Wait so an ASSASSIN having a mean streak is a issue? Ive never understood this argument from many of the Bond fans, they also forget that this a YOUNGER AND MORE GREENER BOND, so if he's exactly the way he is in the older films then it defeats the entire point.
Daniel Craig. turned out to be wonderful. Sometimes the fancy weapons are not available. Bond should be ruthless. He says, "I don't have any friends." Time to stop living in the past. By the way, 'Bond really loved the women he was involved with.
The whole idea of the Craig bond films is that he is a proto-bond and a lot more rough around the edges as a result. He still displays the same charm on the outside, only now we see the brutal reality of what's underneath. And, btw, Bond fans DO NOT WANT CAMPY STUFF. They consciously took Bond that way with the later Brosnan films and they were horrible.
I think you and I, Stan, have exactly the same beef with the Bond series and due to that I highly highly recommend you watch at least The Living Daylights and License to Kill with Dalton. You should like them both. As for the Roger Moore ones, they are campy and fun and lightweight and Moonraker is just downright cheesy. But all in all I enjoy the Roger Moore era Bonds. They are a lot of fun to watch and they are very very rewatchable, especially For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy.
A couple of points I would like to make on things I have heard: Just because the character of Bond is more like the book doesn't automatically make him the best nor "good". It just makes him authentic to the book. This version of Bond is unknown to us so good or not, it's simply not Bond, or the Bond we know. this is just another action hero, a birth story I guess. I really wish MGM didn't do this since now we have to get used to a whole new world and dump the old one.
Having read a few of the original novels (I have them all, just haven't got round to reading them), I have to say Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig come closer than any of the others, except maybe George Lazenby - yeah I said it, to the original vision of Fleming,
Bond is written as a thug and an assassin, and that is exactly what Craig portrays, so in short my view is Sean Connery is the best Hollywood bond, but Craig is by far the best and most faithful adaptation of Bond.
If your read the Bond novels, Daniel Craig's performance is the closest to the actual character. Bond is a thug. He will saunter into a town and say, "I'm secret agent James Bond"(Just like he did in Casino Royale). The only way he survives through the novels is due to his ridiculously high pain threshold.
Now I understand that the films are a different genera, and a different Bond was created for the movies-more suave and campy-from the novels. I thought the last two films were truer to Bond.
It is obviously a subjective matter, but I completely disagree. Craig is the first convincing Bond I've ever seen. None of the other actors had a particularly exceptional physique, while Craig looks looks like he just returned from the Tour de France. Moore, Brosnan, and Connery look like they're barely staving off potbellies. And I don't get the thug impression AT ALL -- Craig looks to me more intelligent and suave, while the others seem to be ... I don't know ... playing dress-up with tuxedos
I think Craig is a success as Bond, but I'm not that fond of either of the last two movies. I don't find the Jason Bourne films entertaining and there was little real development over the three Bourne movies. I don't think Bourne is a good template for a Bond reboot. Apart from Martin Campbell I don't think the Brossoli's have been hiring the right kind of directors either.
I read all the bond books one summer, odd considering i don't really like pulp novellas, and have only seen about half the movies. The downright confusing camera angles and pacing were what got me with Quantum. That said the bond of the books is about as ruthless and human as the Bond of these films, he was toned down for the movies i think; in Goldfinger he has an introspective moment, realizes he's a paid killer, and *likes it* i think book-bond is closer to Craig than Connery.
The traditional gunshot sequence is at the end of Quantum of Solace because (I believe) that is to symbolize that he has "arrived" as the Bond we are used to.
BONE TO PICK! Why haven't you watched the Roger Moore movies?!?!?! He's my favorite and fits the description of your ideal characterization (suave, yet campy) perfectly.
Lazenby is the weakest (though not as bad as his rep), but strangely enough, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is my favorite Bond film. Check it out.
Daniel Craig isn't as big as Pierce Brosnan. He chases villains a lot more which isn't really like Bason Journe. The campiness was lost in Goldeneye story writing even if it was kept in goofy character dialogue. Goldeneye is the first non-Flemming adaptation of Bond, so naturally it stays the most original as #17.
Brosnan himself thinks Craig does a spectacular job, and I like all the real world influence that is integrated into these movies. No jet-packs, no invisible cars. Craig is smaller.
I really liked Craig as Bond. But this is, I think, because I've read some of the books befor I've seen any of the movies. And Flemming's Bond simply IS a ruthless rotten bastard. That they brought this back is a thing i can really appreciate.
I understand why you wanted to see another smart Bond, but after 20 Bond films its understandable that they would want to make Bond smart. But i think when he put the suit on he because the Bond you wanted. But i agree about Quantum of Solace, where the hell was the gunshot opening?
Brosnan was a victim of crappy movies imo. I don't think Craig was ideal, but he was effective for what they were trying to do. Maybe if brosnan's films were more serious I could get behind him more.
Disagree. Brosnan was one dimensional and cartoonish. A string of mindless explosions and lazy plot devices. Brosnan had potential, and Goldeneye was ok, but his movies stunk. He never behaved as a spy - he would just go in, start fights with the villain, etc. Stupid. Craig is a more believable bond. You think 45-50 year old 170lb brosnan was believable in fights? Craig at least had the physical part down. He needs time to grow into the role. Stop living in the past.
You know what I wished they had Clive Owen as James Bond when he was rumored to be. I thought to myself that is who James Bond is. He has the looks, charms and psychic. But at the end of the day Pierce Brosnan will always be my favorite James Bond. Goldeneye will always be the best.
I have to say i agree with you stann but i would go further...infact i could go on for days ranting and spiting bile about these films. But i'll spare you that and sum up the biggest problem we English had with them.
In their effort to "up date" the frachise the film makers took Bond and tryed to make him into Bourne. They terned a British icon and reduced it to a rip-off of an American film and that was unforgivable.
I have to disagree with you Stan. I think Craig's portrayal of the role is more suited to a modern audience. Bond movies were becoming parodies of themselves. The gadgets were ridiculous (an invisible car?!), the lines were getting repetitive, the characters were vacuous, and the plots were just stupid. I think an assassin is supposed to be gritty and ruthless, which is what Craig is. The classic Bond 'schtick' was cool with Connery but it wore thin by the time Brosnan was Bond.
Brosnan sleep-walked through the role and his movies were rubbish. Formulaic, predictable and way way way overdone. They were cartoonish. The new Bond has added a layer of grit and realism and can be taken a bit more seriously. They are darker more mature films. Stan is NOT a fan of Bond if he hasn't bothered to see the Moore and Dalton films. He is just in a hurry to give his goofy opinions without knowing what he's talking about.
Nice point but I just loved Casino Royal, and I just think it was the best movie of James Bond, but Quantum of Solace wasnt really that good. And I like craig, but they should probably go to the old Bond just a little bit more.
you make a few good points, but i think one thing you need to know is that what they're trying to do with Craig as Bond is that they're trying to Bring to life the Bond that Author Ian Flemming described in his novels, he wasnt Originally meant to be suave, bold, handsome etc. Bond was always meant to be a Ruthless Killing machine.
Craig is not sauve or sophisticated. I agree with stan on his point that Craig plays a much darker Bond. I dont understand why this would happen though. Surly if he has just become a double 0 agent then he would be alot less violent and evil than any previous Bonds because he has just started as a double 0 agent. It didnt make much sense that he would start out as a more evil agent and then get sauve sophisticated and camp later. Just my opinion though
Everything he said that was wrong about Craig being more like Jason Born is everything I like about Craig as bond. Craig is the best Bond ever (my opinion, like it or fuck off). Also the gun barrel sequence was at the end of Quantum of Solace but I would have liked it at the beginning better. If Craig were to drop the role though I would want to see Christian Bale replace him, but then we'd start getting complaints about people not liking his raspy voice.
okay. please be aware that in the books, bond is sort of a jerk and not a suave, smooth guy. and the fact that the gun barrel scenes are changed, is the fact that its a new series. just a little heads up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Daniel Craig is a very good Bond. He is very suave and sophisticated, mostly in Casino Royale. Just look at the train scene and pretty much every poker scene.
Quantum of Solace was more of an excuse to blow stuff up than tell a real story.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Craig is major HOT, and reminds me more of Connery because he's tougher and more beefy, but i do think the campy, classy, sophisticated charming Bonds are more fun. Quantum looked like every other action movie out there. Nothing special about it. I loved the ending of your vid! I quite agree.
-Where are Q, Moneypenny, and the gunbarrel sequence done proper? Granted they're going for more seriousness, but NONE of those three things takes away from the seriousness; the gunbarell's a great tradition, Moneypenny's a perpetual sex interest, adn even the Dark Knight, a VERY dark and serious fil, found a place for gadgets- where's the gadgets for the all-time agent, and Q... love Llewelyn, but we NEED Q.
-Can live with Craig, but not my fav, prefer Bros.
Being a fan that actually watched all the Bond movies and after the mess that was Die Another Day, I was excited that Bond was going in a different direction.
So called Bond fans whining about Craig is pointless. Now a message from a real fan. I want to see how these James Bond movies, portrayed by none other then Daniel Craig will playout. I don't want to see Bale, or Law or some other Hollywood A lister, Craig is better suited for the role.
In all of his incoherent ramblings Stand in Stan did make one valid point and it's not a small thing. James Bond's shooting threw a gun barrel scene should not be taken out. Not only is it tradition, it's just plain cool. Somethings just never go out of style and this is one of those things. As a kid I have mimicd this scene numerous times, and I'm going to do it right now.
I've always thought Pierce was a joke as bond. I don't know why, I can see the appeal I guess. But he had the charm and sophistication of a second rate television actor. The shoes were too big for him to feel and that's why he had the WORSE bond movies under his belt. Golden Eye was the only watchable one.
"--he had the WORST bond movies under his belt. Golden Eye was the only watchable one.--"
That's actually a really good point! I never thought about it that way. Come to think of it, Goldeneye really is the only Brosnan Bond film that I liked.
@standinstann I liked Die Another Day with Halle Barry. One reason is because at the beginning of the film he is tortured and once he makes it back to England he still manages to keep the charm that is an essential part of the bond character. I can't picture Daniel Craig reacting the same way under similar circumstances
Stan, all good points, but i think these new incarnations of Bond are quite good, i believe that the franchise was dying a little and with popularity of the Bourne franchise they needed to reinvented Bond to compete with that. Essentially making bond a more gritty character, i don't think he's a "big dumb thug" more a guy fighting to stay alive in "do or die" situations. And as a fan of ALL the bond movies I love the new direction and casting of these movies. Just my opinion as a lifelong fan.
