PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Bond Snuffed, Holmes On fast track...


cardken
07-07-2010, 06:25 PM
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/blog/2010/07/bond_off_holmes_on.html

Silock
07-07-2010, 08:38 PM
That suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu*******s.

JD10367
07-08-2010, 07:09 AM
I think Bond has run his course. When he first arrived on the scene, both in literature and film, he was a standout blazing new ground. Now, the spy theme and cool gadgetry can be found in many a summer blockbuster. Bond was also always about the coolness of the actors portraying them, and Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and even Pierce Brosnan all had that suave, smug sureness about themselves which Daniel Craig just didn't convey as well.

Otter
07-08-2010, 08:44 AM
I think Bond has run his course. When he first arrived on the scene, both in literature and film, he was a standout blazing new ground. Now, the spy theme and cool gadgetry can be found in many a summer blockbuster. Bond was also always about the coolness of the actors portraying them, and Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and even Pierce Brosnan all had that suave, smug sureness about themselves which Daniel Craig just didn't convey as well.

I like Craig quiet a bit as Bond. He is undoubtedly a different breed than the others but he's also the only so far that I could buy into pulling off some of the athletics involved in all the Bond Movies. Moore and Connery couldn't throw a punch any better than your average businessman off the street and would probably shit their pants trying to do a pull up let alone some of those high flying gymnastics and fight scenes.

The new Bond films direction and plot seemed choppy and over complicated to me somehow that I can't put my finger on right now but besides that I really enjoyed Craig and both his films.

Why they got away from the gadgets I'll never understand.

Brock
07-08-2010, 09:41 AM
CR was the best Bond movie of them all. What a bonehead decision.

Frazod
07-08-2010, 09:46 AM
CR was the best Bond movie of them all. What a bonehead decision.

This. The last one would have been really good, too, except for the director's ADD. Craig is the best Bond. And Casino Royale is the only Bond movie I've ever liked enough to actually buy. They could do another five or six like it and I'd be happy. Just lose the twitchy director.

And that new Sherlock Holmes movie SUCKED. If they want to make Ironman in the 1800s, just do it - don't piss all over Doyle in the process.

:shake:

DJ's left nut
07-08-2010, 10:05 AM
Hollywood is full of morons.

They played the CR storyline to its conclusion and now have carte blanche to do a lot of damn interesting things with the Bond storyline (and Craig was an awesome Bond).

Holmes, OTOH, just sucked. I cannot at all figure out why they felt the need to make another one.

Deberg_1990
07-08-2010, 12:35 PM
They will make a new Bond eventually. But it sucks because by the time they do, they will have to recast Bond again.

They had a nice thing going with Craig.

kysirsoze
07-08-2010, 01:02 PM
CR was the best Bond movie of them all. What a bonehead decision.

They didn't cancel Bond cause they wanted to. MGM is in the financial shitter.

Brock
07-08-2010, 01:35 PM
They didn't cancel Bond cause they wanted to. MGM is in the financial shitter.

So I guess it was a series of bonehead decisions that led to this one.

JD10367
07-08-2010, 06:35 PM
I like Craig quiet a bit as Bond. He is undoubtedly a different breed than the others but he's also the only so far that I could buy into pulling off some of the athletics involved in all the Bond Movies. Moore and Connery couldn't throw a punch any better than your average businessman off the street and would probably shit their pants trying to do a pull up let alone some of those high flying gymnastics and fight scenes.

See, I feel the exact opposite. The qualities you list are the reasons I didn't like Craig as Bond as much as I did Connery, Moore, and Brosnan. They were more about being smooth and suave, knowing what to say and how to act, impersonating people, sneaking into situations, etc.,. Those are the things Bond was known for--not for being Bruce Lee. Bond was cool 'cause he had charisma in boatloads and could shoot some bad guys and then drink champagne and fuck the chick in the boat while waiting to be rescued.

Brock
07-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Moore and Brosnan were fops. Bond is a killer first and foremost.

Guru
07-08-2010, 11:10 PM
They will make a new Bond eventually. But it sucks because by the time they do, they will have to recast Bond again.

They had a nice thing going with Craig.If there is not a Bond movie in 2012 I will be shocked. That is the 50th anniversary of Bond.

While I agree that Craig isn't the suave Bond that the others were I still will take him over all of them.

Buehler445
07-09-2010, 02:15 PM
See, I feel the exact opposite. The qualities you list are the reasons I didn't like Craig as Bond as much as I did Connery, Moore, and Brosnan. They were more about being smooth and suave, knowing what to say and how to act, impersonating people, sneaking into situations, etc.,. Those are the things Bond was known for--not for being Bruce Lee. Bond was cool 'cause he had charisma in boatloads and could shoot some bad guys and then drink champagne and fuck the chick in the boat while waiting to be rescued.

I've never read the books, but I thought I read somewhere that the books were far more violent and Bond fucked far fewer chicks. IDK though.

Where the fuck is Reaper?

DaneMcCloud
07-09-2010, 02:26 PM
Hollywood is full of morons.

They played the CR storyline to its conclusion and now have carte blanche to do a lot of damn interesting things with the Bond storyline (and Craig was an awesome Bond).

This has to due with MGM's financial woes and nothing more.

Holmes, OTOH, just sucked. I cannot at all figure out why they felt the need to make another one.

