|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.96.158.35
Below is a link to the trailer for the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig.I liked the early Bond films, with Sean Connery, and read all of the oringal Ian Fleming Bond books (about thirteen in number).
But as the Bond movie franchise grew, many things happened: 1) they ran out of Fleming novels so they hired hollywood screen writes to make up additional Bond adventures; 2) the movies became more and more fantastic, ever so close to cartoonish, rather than stretches of realism (like the earlier movies); and 3) Bond was "sissified."
Sean Connery was convincing, IMO, as having the strength and skills to physically fight his opponents. Sure, when he fought that killer in "From Russia With Love," he was physically overmatched, but he used cleverness coupled with A CERTAIN DEGREE OF PHYSICAL SKILLS to win his battles.
With the election of Roger Moore, and much later Pierce Brosnan, you had men who were devoid of any semblance of athleticism--hence my term "sissified."
As I watch the clips with Craig, I think we are witnessing a return to a more physically imposing Bond character. After all, Craig was good as a Israeli "redneck" in Munich.
townsend
Follow Ups:
this guy to play Bond...apparently he was the second choice...
From the memory, he had a couple of teeth knocked out during a filmed fight, then fainted during high speed boat ride, and finally... is afraid of guns.
I like DC for bond, he has a quiet intensity that reminds me of some of the older tough guys like Bogart or maybe even Clint Eastwood. Also us guys are happy to see someone less pretty getting the girls! I wish him well...
Maybe it's just me (I'm 51), but my favorite male actors were guys like Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Brian Donlevy, Humphrey Bogart.Now the "leading men" are a bunch of wusses: Tom Cruise, Leonardo DeCaprio, Johnny Depp.
Maybe Hollywood's plan is to attract more females to movies using "Girlie-men".
As a long time Bond fan, which I inherited from my parents who like to recount seeing "Dr. No" at the drive-in, a film that nobody knew about, and was the first feature of a double bill:(1) I am not sure they ran out of novels as opposed to ran out of novels from which they wanted to make movies.
(2) The Bond franchise prided itself on the fact that it used real stuntmen doing real stunts, without the use of special effects. Beginning with Brosnan's appearance, they began to use the "blue screen", and with it, departed, I think, some of the distinctiveness. I suspect that the Producers perceived the Bond franschise as loosing ground to the more flashy, special effects driven films. Rather than leading a genre, it was now following. My favorite scene of the recent films was Brosnan driving on ice. Cool.(3) Not sure I would agree that Bond was "Sissified." Moore was certainly less physical than Connery, and used quips more, but comparing any Bond to Connery will lead to failure. Moore was my least favorite. But the underappreciated Dalton was certainly physical, and though Brosnan had the looks, he performed many physically demanding acts.
I think that Craig is an intriguing choice, I suspect that many will be pleasantly surprised (if they keep an open mind), but Craig's roles, on the whole, have not been physical, and I do not perceive him as physical. But in the movies, anything is possible.
Daniel Craig or "M".
He can be rather menacing for a slim built guy and has a piercing stare that can stop a double-decker bus.Casino Royale was a rather simple, uncomplicated book. I read it about four times in junior high along with FRWL and OHMSS. The rest I read about three times.
I would like to see the whole series remade just as the books were written without all the world domination, space wars crap.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: