The James Bond Thread: RIP Robbie Coltrane

[Crazyman]

Agreed on "Christmas only comes once a year" - a line so obvious and bad it was predicted on Internet forums over a year before the film got released. It's remembered for being bad.

The worst part about that quote is you know they only named her Christmas so they could make that joke at the end

[dalsh327]

Countdown to Feb 18th.

[DieselDaisy]

The bitterness to Craig, I think initially it was due to people feeling he was the wrong choice when he was case, didn't really fit into the tall dark handsome mold that had come before. Craig seemed short in comparison when he was cast and that coupled with the longish blonde hair he had at the time surprised and turned quite a few people off.

You hit the nail on the head. At the unveiling, of Craig's Bond, which I believe was on a boat in the Thames, Craig had long blond hair and was puny: he literally had no muscle. You can see why there was scepticism in the air. There was also a touch of the English north-south divide about the choice. Some found Craig too 'northern' (the fact that Bond has been played by an Irishman, a Welshman and a Scot shows the weirdness and hypocracy of the English class system).

[Georgy Zhukov]

Craig also got shit for wearing a life vest when the Royal Navy Commandos escorted him across the river Thames. Dude ended up being fit though.

[pugachev]

Havent watched a Bond film since Die Another Day. Any of the Craig films worth seeing?

[Georgy Zhukov]

Havent watched a Bond film since Die Another Day. Any of the Craig films worth seeing?

Yeah.

Did you like Die Another Day?

[pugachev]

I dont remember it really, I saw it in theaters and I remember liking it ok I think. All I remember is Halle Berry's fine ass and the Igloo Hotel. I enjoyed the other Brosnan films and a few of the older films.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Then you should like the Craig films.

Halle Berry was hot in Die Another Day. Especially that dress she wore a the gene therapy clinics.

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

Just bought a Xbox 360, anyone know whether this game is good? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007_%282010_video_game%29#GoldenEye_007:_Reloaded

I've only played one Bond game ever before, it was called NIghtfire I think on the PS2, and it was awesome...

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

Well it appears that all Bond games for the current generation consoles have been average only. What a shame. 007 Legends has so much potential but nobody likes it.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Bumble's Bridge Pickup

[Georgy Zhukov]

GoldenEye with Daniel Craig seems interesting. I remember the original game more than the actual movie so when I watch movie again I just compared it to the game.

The game was better.

[Tater Totts]

Just watched Quantum of Solace, really enjoyed it but felt knackerd by then end of it due to the relentless action scenes

[Georgy Zhukov]

I felt the film could have done without the Bourne style fight between Bond and Slate.

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

GoldenEye with Daniel Craig seems interesting. I remember the original game more than the actual movie so when I watch movie again I just compared it to the game.

The game was better.

Yeah that looks interesting, but plenty of people say the online multiplayer lags like hell and nobody plays it on the Xbox 360... could buy it for the single player campaign alone though, it can be had for pretty cheap.

[James Bond]

GoldenEye: Reloaded is a good game. Never bothered with the online (I've got the Wii version anyways) but the single player campaign is very satisfying. They basically updated the story to fit Craig's Bond and changed some of the environments. Aside from the look of some things, it has next to nothing to do with the original GoldenEye game save for the story. Still, it can be fairly challenging in parts and it was fun. I've seen it for like $20 so it's definitely worth a play for that price.

Best game from the Craig era so far is Blood Stone. It's fairly short (I think it took me about five hours) and not overly difficult, but they were on to something with that one. A shame Activision canceled the sequel. Third-person worked well for Craig's Bond - good stealth and cover mechanics and an easy but fun hand-to-hand system. Original story and Craig's voice plus fun, re-playable missions made it a solid game. Some driving too to give some variety.

007 Legends isn't as bad as the reviews are making it out to be - it's at least fun. It's ridiculously short though. Basically, it could have been more than what it is. The driving missions are a wasted opportunity and using flashbacks to tie the stories together was a bit uninspired, but if you're a Bond fan there is something satisfying about raiding Fort Knox, fighting Oddjob, then next round raiding the Piz Gloria and fighting Blofeld. A bit repetitive, but entertaining enough. The Skyfall DLC is also a wasted opportunity. Multiplayer is fantastic though - played it with some friends the other day.