I think Godzilla is the longest running series i think its a fari bti older and is still running and has 30 films, i cant honestly say daniel craig has ever bothered me as bond to be honest
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I hated the fact that they left out the shooting camera scene. It's as important as him saying "Bond, James Bond!" It is just tradition. I like Casino Royal but Quantum of Solace just didn't seem like a Bond film.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here's the biggest problem with your shitty ass vid. You claim that this is a comparison of the old Bonds, and the new series, but you present false facts like, all the other Bonds are accepted by most people. Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean. Q and Moneypenny are supposed to be in it. These are factual things your're dealing with, and they are completely wrong. There was an outcry for all of them. Bond is supposed to be ruthless, and Q and Moneypenny don't always need to be in it....
I didn't say that all the other Bonds are accepted by most people, I said that I got the sense that people were generaly okay with having a new face some in and play Bond.
I also didn't say that Q and Moneypenny are supposed to be in it, I said I wished they had been.
You keep using the word "facts" as if this is a critical essay. This is (as is written in the descriptoin) "my thoughts on the new Bond". (con't)
If you don't like my thoughts and opinions, that's perfectly fine, if you disagree with them, that's even better, but you're taking this WAY too seriously, and you're geting way too angry about it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i actually thought Daniel Craig was a good actor for the james bond movie because the makers of the film were trying to make more of a real life movie.
You're saying that my comments are dead wrong based on the entirety of the bond material, well, I'm not talking about the entirety of the bond material; I'm talking about the films.
I dont have to become a Bond fan boy in order to make comment on a Bond film
And If I have to do research in order to enjoy a film, then the film makers have failed to make a good and accessible film for all audiences.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fine, your talking about the fucking films. Well guess what. This film continuity is completely new, and has nothing to do with the old films, and when you base your ideas on the way this continuity should be, on the old films which this continuity has nothing to do with, then your showing yourself to be a completely ignorant idiot.
No, you don't have to be a Bond fan to make a comment on a Bond film, but when your comments are dead wrong, in every possible way, then you need to do research.
The Bond franchise has established its self as a campy series about a spy, turning that into a serious character driven reboot was new, suprising, and different.
You're talking aobut what I said at though I had ripped the character, or either of the films a new asshole, and I don't know where you're geting that from.
I prefered the campy, fun bond films, but I also enjoyed the new ones, and I understand what they were they were trying to go with the franchise...
That's basically all I said in this thing, and you're flying off the handle and spiting out a bunch of fanboy exposition as though I had pissed on the whole thing.
Actualy watch the video next time rather than just hearing what your fanboy brain THINKS I'm saying.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You said that Bond isn't ruthless and mean. What the fuck are you basing that on? You've never read the books, so its not on that, and this film series has nothing to do with the old continuity, so you can't base it off of that either. So what says that Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean? Your piss poor idea? When you complain about the plot not making sense, that's a sensible complaint. When you say a character is not supposed to be the way he is, then you're just an ignorant dick....
"You said that Bond isn't ruthless and mean. What the fuck are you basing that on?"
The early films.
You've never read the books, so its not on that, and this film series has nothing to do with the old continuity, so you can't base it off of that either.
I certainly can. That this new series has nothing to do with the old continuity is EXACTLY THE POINT I'M MAKING (con't)
if you actualy LISTEN to what I said, I said that this is a very different Bon than film audiesnces were used to, but I understand what they're trying to do with the character, and I go on to say that I prefered the more light hearted Bond, but didn't hate this one.
Calm your ass down, grow up, and stop geting hysterical.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You don't know anything about Bond, yet you post a video listing some dead wrong facts. You said that you've never seen such an outcry for a new Bond. Well, one, you're only 28 years old, so your not old enough to know shit about that, and two, Craig is the first Bond where people can freely exress themselves online for all to hear. So of course, this is why you only heard an outcry for Craig. Not all the old Bonds are accepted, as you claim that they are. Get your facts straight numbnuts....
What's more, audiences accepted Casino Royal was WAY more than they accepted "tomarrow never dies" which went too far the other way with the campyness and sillyness, and so did I.
Again, you're talking aobut this like it's a debate over the Gospel. It's James Bond, and I didn't say anything bad about it, I only said things that irritated you.
Yuo do understand that the Bond novels and films arent a biography or documentary about a real person don't you? There are no "facts" to analyze. I can only talk about the material I'm familier with, and what I liked and didn't like about the change, and that's exactly what I did.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Bond isn't ruthless." - Your ignorant words.
Yes he is. When the hell did Casino Royale ever say he wasn't. When the hell did Quantum ever say he wasn't. Neither movie said he was a nice guy, but you say he's not supposed to be. Based on what? Oh, based on the old movies, which these movies have nothing to do with. You are completely clueless. If you're going to make a video, get your damn facts straight. Know a little about what you're talking about....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You don't have to do research to enjoy these films, but when you make a stupid, fucking stupid, remark like, Bond isn't ruthless and mean, then you need to do some research because that's not a complaint on the film. That's a display of your level of ignorance. You say, fuck you, to Ian Fleming, and you know nothing of James Bond. You're complaints are dead wrong, and that is not something to be proud of. Learn a little bit about Bond, before you make stupid remarks about the character again.
I don't know where your fanboy brain got the idea that I was saying "fuck you" to anybody, but you realy need to calm down. We aren't talking about the ark of the covenant here, it's fucking James Bond for fuck sake.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You said that Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean. That's a big fuck you to the creator. You don't base that idea off any of the books. You can't base that idea of the old films, since this is a completely new continuity. So where did you get this idea from. It was pulled out of your ass, and you say that your idea of the character is how its supposed to be, and the creators idea is not. That's certainly a big fuck you to Ian Fleming.
"You said that Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean. That's a big fuck you to the creator."
It has nothing to do with the creator, it has to do with the films, I can't say "fuck you" to an author that I've never read.
