It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Aliasalpha: I agree that they could do with more humour but not to the extent of becoming farcical. The real thing with the change in style of bond movies is that they're always a product of their era as the bonds themselves are
They definitely differ from era to era, actor to actor, but none of them so completely threw away core staples of the franchise like the last two.
Well its not like craig is lacking the gadgets, the charm, the fast cars or the ladies and Quantum is in every way but name the return of SPECTRE.

Besides Roger Moore was a fairly large departure in personality, Connery & Lazenby were both the suave charmers but they had a seriously decietful and nasty undertone whereas Moore was pretty much a fop with a gun. I could also imagine Dalton doing most of the stuff from Casino Royale & Quantum Of Solace.
Post edited January 12, 2011 by Aliasalpha
avatar
Aliasalpha: Well its not like craig is lacking the gadgets, the charm, the fast cars or the ladies and Quantum is in every way but name the return of SPECTRE.

Besides Roger Moore was a fairly large departure in personality, Connery & Lazenby were both the suave charmers but they had a seriously decietful and nasty undertone whereas Moore was pretty much a fop with a gun. I could also imagine Dalton doing most of the stuff from Casino Royale & Quantum Of Solace.
Dalton was a colder more ruthless Bond. But that made him more realistic than his predecessors. I don't know if he was very athletic though. Which is certainly something Craig brings to the role.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Well its not like craig is lacking the gadgets, the charm, the fast cars or the ladies and Quantum is in every way but name the return of SPECTRE.
He's not really charming actually, and his only gadget is his phone. The movies were also always over-the-top, while these are more grounded. No Q, no moneypenny... there is more I could go into.
GOD, THIS TITLE GOT MY HOPES UP. T_____________________T Aliasalpha, you are an evil man... :P

I honestly haven't watched a recent Bond movie in oh... forever. This is great news for fans though. I've been meaning to watch at the very least Casino Royale since I've heard a lot of good things (except a lot of my friends say certain parts drag a bit). I've heard the newer ones are a bit more brutal so that's definitely up my alley. It's just a case of me being lazy though.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Well its not like craig is lacking the gadgets, the charm, the fast cars or the ladies and Quantum is in every way but name the return of SPECTRE.

Besides Roger Moore was a fairly large departure in personality, Connery & Lazenby were both the suave charmers but they had a seriously decietful and nasty undertone whereas Moore was pretty much a fop with a gun. I could also imagine Dalton doing most of the stuff from Casino Royale & Quantum Of Solace.
That's pretty much what I'm talking about. There was no reason NOT to have Spectre. They just didn't, to be different. I'm quite tired of Hollywood and the videogame industry screwing with accepted titles, books, movies, and whatnot just to be different and try to make what people want at the moment, when using time-tested franchises as themselves would work just as well if done with enough quality.

Oh, and on a side note? Please never call Roger Moore a Bond again. He doesn't even begin to count. Temporary insanity or something.

avatar
Aliasalpha: Well its not like craig is lacking the gadgets, the charm, the fast cars or the ladies and Quantum is in every way but name the return of SPECTRE.
avatar
StingingVelvet: He's not really charming actually, and his only gadget is his phone. The movies were also always over-the-top, while these are more grounded. No Q, no moneypenny... there is more I could go into.
Again, that's really the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why NOT have Q? Or Moneypenny? There's no reason not to, except 'that's the way they did it before'! I mean, he was driving a nice car with a medical analysis kit built into the glove compartment. Where was the five minute scene where Q demonstrated it and Bond tried his damnedest to break it before he ever went into the field? You can still have a new, grittier Bond while retaining what made the old one great.
Post edited January 12, 2011 by Runehamster
avatar
Aliasalpha: Well its not like craig is lacking the gadgets, the charm, the fast cars or the ladies and Quantum is in every way but name the return of SPECTRE.
avatar
Runehamster: That's pretty much what I'm talking about. There was no reason NOT to have Spectre. They just didn't, to be different.
Actually there was a bloody good reason, somehow or other the rights to using SPECTRE weren't part of the bond franchise deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE#Copyright_issues) and so they'd have to pay royalties to use the name. Since the name was just a name and its not that unrealistic that a global terrorist organisation might change their name (after all, activision is now activision-blizzard), they went with the cheaper option


avatar
Runehamster: Again, that's really the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why NOT have Q? Or Moneypenny? There's no reason not to, except 'that's the way they did it before'! I mean, he was driving a nice car with a medical analysis kit built into the glove compartment. Where was the five minute scene where Q demonstrated it and Bond tried his damnedest to break it before he ever went into the field? You can still have a new, grittier Bond while retaining what made the old one great.
Persoanlly I did like Q & moneypenny but they never really advanced the story (well Q did once). Moneypenny just reiterated whatever M said with some innuendo and Q was just there as comic relief really
Post edited January 12, 2011 by Aliasalpha
avatar
Runehamster: Oh, and on a side note? Please never call Roger Moore a Bond again. He doesn't even begin to count. Temporary insanity or something.
THIS.

Roger Moore was TERRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLE.
Moore was not only A Bond but it could be argued that as the longest running one, he was THE Bond
avatar
Aliasalpha: Moore was not only A Bond but it could be argued that as the longest running one, he was THE Bond
You do realize this means we can no longer be friends.
Sorry but whenever someone waxes lyrical for the past, I have to be the one to shatter their illusions, mostly for my own sick fun (personally I've really liked ALL the Bond's)

To put it another way, any time there's a "games were way better in the old days" discussion, I'm the one who'll bring up simon the sorcerer 3d
Oh, but 'things' weren't better in the past. Saying the old Bond was better isn't the same as saying 'the old Bond was better because it's the old Bond', as evidenced by my distaste for Roger Moore. Daniel Craig's a darn good actor and Casino Royale had excellent writers, I think they just missed some of the essential qualities that made the old Bond less realistic and more fun. If they had kept that, with Daniel Craig's admittedly superior acting and the slick special effects, Casino Royale would have been the best Bond film yet.

And I can point to many 'old wasn't better' games as well. Lords of Magic, for instance.
avatar
Aliasalpha: http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/bond-is-back-daniel-craig-and-sam-mendes-set-for-nov-9-2012-release-date/

Damned glad to hear this news, I was a bit worried what with the implosion of MGM and all. Hopefully the inevitable game will be at least as good as Blood Stone
I'm glad they're doing a loose story arc, it's interesting. Sometimes I like Mr. Craig as Bond and sometimes he irritates me. I'm actually one of the few Roger Moore as Bond fans.
Post edited January 12, 2011 by orcishgamer
avatar
Aliasalpha: (after all, activision is now activision-blizzard)
Actually, it's Vivendi games that is now Activision-Blizzard, Activision is still Activision and Blizzard is still Blizzard they are both just owned by Activision-Blizzard

/completely miss the point and talk about a comment that doesn't really change anything at all