• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Bond ...... James Bond. Old or new?

CigarStone

CigarStone

For once, knowledge is making me poor!
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
11,010
I'm curious how others feel about the new James Bond since Daniel Craig became the star? I love Daniel Craig as an actor and I watch everything he does. But I don't like what they did with the character.

To me, the attraction of the James Bond movies was always the guy, and his corny gadgets, who was too cool to be beaten. The gadgetry was just beyond the realm of believable so the movie was entertainment.

Now, he beats up 37 special forces type guys, leaps tall buildings, falls off tall buildings, drowns, has a few heart attacks, revives himself, beats up another dozen tough guys, and it seems they want you to believe it.

They've taken his character from one that everyone knew was reliant on cool stunts and gadgets, to one that is a human cyborg.
 
We live in a different world now and the Sean Connery version was perfect for the times that we lived back then. It was great entertainment as you said. That version of James Bond would bomb at the box office today.
I like Daniel Craig’s portrayal. Still sophisticated, but thuggish at the same time, which is perfect since live and let die no longer applies in today’s world. While I agree that dying of a heart attack, coming back to life, and then going to take out the villains, while needing zero recovery time is a bit far fetched. So is a felt hat that glides effortlessly through the air, yet has enough weight to slice into and becomes lodged into the titanium bars of Fort Knox. That was as outrageous as some of the adversaries James faced in Goldfinger.
 
jfields said:
We live in a different world now and the Sean Connery version was perfect for the times that we lived back then. It was great entertainment as you said. That version of James Bond would bomb at the box office today.
I like Daniel Craig’s portrayal. Still sophisticated, but thuggish at the same time, which is perfect since live and let die no longer applies in today’s world. While I agree that dying of a heart attack, coming back to life, and then going to take out the villains, while needing zero recovery time is a bit far fetched. So is a felt hat that glides effortlessly through the air, yet has enough weight to slice into and becomes lodged into the titanium bars of Fort Knox. That was as outrageous as some of the adversaries James faced in Goldfinger.
Click to expand...

This. When you have a character that has stood the test of time, like Bond, he has to evolve with the times or will no longer be in the public eye. Another great example of this is Batman. Comparing Adam West's Batman to Christian Bale's Batman and you have two completely different takes on the same character. Both can be enjoyable in their own ways.

I've recently had similar thoughts when it comes to Star Trek. I'm an avid fan of everything from the original series all the way up to Deep Space Nine with Voyager being hit or miss for me. The newest crop of shows just don't do it for me and it's not like I haven't tried. I just can't get into them at all. I'll just stick to what I like and let the newer shows do it's thing.
 
I think you are both right about times changing.

I just liked the character of gadgets and cool as opposed to inhuman capabilities. One is known to be fictional and the other tries to portray reality in an unrealistic way.
 
SPOILER ALERT, y'all.

Geez. Thanks for ruining it for me...
 
It was simple and they stated it when CR came out.. they felt they needed to compete with what the Bourne movies were doing.
 
The 1967 CR isn't really like any "James Bond" film, it's more of a slapstick farce of 007 films despite being released after some of the regular Bond films.
 
Just waiting for the next bond to be black and female because 'inclusivity ' 🙄🤮
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top