One word: Money.

morphius
07-09-2010, 02:34 PM
From the first trailer of Holmes I knew I'd wait till it was on cable to see the movie. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to buy into the whole Sherlock Holmes as an action/gadget flick. It is annoying watching Hollywood take the easy way out and steal a name that everyone knows and completely make it into something it never was.

As for the Bond flicks, while I have enjoyed the new ones more than the older versions, the whole Bond is Jason Bourne throws me off a bit.

DaneMcCloud
07-09-2010, 02:40 PM
From the first trailer of Holmes I knew I'd wait till it was on cable to see the movie. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to buy into the whole Sherlock Holmes as an action/gadget flick. It is annoying watching Hollywood take the easy way out and steal a name that everyone knows and completely make it into something it never was.

Have you read any Sherlock Holmes books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?

If you have, you'd know that Robert Downey, jr.'s portrayal was FAR closer to the books than the pipe-smoking Basil Rathbone "Hollywood" version.

As for the Bond flicks, while I have enjoyed the new ones more than the older versions, the whole Bond is Jason Bourne throws me off a bit.

The producers made a mistake in hiring Marc Forster to direct QOS, but it was by no means a fatal error.

I'd take QOS any day of the week over such schlock as Live and Let Die, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever.

Mike Myers won't be doing a parody of either Daniel Craig Bond movies.

Raiderhader
07-09-2010, 02:57 PM
The first Bond film, Dr. No, has a scene that to me perfectly represents what Bond is. When Connery calmly and cooly snuffs Dr. Strangways. "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six. thwack thwack thwack"

Bond is a stone cold killer. But he is also charming and witty. Connery in my mind played the perfect mixture (at least in the first few before the writing got overly cheesy). Craig brings the stone cold killer vibe, but no smoothness. Mix him and Brosnan as one and you might actually have a rivalry for Connery. Until that mixture is returned (we finally have some decent story lines and righting again) the films will always be lacking, IMHO.

Brock
07-09-2010, 03:30 PM
Craig brings the stone cold killer vibe, but no smoothness.

You need to watch CR again.

Guru
07-09-2010, 04:29 PM
The first Bond film, Dr. No, has a scene that to me perfectly represents what Bond is. When Connery calmly and cooly snuffs Dr. Strangways. "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six. thwack thwack thwack"

Bond is a stone cold killer. But he is also charming and witty. Connery in my mind played the perfect mixture (at least in the first few before the writing got overly cheesy). Craig brings the stone cold killer vibe, but no smoothness. Mix him and Brosnan as one and you might actually have a rivalry for Connery. Until that mixture is returned (we finally have some decent story lines and righting again) the films will always be lacking, IMHO.

I would say your complaint on the new Bond is with the director and not the actor. I'm sure Craig can easily add in more smoothness to the role if the writers and directors want it. To say he had no smoothness though is unfair to Craig. He did have smoothness in CR. You have to remember, these last two movies are about how Bond became Bond and not a continuation of a series. I'm sure the next movie was going to move him closer to the Bond we know from the earlier movies but without the crappy cheese.

Deberg_1990
07-09-2010, 05:37 PM
but without the crappy cheese.

hey, i like the crappy cheese Bond sometimes. Roger Moore fo life!

Deberg_1990
07-09-2010, 05:39 PM
It is annoying watching Hollywood take the easy way out and steal a name that everyone knows and completely make it into something it never was.



Hollywood (Big Blockbuster) Hollywood is always going to go with what sells.

They are a business like any other.

DaneMcCloud
07-09-2010, 05:44 PM
Hollywood (Big Blockbuster) Hollywood is always going to go with what sells.

They are a business like any other.

The problem is that Morphius is wrong.

And no one knew if people would buy yet another version of Sherlock Holmes, but it ended doing more than $500 million worldwide.

Deberg_1990
07-09-2010, 05:55 PM
And no one knew if people would buy yet another version of Sherlock Holmes, but it ended doing more than $500 million worldwide.

True...but thats kind of what i was getting at. They took a name property, added a star and updated it with modern action and explosions.


I think if someone would have made an old dry Basil Rathbone type of flick, it wouldnt have been as successful. Times Change..

Whatever the case, i thought it turned out pretty good. They kept it very British at least. Guy Ritchie directed.

DaneMcCloud
07-09-2010, 06:08 PM
True...but thats kind of what i was getting at. They took a name property, added a star and updated it with modern action and explosions.

Well, as I've stated before, it's much, much easier to get a well-known property made into a movie these days than an unknown property.

I thought the script was lame but Downey excellent. I hope they have a better script next time out.

Oh, and dump Rachel McAdams. She sucked.

Deberg_1990
07-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Oh, and dump Rachel McAdams. She sucked.

heh, yea i hate how they try and shoehorn in a love interest for every action flick these days. Uneccessary IMO. Probably helps sell it to women though.

Brock
07-09-2010, 06:22 PM
hey, i like the crappy cheese Bond sometimes. Roger Moore fo life!

Hard to imagine Roger Moore in that scene with the chair and the knotted piece of rope.

Guru
07-09-2010, 10:52 PM
hey, i like the crappy cheese Bond sometimes. Roger Moore fo life!Ugh. I hated the Roger Moore Bonds. Those were ALL about the cheese.

Deberg_1990
07-09-2010, 11:05 PM
Ugh. I hated the Roger Moore Bonds. Those were ALL about the cheese.

Most of them were....

But For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me are decent. Granted, they are all pretty dated.