stays there. Like we expect our spies to be serious when facing real world threats but expect our comic book flicks to be more comic book-y now or again, its all based on character. The world hasn't suddenly become a less dangerous place since 9/11
IllustratorMike
All Star
Funny thing about escapism is that it changes like the weather. While The Dark Knight was a fantastic film, I'd hardly refer to it as comic-booky.I think they'll get Craig for one more and then he's done and then they'll move to the next but I do see them sticking with the more edgy feel. I think audiences pick and choose where we want our "edginess" and maybe because we've now become accustomed to Bond being more serious and like you said, they've been
Sometimes people pay for fantasy, if only for a few hours, to not be reminded of the dour state of the real world outside. Bond is fantasy first and foremost. None of it is real whether the hero wears a cape or in this discussion... A tux.
Mod def. but I guess he could be seen as different because he's always dealt with real world threats in a larger way. Most of his run is steeped in the Cold War and it clearly informs the movies. The past four movies have been steeped in the war on terror and how espionage is dealt with