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

^ Thanks a bunch. Good to know.

What a shame that the store I ordered from hasn't even put the Xbox to mail... it's been 5 days since I bought it, and they promised it would arrive for Xmas. Just cancelled the order and will start looking for a better price of the same bundle. Got majorly fucked over, I was planning to be playing Halo next week already... I have 2 weeks after Xmas, before my military service begins, and would have loved to play with my new console before that. Oh well. At least during the military I can play on weekends.

[Tater Totts]

I felt the film could have done without the Bourne style fight between Bond and Slate.

Agreed, films felt like a series of actions scenes interconnected by a little plot, very much in contrast to Casion Royale. One thing I did really like was Fields' death, the little nod to Goldfinger when she was found on the bed was cool.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I need to watch the walkthroughs since I don't have a council of any kind.

Critics always talk of a third Bond film being the one that solidifies the actors role as Bond. We only have four films like that. Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, The World is Not Enough and now Skyfall. The World is Not Enough is by far the weakest. Does anyone think it would have worked for Lazenby and Dalton?

People can say all they went about Moonraker, it was the highest grossing Bond until GoldenEye and that is before inflation.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Georgy Zhukov

[James Bond]

I think it just seems like the third film for each actor contains the best performance (not necessarily the best film, though you can make fair arguments for all of them) because by the third film the actor has had time become comfortable in the role and solidify the way he plays the character. Craig is a bit of an exception, as I've found all his performances to be pretty equal. Even with the changes to Bond's character in each film, his performances have been very consistent, perhaps the most of any Bond to date.

Goldfinger carries the novelty of being the first blockbuster Bond, and Spy was where Roger was able to just be Roger. Both just happened to be the third film. Skyfall just happens to be a damn good film.

Moonraker came off of the success of Spy and the huge success of Star Wars. Definitely a cash in, so the box office is not surprising. I think of Moonraker as a companion film to Spy. Both directed by Lewis Gilbert, both have Jaws, both have villains who want to wipe out the earth and start new lives (one underwater, one in space) and so on. It's fun for what it is. Aside from the notion of Bond in space, it's a good entry in the series.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Do you think it is an overthought coincidence? I felt Sean Connery had the role nailed from his first scene. From Russia With Love has by far his best performance, Goldfinger like you said just became the first smash hit. They had trouble with establishing Roger Moore as Bond. I guess unlike Connery he came off as a dick when he hit women. The Spy Who Loved Me perfected him as Bond. It is weird when people consider him a soft Bond even though he probably killed more men in cold blood than any Bond. In Spy he killed a guy after giving him information (after a terribly choreographed fight sequences so it seems Roger's Bond was pissed because the guy grabbed his tie) and then he shot the unarmed Stromberg like six times. Then in For Your Eyes Only he again cold bloodedly kills an assasin. I don't know, Roger's Bond seems kind of dangerous.

Moonraker was a smart business move by EON. For Your Eyes Only would have looked silly compared to what was going on. Moonraker was as over the top they went with Roger Moore. I mean even the Venice boat had gadgets. Octopussy would have made a great Swan song for Moore. But the guy was making so much profit they had to get him for one more film.

At what point did OHMSS become seen as one of the better Bonds? Virtually forgotten until they started playing it on TV and DVD release. It was a long movie but it was paced right. I felt that Lazenby, someone who was an average actor had more chemistry with Diana Rigg than Craig did with Eva Green for the third act of Casino Royale. They were wounderful up until Bond gets captured but the "love story" aspect of CR felt forced. Wasn't enough to ruin the film, but it seems there was restraint on making Bond fall in love. For all we know, he did it twice in the novels.

I can't help but imagine how awesome Dalton would have been as Casino Royale. His Bond character isn't that suave romanizer, he was more of a romantic. I am surprised he isn't as popular with women.

[James Bond]

That's a good way of putting it, and I agree - it's one of those coincidences that's bound to happen when you take 50 years of films and six actors. Sean's performances were pretty consistent in his first four films, and I agree with his best being From Russia With Love. You Only Live Twice was the first where he lost that twinkle in his eye, no doubt due to the stress he was under at the time (a failing marriage, contract disputes, unhappiness with his lack of freedom from the press, and so on).