I can and did base that on the old films, and I pointed out (if you actualy watch the video) that I understood what they were trying to do with the character, and why they made him the way they did. (con't)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, you aren't contrasting this with the old films. If you were, you would say things like, this film series doesn't need Q and Moneypenny in it so much, rather than saying that Ian Fleming's story is bullshit for not having them in it. You say that you have never seen such an outcry for a new actor and also say that generally everyone accepts all the old ones, and that all that changed when Craig was hired. No. There was always an outcry, and many people still don't accept some of the old Bonds
Holy cow, do you kiss the Bond novels every night before you go to sleep?
I said that Craig got more of a reaction from Bond fans than I had ever heard, and that's true. I did not say: "No other bond actor got an outcry from fans."
If anyone else got a big outcry, I wasn't aware of it, and I'm still not aware of it, and if they did, it has nothing to do with the video I made, I'm talking about my own personal take (as, again, stated in the description) on the newer Bond films.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Did they establish Bond as a ruthless thug in the older films? No, did they in this? yes. That's what I'm saying."
No, numbnuts. You didn't say that. You said that Bond isn''t supposed to be ruthless and mean. Isn't supposed to be. Not, wasn't ruthless and mean in the old films. You said, he isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean at all. Your facts are dead wrong, and your basing it off you ignorant, piss poor mind. Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean, because you say so? Bullshit...
You are flying off the handle, and geting some wierd idea that I'm trashing the Bond material, I don't know why that is, but all I can tell you is: calm down, it's a fucking youtube video.
Do a little bit of research. Read some of the books. Analyze some of the movies. Actually put thought into watching them, rather than just saying, oh I want gadgets, oh I want camp and I want women, through the whole thing. Bond movies have the potential to be great films, not just fun films. But if they keep listening to people who want camp, gadgets, and unecessary scenes and characters that don't add to the plot, then it won't happen.
There's more here.... Q and Moneypenny not being in it is not bullshit. In fact, with Casino Royale, that's the novel. This is what I was just talking about. Putting characters and situations in, just because, rather than making sure that they are actually needed in the story, is fucking stupid. Q wasn't needed in either, neither was Moneypenny, and it would have been fucking stupid to devote a scene that has nothing to do with the plot, to them, just so they can be in the movie. Stupid idea....
Mentioning the gunbarrel, it would have been pretty odd, moving into a movie that is supposed to be a sequel - a direct continuation of the last one, but starting it off with a gunbarrel sequence, that makes it feel like you're entering an entire new adventure. That would have been quite fucking wierd. Maybe that's why they didn't put the gunbarrel at the beginning.
Now, they're going down the right track. They're focusing on making the greatest movie possible, and not just making a typical Bond movie. If you don't need a scene where Bond goes to get equipment that he'll hardly ever use, or plays only a small part of the story, then don't put it in there, just because you did in a lot of the other films. Bond doesn't need to introduce himself the same way to everybody that he runs across, like he did in A View to a Kill. All Bond films needn't be the same.
I hear so many people telling me, that they go to the movies, to a two hour movie, so they can see a three minute long segment where Bond is talking to Q. You spend money to see that. Then others try to say they spend money to see a little 20 second bit at the beginning of the movie. And they don't even reshoot it for every movie. They shoot it once and just use it again for every movie. Also, he needs to say Bond, James Bond. No, he doesn't. He should only say it when the scene calls for it....
No, I didn't want a darker, more serious Bond, but now that I got it, I am more content with Bond than I ever have been before.
Also, they did the gunbarrel sequence at the end of Quantum, and since we're talking about traditions, tradition is one of the things that almost ruined the Bond films so many times. Believe it or not, the success of a Bond film doesn't depend on whether he says Bond, James Bond. Or whether there's a scene with Q.
The campy-ness is gone, because you see where campy-ness took it. It took it to Die Another Day, which was a joke of a film. James Bond coming over a tidal wave using the roof of a speed car. An invisible car. Bond using the ejector seat to do a flip. This is not James Bond and never should be. Casino Royale is exactly what James Bond should have been. That film, is exactly the kind of film Bond films should be. It almost feels like a 60s Bond film, which were also quite true to their sources...
"There's a really dark hostility..." You mean like Bond in the novels?
"There's a mean, ruthlessness behind this new Bond...." Still like the novels.
"I don't think that Bond is a mean or ruthless person." That just about says it all right there. You've just shown how much you really know about James Bond.
Or Christian Bale, with his soft face and puppy dog eyes. Craig is the kind of guy who, in the 50s, would have been regarded as a handsome man, no argument. Now, he looks too much like a man to be handsome. He doesn't have enough female features, so he can't be handsome. Somewhere along the way, the idea of a handsome man went to shit, and now we got people suggesting Orlando Bloom, or Christian bale as James Bond. Pretty boys. Sean Connery had a rough face. He was handsome, not a pretty boy....
Now, a handsome man, is one that has a rounded jaw. One that has cute, puppy dog eyes. One that has a soft, smooth face. One where you can't see the cheek bones, or a strong chin. One that has a jaw line, that curves down like an oval, rather than appear flat like a square. A soft looking person, like Brosnan. Now, real handsome men, like Daniel Craig, are regarded as ugly, and not what men should look like. Saying, men shouldn't look like men. Men should look like women. Like how Brosnan looked
Daniel Craig's appearance, is what James Bond is supposed to look like. He's supposed to be handsome. Back in the day, when Bond was still a book character, handsome were men, who looked like men. Tough guys, men with square shaped jaws. Men who looked serious. Men who had strong facial features. This was what a handsome man was, and this is what Bond is supposed to be. Somewhere along the way, people started mixing up handsome, with pretty boy. I don't know why, I think that's stupid....
