Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The James Bond Franchise


BizBuzz
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Bump for this:

When exactly did trailers for trailers start?

I don't know if it was the first movie to ever have a trailer for the trailer, but Fifty Shades of Grey got a lot of attention with that 15 second clip that featured Beyonce doing a new version of "Crazy In Love". That would have been in 2014, so five years, at least. I've heard those teasers at the beginning of a trailer on Youtube helps with the view counts.

*

On 8/25/2019 at 11:13 AM, supposebly said:

As a non-native speaker, No Time to Die feels ambiguous.

Does it mean too busy to die, as I don't have time to die or

Does it mean this is no time to die, I still have things to do, there are important things to deal with?

Does it feel ambiguous to native speakers too? Not that it matters, I don't think these titles ever meant much. But it's been bugging me for days.

There are short Bond titles about a person/place/thing (Goldfinger, Skyfall, etc.), and then there are Bond titles that are phrases, meant to evoke a certain mood or feeling. I think No Time to Die falls into the latter camp and was probably picked because it could be interpreted multiple ways. Being that this is a Bond movie like, it might also be a reference to Dr. No.

Edited by Dejana
2 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

From The Guardian:

Honor Blackman, James Bond's Pussy Galore, dies aged 94

The portrayer of arguably the best-named Bond girl ever.

I love the scene in Goldfinger where Bond wakes up and asks, "Who are you?" "My name is Pussy Galore." "I must be dreaming."

She also played Emma Peel's predecessor on The Avengers. R.I.P.

  • Love 1

Controversial opinion maybe, though definitely not feasible, but I believe the franchise should have ended after Roger Moore finally gave up the role. There's a certain charm to the older movies, even despite some of the more questionable incidents of the earlier films, that the newer films just can't reach.

IMO I think the Austin Powers movies of the 90s, and I think Daniel Craig even mentioned this years ago, made the Bond producers go in a much more serious direction in the 21st century. Which is the wrong way to go. Because James Bond is a ridiculous character getting involved in trying to stop outlandish plots. Trying to make him more serious just doesn't work. And I feel the way that both Connery and Moore played Bond in a sort of manner that said "look I know it's silly, but trust me and you'll have fun" suited the character more than the recent serious interpretations. 

  • Love 1
On 4/18/2022 at 8:47 AM, Columbo said:

Controversial opinion maybe, though definitely not feasible, but I believe the franchise should have ended after Roger Moore finally gave up the role. There's a certain charm to the older movies, even despite some of the more questionable incidents of the earlier films, that the newer films just can't reach.

 

I'd like to see them start over, following the original books more closely (and set in the 60s), throwing out all the James Bond movie conventions (the movies became more ritualistic than the Catholic mass, there are so many obligatory scenes there's barely time for a movie). Pretend all the previous movies never existed. The best movies in the franchise were those that hew closer to the books.

On 4/18/2022 at 8:47 AM, Columbo said:

IMO I think the Austin Powers movies of the 90s, and I think Daniel Craig even mentioned this years ago, made the Bond producers go in a much more serious direction in the 21st century. Which is the wrong way to go.

The problem with the later films were uninteresting villains and convoluted but boring plots.

  • Love 1

I think Casino Royale is the best of the Daniel Craig ones, and one of the best in the entire franchise (putting aside that ... um ... scene where he's tied naked to a chair -- I'm not even a man and I felt very, very uncomfortable during that scene omg that was so unnecessary whywhywhy).   But, yes, most of the Craig movies were overly serious and not much fun.  Skyfall actually had a mostly coherent plot, which was nice, but the villain in it annoyed me to distraction.  I may have fallen asleep during Quantum of Solace ...

Weirdly, I think Pierce Brosnan was excellently cast, but I only enjoy a few parts of his Bond movies, none of them I'd rewatch all the way through - the stories weren't great.

My really controversial opinion is that I only enjoy and want to rewatch Casino Royale or the Roger Moore films (except Live and Let Die or Moonraker, which are just bad IMO).  Yes, they're goofy, but they're fun, and Moore is clearly having fun, and the love interests are pretty interesting characters in their own right in most of his films.   

Connery's last Bond - Diamonds Are Forever - is probably the ultimate worst of all the ones I've seen -- I just hated it.  

10 hours ago, SlovakPrincess said:

I think Casino Royale is the best of the Daniel Craig ones, and one of the best in the entire franchise (putting aside that ... um ... scene where he's tied naked to a chair -- I'm not even a man and I felt very, very uncomfortable during that scene omg that was so unnecessary whywhywhy).   But, yes, most of the Craig movies were overly serious and not much fun.  Skyfall actually had a mostly coherent plot, which was nice, but the villain in it annoyed me to distraction.  I may have fallen asleep during Quantum of Solace ...

