James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

[therewillbeblus]

It didn't look like de Armas had a particularly significant role but perhaps with this length she will! I'm a huge Bond fan, it's nostalgia central for me. My best friend growing up and I used to rent the entire catalogue (through the Brosnans as they kept coming out) and do an annual tradition of a weekend binge for years, which was doable on a Fri-Sun with bathroom breaks and roughly five hours of sleep per night. After a point we'd start doing tallies on various staple formulas between them so if anyone wants to know which movie breaks the "Bond sleeps with three women every movie" rule up to four, I do know that useless information. Though the new direction they've taken, while better films overall, doesn't elicit the same sensations as, say, Thunderball, which is also strangely perhaps the movie I have laughed the hardest during in my life

[Nasir007]

My fear at this point, and I'm not a Bond fan especially, is that this whole thing is going to feel too busy and overcooked. I remain hopeful this is going to be good fun because of Craig, De Armas and Fukunaga but this could go either way.

I am unconvinced Bond works as a serial with continuity. I don't know why they feel there is the need to do that? Is it the Marvel effect? I think Bond works best as stand-alone adventures with at best very loose connections. But Bond works best as self-contained narratives. That was one of the reasons I did not like Spectre.

Also dealing with demons and angst is a postmodern construct being thrust upon a franchise that does not quite sustain the weight of such pretensions. I will watch it sure and Craig is great in the role but I look back to the glory days of the Connery adventures - breezy adult entertainments.

[knives]

Because Marvel was a thing when Quatum of Solace came out.

[tenia]

My fear at this point, and I'm not a Bond fan especially, is that this whole thing is going to feel too busy and overcooked. I remain hopeful this is going to be good fun because of Craig, De Armas and Fukunaga but this could go either way.

I'm rather quite worried this might be way too overlong, just like so many big Hollywood movies since a decade who seemingly feel the need to be epic also in their runtime, despite never justifying it on-screen.

[Mr Sausage]

"Dealing with demons and angst" is not postmodern, either. Indeed, the Dalton of License to Kill set the standard for that, and it's the only post-60s Bond aside from the Craigs that's any good.

The self-aware feminist nods of the Brosnan Bonds is still the only post modern thing in the series.

[knives]

I actually like the Moore films over the Connery ones. Though I generally don't enjoy Bond so the may be why.

[colinr0380]

My fear at this point, and I'm not a Bond fan especially, is that this whole thing is going to feel too busy and overcooked. I remain hopeful this is going to be good fun because of Craig, De Armas and Fukunaga but this could go either way.

I am unconvinced Bond works as a serial with continuity. I don't know why they feel there is the need to do that? Is it the Marvel effect? I think Bond works best as stand-alone adventures with at best very loose connections. But Bond works best as self-contained narratives. That was one of the reasons I did not like Spectre.

Also dealing with demons and angst is a postmodern construct being thrust upon a franchise that does not quite sustain the weight of such pretensions. I will watch it sure and Craig is great in the role but I look back to the glory days of the Connery adventures - breezy adult entertainments.

Because Marvel was a thing when Quatum of Solace came out.

I would suggest that it was (and still is) probably influenced more by the Matt Damon Bourne films than the Marvel films.

[Mr Sausage]

I actually like the Moore films over the Connery ones. Though I generally don't enjoy Bond so the may be why.

You know, your "explanations" for stuff are often, like, twice as mysterious as whatever they're supposed to explain.

[knives]

Haha. I do trend too much on the enigmatic side sometimes. I was responding to your post ,60s comment by saying that I like the Moore's and not the Connery's, but capitulating that that may be because I find the Bond way of telling stories to not be enjoyable which opens me up for having an unusual opinion on the quality of individual films.

[Mr Sausage]

Welp, I'll leave you to your Tchaikovsky-scored zero-G make-out sessions and pigeon spit takes, then.

[knives]

I'll take that. Ironically For Your Eyes Only is the Moore that works best for me.

[therewillbeblus]

I'll take that. Ironically For Your Eyes Only is the Moore that works best for me.

If memory serves, that is also the one where Bond is least promiscuous, make of that what you will

[Monterey Jack]

I am unconvinced Bond works as a serial with continuity. I don't know why they feel there is the need to do that? Is it the Marvel effect? I think Bond works best as stand-alone adventures with at best very loose connections. But Bond works best as self-contained narratives. That was one of the reasons I did not like Spectre.

It's TOTALLY the Marvel effect. Every studio wants their own interconnected MCU, and even with stand-alone franchises, they'll retcon previous movies to insert some grand, overarching plot that was never clearly never intended (look at how Rise Of Skywalker ignored every unpopular aspect of The Last Jedi and added a STARTLING REVELATION!!! about one character's family tree that was obviously pulled out of J.J. Abrams' ass in an attempt to "salvage" the Star Wars brand [-X).

It's not even that new of a phenomenon. Way back in 1981's Halloween II, John Carpenter introduced a revelation about Laurie Strode's connection to Michael Myers, and even went to the trouble of shooting additional footage for the original movie's "network television debut" to make it seem like it was intended from the start, which it clearly wasn't.