Oh no. You mean they took a soft looking man, who had a face that looked absolutely nothing like the way Ian Flemming described the character as looking, and replaced him with a man who had a face that looked exactly the way the novels described him as looking? That's a problem? He has the dark look. He has strong facial features. Most importantly of all, he has the perfect eyes. The mean eyes that Bond is supposed to have. You can see that at 2:19
Or go onto some cheap petition website, and make a shitty ass petition about how they want some other guy to play him, an get the same guy under different usernames, to sign a million times, so they can get the count to go up.
The backlash has always been there. Everytime new actor is the wrong actor to get for the job, according to the majority of the fans. We accept the old ones, because they did their stuff. Everyone always attacks the new guy. Also, I say Brosnan was fucking terrible....
Sean Connery was a bad choice, because he wasn't David Niven. Then Lazenby was a bad choice, according to the fans of Connery, because he wasn't Connery. Same with Roger Moore. He was a bad choice to. When Dalton came along, he was a bad choice for being mean, then Brosnan was bad for being too soft and silly, and now Craig is a bad choice because he's too tough. The only reason Craig gets more, is because we have the internet now, and any schmuck can make a video displayhing their disgust.
A little basic Bond information for you. Everytime they have hired an actor to play James Bond, there was a backlash, including Sean Connery. Everytime they hire a James Bond, he's always the wrong guy. No, it was not just Daniel Craig, it was everybody. I imagine you haven't seen a lot of despise for the older ones when they were hired, because you're only 28. The only one that ever concerned you was Daniel Craig's casting, because that was the only one you were old enough to give a shit about.
This is my major problem with the new Bond direction. It's not Bond, it's a generic action flick and everything about these movies reflects that. There aren't even epic villains bent on world domination or zany henchmen. Some people feel that that's a benefit. "Oh it's more realistic. It's real" But that's not what I want to see. But they seem to be commercial success, so I just have to suffer through.
I think Craig is the best Bond to date. Connery had a very ruthless sadistic dimension to his portrayal of Bond. Remember, this guy has a licence to kill. Plus he says the best line ever as Bond in CR... 'Do I look like I give a damn?' I liked Brosnen too but the formula was getting stale. Craig is much more like the Bond of the novels. By way standinstan, checl out Lazenby in OHMSS. Vastly underated. Anyway I hope Craigs Bond is with us for many years to come!
The gunbarrel shot in Quantum of Solace is at the end of the movie. All your reivew says about you is that you deem any change as awful. Your criticisms of the techniques and elements are limited to good and bad. So basically all your reviews say are that you are an ignorant simplistic reviewer who is devoid of any knowlege of the creative process and that you are terrified of change. Seriously being as anti as possible for the sole purpose of attracting attention is so juvenile.
"I don't think that James Bond is a mean or ruthless person."
You need to read the novels. However, this new James Bourne is a step in the wrong direction. Craig is taking the character to psychological areas where he's not supposed to be.
Generaly speaking, when I see a movie, or a movie series, and I end up feeling confused about characters, a plot point, of even just a line of diologue, and I ask "why did this or that happen?'" or "why was this or that line in the movie?" I always hate geting the answer "Oh you need to watch X" or "you need to read the comics" or "You need to read the books" I don't want to read those things, I came to see a film. (con't)
Sometimes it's necissary to have seen a television show if the movie is based on it, but even then I think it's usualy possible to introduce the audience to the character dynamics without having seen the show.
Well, now that I think about it... wasn't Sean Connery's Bond very mean and ruthless? Not to everyone around him, but... man. He treated those poor women like shit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
When you make a stupid remark, like Bond isn't ruthless and mean, then yes, you need to read the fucking novel, because he is. You're idea of the character is completely wrong. And its not your character, so you can't decide what he's supposed to be like. Your opinion of the character is based on the other Bonds, and with Craig, they were being more like he was in the book. Ruthless and mean. If you want to see a film, go ahead, but don't make stupid remarks like Bond isn't ruthless and mean.
"Return to Oz" was a hell of a lot more like the Wizard of Oz books, and I didn't like that either because the characters were bizare and unfamilier, and the material was compleetly unlike the film that I thought it was based on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Good for the old films, but guess what, this is a new continuity, and they fucking did establish that he was ruthless for this film. That makes your remark, fucking stupid. You try to say that Bond's not supposed to be ruthless, but then say the books don't matter, and that you only care about the films, but then not take into account that this is a completely new continuity, in which they are trying to make Bond more like the Bond in the novels. Shows how un-thought at your ideas are....
Well, all I can tell you is that I liked Casino Royale alot, not so much Quantum of solace, as I said in my video.
The new bond traits werent a deal breaker for me, but they were a suprise.
Unlike the older films, they gave bond something to care about and something to loose, particularly in CR, that was a welcome change: the older films were fun, but Bond was a little too infalable. If the hero is invincible he has no adversity over which to triumph.