Weirdly, I think Pierce Brosnan was excellently cast, but I only enjoy a few parts of his Bond movies, none of them I'd rewatch all the way through - the stories weren't great.

My really controversial opinion is that I only enjoy and want to rewatch Casino Royale or the Roger Moore films (except Live and Let Die or Moonraker, which are just bad IMO).  Yes, they're goofy, but they're fun, and Moore is clearly having fun, and the love interests are pretty interesting characters in their own right in most of his films.   

Connery's last Bond - Diamonds Are Forever - is probably the ultimate worst of all the ones I've seen -- I just hated it.  

"Casino Royale" hewed closer to the original book (the chair scene is right from the Fleming story).  My favorite (like a lot of old-time Bond fans) is "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," (despite Lazenby) but "From Russia with Love" is a close second.  At the time, I really loved "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball," but today I see those as pushing the movies in the wrong direction. "Diamonds are Forever" is very much in the Roger Moore feel, despite having Sean Connery.

10 hours ago, SlovakPrincess said:

I think Casino Royale is the best of the Daniel Craig ones, and one of the best in the entire franchise (putting aside that ... um ... scene where he's tied naked to a chair -- I'm not even a man and I felt very, very uncomfortable during that scene omg that was so unnecessary whywhywhy).

Compare the chair scene to the usual Bond torture or execution sequence. The villain just has this crude brutality to him. No elaborate methods or gizmos here. It's almost refreshing how crude it is. By the time of Spectre, all that is sadly gone. Elaborate gizmos are back.

On 4/25/2022 at 9:13 AM, Anduin said:

The villain just has this crude brutality to him. No elaborate methods or gizmos here. It's almost refreshing how crude it is.

He even lampshades how he's never understood all these elaborate methods of torture.

The Craig era really went places Bond movies haven't gone before, literally. We've never seen the homes of the MI6 crew before. And they really broke away from the standard Bond movie sequence, even while following it to an extent.

  • Love 1

Just watched Casino Royale over the weekend, and loved it! I had not seen any Daniel Craig Bond movies but watched No Time to Die and decided to go back and watch his first outing. It was just so well done, and I loved Vesper Lynd. 

Of course that meant Quantum of Solace was next and I didn't love it, didn't hate it, just didn't love it.

38 minutes ago, jah1986 said:

Just watched Casino Royale over the weekend, and loved it!

It stayed closer to the spirit of the book, which help it a lot.  I kind of wish that the Bond producers would start over again and remake the movies based on the Bond books.  After all its been 60 years since the first movie came out.

Rewatching Goldfinger and the part where Bond figures out that Goldfinger plan to set off an atomic bomb in Fort Knox would cause the US gold reserve to be radioactive for 57 years and Goldfinger corrects him "58 years to be precise." The movie was made in 1964 so the gold would now be unradioactive this year in 2022!

Edited by Fool to cry
  • Like 2
  • LOL 3

I always thought For Your Eyes Only was one of the more underrated Bond movies. Yeah it has some negatives (Bibi, the ending with Thatcher), but the positives outweigh all of that. I liked how it was a pared down, somewhat back to basics Bond, with a slightly more ruthless version of Moore's Bond, but still keeping the suspense and action while maintaining the gorgeous locations (Greece and the Italian Alps). Definitely one of the ones I re-watch more than the others.

 

  • Like 3
On 7/19/2024 at 8:28 AM, Palimelon said:

I always thought For Your Eyes Only was one of the more underrated Bond movies. Yeah it has some negatives (Bibi, the ending with Thatcher), but the positives outweigh all of that. I liked how it was a pared down, somewhat back to basics Bond, with a slightly more ruthless version of Moore's Bond, but still keeping the suspense and action while maintaining the gorgeous locations (Greece and the Italian Alps). Definitely one of the ones I re-watch more than the others.

 

I completely agree. Aside from the negatives you've pointed out, I think it's actually Moore's best movie and certainly in the top ten. The Spy Who Loved Me is equally good, but it's a fantasy-type film. FYEO edges it out because it's more realistic.

  • Like 3
Quote

Broccoli reportedly balked when Amazon executives suggested a variety of spin-offs and took offense when one executive referred to the franchise as "content" during a 2022 meeting. 

Good. I hate this corporate marketing speak. Content, IP, franchise. Just some product to be boxed up and sold. How about at least trying to pretend to care, for the people who love it? Get them on side, they'll do a lot of heavy lifting for you and forgive some of your mistakes.

From the article - I don't think it would be a big deal if the new Bond actor is gay, but if 007 himself is (and/or non-white) then a lot of the people who "love it" will crucify the move. 

She's right that Bond should always be British (or Scottish, Welsh, etc.).  Same for Harry Potter, the Doctor, etc.  It might be popular for Brits to whip out their best American accents for characters like Superman, Batman, etc. but the reverse seems to be a big no-no.

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...