And this is why I’m not bothered by Amazon taking it over.
James Bond has always been bizarre with tone. Each Bond is different. As long as they’re not as Bourne-y as Craig’s then I’ll be fine. But them stealing bonds quips and gadgets and women… The fuck? You made British Jason Bourne with more trauma and less of an ability to cope with it.
Craig was more like the Bond books I thought? A few of the earlier ones like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service followed the books, but the rest were way out there. I don’t think I’ve seen any of the Craig films all the way through though. I saw part of one on TV.
The Craig films certainly showed the more cold, gritty side of Bond that was portrayed in the books, but that wasn’t really the intent of the earlier films. The earlier films were made more lighthearted and fun on purpose, really only following the books for the basic story. Even Brosnan’s Bond still kept a bit of the whimsical nature to an extent, though they certainly were catering to the 90s action audience. Craig’s Brosnan more crossed into psychological thriller in my opinion, and I wasn’t too big on them.
Which is why my favorite Daniel Craig Bond moment is the Casino Royale naked torture scene. Bond telling the torturer to hit him again, then laughing because he’s “scratching my balls” is peak whimsy (within the new Bond universe).
I want my Bond to be a bit silly, and that was sadly the only time they did it.
100% agree. Half the reason I love the old Bond movies was because they were so goofy, along with some good action scenes and a fun storyline. The new stuff just strikes me as big budget boxoffice grabs. They aren’t bad, but they aren’t 007. That said, the newer Casino Royale was miles better than the 1967 version. I love Peter Sellers, but that movie tried way too hard and failed miserably.
And this is why I’m not bothered by Amazon taking it over.
James Bond has always been bizarre with tone. Each Bond is different. As long as they’re not as Bourne-y as Craig’s then I’ll be fine. But them stealing bonds quips and gadgets and women… The fuck? You made British Jason Bourne with more trauma and less of an ability to cope with it.
Yeah. The Venn diagram of good Bond has a bit of Austin Powers and Inspector Gadget overlap, not Bourne.
Craig was more like the Bond books I thought? A few of the earlier ones like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service followed the books, but the rest were way out there. I don’t think I’ve seen any of the Craig films all the way through though. I saw part of one on TV.
The Craig films certainly showed the more cold, gritty side of Bond that was portrayed in the books, but that wasn’t really the intent of the earlier films. The earlier films were made more lighthearted and fun on purpose, really only following the books for the basic story. Even Brosnan’s Bond still kept a bit of the whimsical nature to an extent, though they certainly were catering to the 90s action audience. Craig’s Brosnan more crossed into psychological thriller in my opinion, and I wasn’t too big on them.
Which is why my favorite Daniel Craig Bond moment is the Casino Royale naked torture scene. Bond telling the torturer to hit him again, then laughing because he’s “scratching my balls” is peak whimsy (within the new Bond universe).
I want my Bond to be a bit silly, and that was sadly the only time they did it.
100% agree. Half the reason I love the old Bond movies was because they were so goofy, along with some good action scenes and a fun storyline. The new stuff just strikes me as big budget boxoffice grabs. They aren’t bad, but they aren’t 007. That said, the newer Casino Royale was miles better than the 1967 version. I love Peter Sellers, but that movie tried way too hard and failed miserably.
What do you get if you overlap the other three? deadpool maybe
The opening of casino royal is about as borne as it should get.
Craig has actually said that the serious tone was a reaction to Austin Powers existing. It was too on the nose.
Which is just cowardice