If they're going to go in a new direction, that's fine, as I said. I just hope that they let the character have some fun if they continue making films with Craig.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I posted here, because I thought I was going to get thought ideas, and remarks from somebody who did their research, and knows a little something about James Bond. Instead, I see a video by somebody who knows nothing about Bond, and gets everything dead wrong, but presents them as factual. You start off talking about, its the biggest outcry I've ever seen. Well one, you're only 28, and two, this is the first James Bond where anyone can express their opinion at any time.
why did they make Craig a blond bond? that's what really annoys me about those two films, i couldnt take him seriously. i know one of the other bonds had lighter hair than the others but it wasnt blond. suave and sophisticated can only be truly pulled off by a dark eyed and dark haired bond. craig's blue eyes also made him seem far too cold and kind of scary. i grew up with Brosnan as bond and thats how i'll always see bond ... sorry if thats a little biased
you do know daniel craig resembles more of sean connery (the only true bond) than pierce brosnan ever did. I'm sorry but I'm not much of a pierce brosnan fan and always found him a bit wimpy....i will agree daniel isn't as suave as connery though.
now i havn't seen the other films but from what i've seen daniel craig looks older than the other bonds it doesn't seem like he belongs in an origin story at all
I'm going to agree pretty much entirely. The movies weren't awful, but they certainly weren't James Bond movies. This Bond isn't the suave, sophisticated secret agent we all know and love, he's... Well, he's the origional Ian Flemming character, which I guess is what they were going for. That works in books and short stories, but not in a film. I don't want dark and brooding, I want to have fun.
Wait so an ASSASSIN having a mean streak is a issue? Ive never understood this argument from many of the Bond fans, they also forget that this a YOUNGER AND MORE GREENER BOND, so if he's exactly the way he is in the older films then it defeats the entire point.
TheDalinkwent 2 months ago
I agree with your bullshitness about Q and money penny
morganhawes1 4 months ago
I liked Casino Royale, but I honestly prefer the more fun Bond films of the past. Making it really gritty and grim took some of the magic out of it.
Leatherbubba 7 months ago
dude.... roger moore is better than ya think he is.... my personal fav.... but yeah im prob in the minority....
johnnyrockerfella 8 months ago
daniel craig is good actor but i think they should have went with adrian paul from highlander tv series he has more of a sean connery look
rasheed1660 1 year ago
Daniel Craig. turned out to be wonderful. Sometimes the fancy weapons are not available. Bond should be ruthless. He says, "I don't have any friends." Time to stop living in the past. By the way, 'Bond really loved the women he was involved with.
fairman1952 1 year ago
The whole idea of the Craig bond films is that he is a proto-bond and a lot more rough around the edges as a result. He still displays the same charm on the outside, only now we see the brutal reality of what's underneath. And, btw, Bond fans DO NOT WANT CAMPY STUFF. They consciously took Bond that way with the later Brosnan films and they were horrible.
fnatsy 1 year ago
I think you and I, Stan, have exactly the same beef with the Bond series and due to that I highly highly recommend you watch at least The Living Daylights and License to Kill with Dalton. You should like them both. As for the Roger Moore ones, they are campy and fun and lightweight and Moonraker is just downright cheesy. But all in all I enjoy the Roger Moore era Bonds. They are a lot of fun to watch and they are very very rewatchable, especially For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy.
chrisklecker 1 year ago
A couple of points I would like to make on things I have heard: Just because the character of Bond is more like the book doesn't automatically make him the best nor "good". It just makes him authentic to the book. This version of Bond is unknown to us so good or not, it's simply not Bond, or the Bond we know. this is just another action hero, a birth story I guess. I really wish MGM didn't do this since now we have to get used to a whole new world and dump the old one.
chrisklecker 1 year ago
Having read a few of the original novels (I have them all, just haven't got round to reading them), I have to say Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig come closer than any of the others, except maybe George Lazenby - yeah I said it, to the original vision of Fleming,
Bond is written as a thug and an assassin, and that is exactly what Craig portrays, so in short my view is Sean Connery is the best Hollywood bond, but Craig is by far the best and most faithful adaptation of Bond.
thewildcard83 1 year ago
I agree. Daniel Craig was all WRONG!
Adrian Paul would have been much better as 007!
Actionguy1 1 year ago
@Actionguy1 Wait,Wait,Wait,did you just say
Adrian Paul would be a better bond????????
Please tell me you just did'nt say?
58fenix 1 year ago
"He knows no fear, he knows no danger, he knows..nothing"-
CaptainGaruda 1 year ago
If your read the Bond novels, Daniel Craig's performance is the closest to the actual character. Bond is a thug. He will saunter into a town and say, "I'm secret agent James Bond"(Just like he did in Casino Royale). The only way he survives through the novels is due to his ridiculously high pain threshold.
Now I understand that the films are a different genera, and a different Bond was created for the movies-more suave and campy-from the novels. I thought the last two films were truer to Bond.
Alchiexander 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
It is obviously a subjective matter, but I completely disagree. Craig is the first convincing Bond I've ever seen. None of the other actors had a particularly exceptional physique, while Craig looks looks like he just returned from the Tour de France. Moore, Brosnan, and Connery look like they're barely staving off potbellies. And I don't get the thug impression AT ALL -- Craig looks to me more intelligent and suave, while the others seem to be ... I don't know ... playing dress-up with tuxedos
depaderico 1 year ago
I think Craig is a success as Bond, but I'm not that fond of either of the last two movies. I don't find the Jason Bourne films entertaining and there was little real development over the three Bourne movies. I don't think Bourne is a good template for a Bond reboot. Apart from Martin Campbell I don't think the Brossoli's have been hiring the right kind of directors either.
dafmurray 1 year ago
I read all the bond books one summer, odd considering i don't really like pulp novellas, and have only seen about half the movies. The downright confusing camera angles and pacing were what got me with Quantum. That said the bond of the books is about as ruthless and human as the Bond of these films, he was toned down for the movies i think; in Goldfinger he has an introspective moment, realizes he's a paid killer, and *likes it* i think book-bond is closer to Craig than Connery.
unassumption 1 year ago
The traditional gunshot sequence is at the end of Quantum of Solace because (I believe) that is to symbolize that he has "arrived" as the Bond we are used to.