When Craig's run as 007 is over, I hope to HELL the next actor in the role will just give us some light, fun, stand-alone Bond adventures again.

[colinr0380]

When Craig's run as 007 is over, I hope to HELL the next actor in the role will just give us some light, fun, stand-alone Bond adventures again.

Maybe directed by Joe Cornish!

[Mr Sausage]

I am unconvinced Bond works as a serial with continuity. I don't know why they feel there is the need to do that? Is it the Marvel effect? I think Bond works best as stand-alone adventures with at best very loose connections. But Bond works best as self-contained narratives. That was one of the reasons I did not like Spectre.

It's TOTALLY the Marvel effect. Every studio wants their own interconnected MCU, and even with stand-alone franchises, they'll retcon previous movies to insert some grand, overarching plot that was never clearly never intended (look at how Rise Of Skywalker ignored every unpopular aspect of The Last Jedi and added a STARTLING REVELATION!!! about one character's family tree that was obviously pulled out of J.J. Abrams' ass in an attempt to "salvage" the Star Wars brand [-X).

It's not even that new of a phenomenon. Way back in 1981's Halloween II, John Carpenter introduced a revelation about Laurie Strode's connection to Michael Myers, and even went to the trouble of shooting additional footage for the original movie's "network television debut" to make it seem like it was intended from the start, which it clearly wasn't.

When Craig's run as 007 is over, I hope to HELL the next actor in the role will just give us some light, fun, stand-alone Bond adventures again.

You’re joking, right? Not only have Craig’s Bonds been direct sequels since Quantum of Solace, like knives said above, but this is not Marvel interconnected anything. They’re straightforward, conventional sequels. Nothing more.

Also, your Star Wars frothing doesn’t even make any sense. It was Johnson who undid Abrams and co.’s plans. The Force Awakens was plainly setting up Rey’s parentage as meaningful.

And Halloween 2? Retroactive continuity goes back at least as far as Conan Doyle retconning Sherlock Holms’ death at Reichenbach Falls when he wanted his cash cow back. But all this has nothing to do with the Craig Bonds.

[domino harvey]

Can we not derail another thread about a blockbuster franchise with hyperbolic YouTube comments? James Bond is the mustard on the action movie hot dog, and John Williams is the soggy bun, and the franchise is Nathan’s Famous... am I doing this right, Monterey Jack?

[swo17]

You just watched that ScarJo movie too, didn't you?

[brundlefly]

Can we not derail another thread about a blockbuster franchise with hyperbolic YouTube comments? James Bond is the mustard on the action movie hot dog, and John Williams is the soggy bun, and the franchise is Nathan’s Famous... am I doing this right, Monterey Jack?

They don't call him Joey "Jaws" Chestnut fer nothin'.

[therewillbeblus]

You just watched that ScarJo movie too, didn't you?

All Kevin Bacon completists will have to

[domino harvey]

*Baconpletists

[swo17]

Mmmm...completos

[knives]

I'll take that. Ironically For Your Eyes Only is the Moore that works best for me.

If memory serves, that is also the one where Bond is least promiscuous, make of that what you will

I do also like the Mendes films. You maybe onto something.

[Finch]

It's been decades since I last saw some of the Moore films. I remember a few being really bad but so were one or two of the Connery ones including his unofficial return. I liked Brosnan's Bond but he was unlucky to get some of the most boring scripts of the entire run. I revisited Goldeneye some time last year and found it actually quite tedious for the most part. Appreciate the Daltons for being more faithful to the spirit of Fleming but I agree with detractors that they can feel a bit too mean-spirited. Casino Royale is my favourite of the whole lot of them (From Russia With Love would eclipse it if it wasn't for that interminable setpiece with the Gypsies). If No Time To Die is anything like CR, that would satisfy me though the length of this thing makes me fear it shares CR's biggest weakness, that it runs on for too long. Skyfall is probably my third or fourth favourite so Craig's films have been the most resonant for me (though Quantum of Solance always threatens to put me to sleep and the action choreography is a disaster, and Spectre mostly makes me roll my eyes after that strong Day of The Dead opening).

[therewillbeblus]

I think Skyfall is far and away the best and most interesting Bond, yes more than the fun "gritty" Casino Royale, as far as actual quality goes, but the character has developed into something completely different and so it's hard to measure the Craig films against the others. Connery's delivery of the one-liners are perfect every time, and his apathetic confidence suits the ridiculousness of the initial character. Playing on the already established fantastical inability to lose is so well done in the casino scene in Thunderball as he continuously magically gets one point higher than Largo each round shrugging off the success while Largo gets increasingly angry that, to me, it's the best moment in the whole series in its self-aware absurdist comedy.

Also Moore gave us this

[Finch]

Also Moore gave us this

is that "whoopie" (for the lack of a better word) sound effect as the car goes over part of the actual sound design?! If so, wow.