Sean had that kind of darkness to him that made it more believable that he could love a woman then kill her right after. Roger, both in performance and demeanor, was much lighter, but you're right. He actually did kill quite a lot of people. He's said in interviews he adapted the mentality that "Bond was a killer who didn't like killing" and swore by it to get through his scenes (since in real life he despises guns and violence).

As a little side note - the new Connery biography makes it clear that Sean didn't necessarily want to leave the role as it's seemed over the years, but just felt that he was being underpaid as he felt (in restrospect, quite rightfully) that he had contributed to the success of the series. He demanded $1 million upfront for OHMSS, plus his usual net profit. The producers, feeling that Bond could exist without Connery, denied it and negotiations fell through. Lazenby was paid $50 000. Sean coming back for Diamonds was totally negotiated by United Artists, with no involvement from Harry and Cubby.

OHMSS finally got rediscovered and appreciated when it hit television. The first time was 1976, though ABC butchered it. Check this out:

http://shatterhand007.com/OHMSSNarration/OHMSS76NarratedVersion.html

Details the whole thing.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Yeah I heard about that. I can't believe they re-edited the film like that. It was pretty common back then. They did it for The Godfather films when parts I and II were edited together in chronological order with deleted scenes from the film added. It actually looked fantastic. Probably the only good example of re-editing and that was obviously creatively controllbed by Coppola. OHMSS seemed like a mess. I am sure people appreciated the original version better. That opening fight scene was fucking brutal.

Moore wasn't as weak as many people thought he was. He didn't agree with the violence scenes but he did it anyway because he knew that was his character. He even did his own stunts.

Cubby and Harry seemed fine with Connery in DAF because it meant they can finally get a picture over with. No one expected Connery to return but it did give the series a jump it needed. DAF came out when ticket sales started going up. A lot of this was helped by more violent films with increased sexual content.

Something weird happen in the 1980's though. For Your Eyes Only was the most attended Bond of the 1980's and after that they went into decline. Could be less people seeing movies, people getting tired of the films. The films were essentially the same movie but redressed. One fan seems to blame the lack of success for the Dalton films on the fact that there was so much hype on Pierce Brosnan that when Dalton got the role they were indifferent. Even after Brosnan the films box office numbers were average. They never met the success of the Connery and the early Roger Moore films. Only Daniel Craig has never matched their success and his James Bond serves as a departure from the forumla.

[James Bond]

I think Bond was just over saturating the market by the end of the eighties. One film every two years. Plus, all five were directed by John Glen. Every film had become more or less the same, and I think audiences were getting tired of it. The Living Daylights did okay money wise but that and License to Kill are among the lowest attendance for any film in the series. I don't think it was lack of acceptance of Dalton so much as it was people just getting tired of Bond films in general. I also think License to Kill bombing at the domestic box office is the reason no Bond since has been released in the summer.

For the most part, longer breaks than the usual two year gap have befitted the films which followed. GoldenEye after a six year gap, Casino Royale after four years, and Skyfall also after four years. MGM going bankrupt was actually good in the sense that production did quietly continue and lots of time was dedicated to developing the story so it would be ready to go as soon as they could. Also, had Skyfall come out in 2011 as originally planned, we would have missed a film for the 50th Anniversary.

[Vincent Vega]

What do you make of this song and it's lyrics? I think they're kinda deep. Love the way they were used with Don Draper. I think it's about having a double life, sort of you and the you you want to be, or the men who lead double lives as family men and have a mistress on the side, or perhaps it's about how you really only get two chances in life to get it right, you only get a second chance, make the best of it...And you have to pay a price for that second shot, or your dreams.

You Only Live Twice or so it seems,

One life for yourself and one for your dreams.

You drift through the years and life seems tame,

Till one dream appears and love is its name.

And love is a stranger who'll beckon you on,

Don't think of the danger or the stranger is gone.

This dream is for you, so pay the price.

Make one dream come true, you only live twice.

And love is a stranger who'll beckon you on,

Don't think of the danger or the stranger is gone.

[luciusfunk]

I thought it was YOLO. /shrug