BONE TO PICK! Why haven't you watched the Roger Moore movies?!?!?! He's my favorite and fits the description of your ideal characterization (suave, yet campy) perfectly.
Lazenby is the weakest (though not as bad as his rep), but strangely enough, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is my favorite Bond film. Check it out.
ozzian2000 1 year ago
@ozzian2000
To your first point; that's true, though I didn't realize it until after I had made this video
To your second point; Honestly, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. lol
As for the movie you recommended, I'll see it ;)
standinstann 1 year ago
why hasent anyone left anyone left a coment on this video
critic189 1 year ago
Daniel Craig isn't as big as Pierce Brosnan. He chases villains a lot more which isn't really like Bason Journe. The campiness was lost in Goldeneye story writing even if it was kept in goofy character dialogue. Goldeneye is the first non-Flemming adaptation of Bond, so naturally it stays the most original as #17.
Brosnan himself thinks Craig does a spectacular job, and I like all the real world influence that is integrated into these movies. No jet-packs, no invisible cars. Craig is smaller.
ManThatSeesMovies 1 year ago
I really liked Craig as Bond. But this is, I think, because I've read some of the books befor I've seen any of the movies. And Flemming's Bond simply IS a ruthless rotten bastard. That they brought this back is a thing i can really appreciate.
Chuckhelm 1 year ago
craig is a great bond.
babscabs1987 1 year ago
u havent seen roger moore? check it out
goldengun5980 1 year ago
godzilla 29 movies
critic189 1 year ago
@trekkerhappy Will and about craig,your
right I'll leave it at your opinion.But if you
were right craig would'nt be doing anymore films.
58fenix 1 year ago
@trekkerhappy Because you dont quit
by saying oh time has passed to long
for me to keep going.Thats an excuse.
I have watched LTK andTLD so many
times and cant find one thing about
him thats great.The real truth is he
just was'nt that special.
58fenix 1 year ago
@trekkerhappy And 4 thats just an excuse.you have to understand that in
the movie buiseness that they dont tell
you everything.You just was'nt good enough.Even if he really did that thats
stupid.
58fenix 1 year ago
@trekkerhappy He was'nt interesting and
did'nt seem like a threat.Sean connery
and Roger moore both said he did'nt
do too much of a good job playing bond.
If he was that good he would have did goldeneye and people would have kept him.
58fenix 1 year ago
@trekkerhappy Will I heard about that
too and your right.But when dalton said
that I thought to myself 4 things.
58fenix 1 year ago
How can you give someone credit that
did'nt even do as much as connery,moore
and brosna.The guy sucked.I really like
The living Daylights and LTK.I have watched that so many times and dalton
is'nt interesting.Him doing two proves it!
58fenix 1 year ago
You do have a problem with craig cause you just said it.Fleming describes bond
as a very tough dangerous rutheless
dark blue eyes and tall person.Craig
has all of that.Even though he's 511.
58fenix 1 year ago
you say he looks creepy.Thats the point.They wanted to go a different
direction with bond,but at the same time
as long as you have bond attributes
and girls like you.Then you have accomplished like craig did.
58fenix 1 year ago
Dude if you were right about dalton then
he would have at leats did a couple of more films but did'nt.Dalton was'nt a threat to me at all.If you look at the facts
Connery,moore and brosnan all did
at least ten years.
58fenix 1 year ago
And you want to talk about he worst.
How bout the people who did'nt
even come close of doing a couple
of bond flicks.Dalton and Lazenby
were the ones that did nothing for
bond!
58fenix 1 year ago
Craig played bond more cold,dark,
and a straight up machine killer that
can kill in seconds.More tough!The
way fleming described bond is just
like that.Thats why craig was picked
to do bond beginings.
58fenix 1 year ago
Will you have to remember something
about the men that have played bond.
They all,let me repeat,they all played
bond in there own ways.Craig played
bond more in a very dangerous way.
58fenix 1 year ago
I understand why you wanted to see another smart Bond, but after 20 Bond films its understandable that they would want to make Bond smart. But i think when he put the suit on he because the Bond you wanted. But i agree about Quantum of Solace, where the hell was the gunshot opening?
yellowheadsprites 1 year ago
It was'nt there for a reason.And that reason was for he has'nt become
james bond at that moment!
58fenix 1 year ago
He had in Quantum of Solace
yellowheadsprites 1 year ago
I was confused at first when I heard Casino Royale was a prequel and saw Daniel Craig. If its a prequel, why does Bond have so many rinkles?
But, as it turns out, Craig was the second best Bond.
MetaPunkXP 1 year ago
Rinkles?
58fenix 1 year ago
Brosnan was a victim of crappy movies imo. I don't think Craig was ideal, but he was effective for what they were trying to do. Maybe if brosnan's films were more serious I could get behind him more.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
Will he had two good ones and one
okay one and a really bad one that had
him fired!
58fenix 1 year ago
Disagree. Brosnan was one dimensional and cartoonish. A string of mindless explosions and lazy plot devices. Brosnan had potential, and Goldeneye was ok, but his movies stunk. He never behaved as a spy - he would just go in, start fights with the villain, etc. Stupid. Craig is a more believable bond. You think 45-50 year old 170lb brosnan was believable in fights? Craig at least had the physical part down. He needs time to grow into the role. Stop living in the past.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
And the comparison with Jason Borne was just asinine. Bond was the model for this hero type since the 50's.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
Wow. Where to begin... This guy is arrogant and wrong on several points.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
You know what I wished they had Clive Owen as James Bond when he was rumored to be. I thought to myself that is who James Bond is. He has the looks, charms and psychic. But at the end of the day Pierce Brosnan will always be my favorite James Bond. Goldeneye will always be the best.
nickhodgesuk 2 years ago
I have to say i agree with you stann but i would go further...infact i could go on for days ranting and spiting bile about these films. But i'll spare you that and sum up the biggest problem we English had with them.
In their effort to "up date" the frachise the film makers took Bond and tryed to make him into Bourne. They terned a British icon and reduced it to a rip-off of an American film and that was unforgivable.
tribetng 2 years ago 2
Great intro music by the way, Stan.
A very enjoyable review of Daniel Craig's performance.
I need to see more of the early Bond films myself.
JimmySteller 2 years ago
I have to disagree with you Stan. I think Craig's portrayal of the role is more suited to a modern audience. Bond movies were becoming parodies of themselves. The gadgets were ridiculous (an invisible car?!), the lines were getting repetitive, the characters were vacuous, and the plots were just stupid. I think an assassin is supposed to be gritty and ruthless, which is what Craig is. The classic Bond 'schtick' was cool with Connery but it wore thin by the time Brosnan was Bond.
harshmo 2 years ago
Brosnan sleep-walked through the role and his movies were rubbish. Formulaic, predictable and way way way overdone. They were cartoonish. The new Bond has added a layer of grit and realism and can be taken a bit more seriously. They are darker more mature films. Stan is NOT a fan of Bond if he hasn't bothered to see the Moore and Dalton films. He is just in a hurry to give his goofy opinions without knowing what he's talking about.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
So you did'nt like Goldeneye and the
world is not enough!
58fenix 1 year ago
Comment removed
harshmo 2 years ago
Nice point but I just loved Casino Royal, and I just think it was the best movie of James Bond, but Quantum of Solace wasnt really that good. And I like craig, but they should probably go to the old Bond just a little bit more.
jorge9705 2 years ago
the 007 gun barrel its not absent its at the end
TimeMedler 2 years ago
you make a few good points, but i think one thing you need to know is that what they're trying to do with Craig as Bond is that they're trying to Bring to life the Bond that Author Ian Flemming described in his novels, he wasnt Originally meant to be suave, bold, handsome etc. Bond was always meant to be a Ruthless Killing machine.
raiderfan89ify 2 years ago
Craig is not sauve or sophisticated. I agree with stan on his point that Craig plays a much darker Bond. I dont understand why this would happen though. Surly if he has just become a double 0 agent then he would be alot less violent and evil than any previous Bonds because he has just started as a double 0 agent. It didnt make much sense that he would start out as a more evil agent and then get sauve sophisticated and camp later. Just my opinion though
CFCRyan1967 2 years ago
Everything he said that was wrong about Craig being more like Jason Born is everything I like about Craig as bond. Craig is the best Bond ever (my opinion, like it or fuck off). Also the gun barrel sequence was at the end of Quantum of Solace but I would have liked it at the beginning better. If Craig were to drop the role though I would want to see Christian Bale replace him, but then we'd start getting complaints about people not liking his raspy voice.
southparkfan2717 2 years ago
okay. please be aware that in the books, bond is sort of a jerk and not a suave, smooth guy. and the fact that the gun barrel scenes are changed, is the fact that its a new series. just a little heads up.
GamingShadow01 2 years ago
nah, I find him ok.
But yeah, he is bearly charming and acts like Jason Born.
Wonder who would be the next?
Wonder how Bale would play out?
danxtur 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Daniel Craig is a very good Bond. He is very suave and sophisticated, mostly in Casino Royale. Just look at the train scene and pretty much every poker scene.
Quantum of Solace was more of an excuse to blow stuff up than tell a real story.
Bustersword910 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Craig is major HOT, and reminds me more of Connery because he's tougher and more beefy, but i do think the campy, classy, sophisticated charming Bonds are more fun. Quantum looked like every other action movie out there. Nothing special about it. I loved the ending of your vid! I quite agree.
Orchid899 2 years ago
Your remark about Bond's actions seeming more like Jason Bourne speaks volumes.
Williamsfan 2 years ago
Totally agree, Stand in Stan.
-Where are Q, Moneypenny, and the gunbarrel sequence done proper? Granted they're going for more seriousness, but NONE of those three things takes away from the seriousness; the gunbarell's a great tradition, Moneypenny's a perpetual sex interest, adn even the Dark Knight, a VERY dark and serious fil, found a place for gadgets- where's the gadgets for the all-time agent, and Q... love Llewelyn, but we NEED Q.
-Can live with Craig, but not my fav, prefer Bros.
obiwanobiwan13 2 years ago 2
Being a fan that actually watched all the Bond movies and after the mess that was Die Another Day, I was excited that Bond was going in a different direction.
So called Bond fans whining about Craig is pointless. Now a message from a real fan. I want to see how these James Bond movies, portrayed by none other then Daniel Craig will playout. I don't want to see Bale, or Law or some other Hollywood A lister, Craig is better suited for the role.
Din0might7 2 years ago
In all of his incoherent ramblings Stand in Stan did make one valid point and it's not a small thing. James Bond's shooting threw a gun barrel scene should not be taken out. Not only is it tradition, it's just plain cool. Somethings just never go out of style and this is one of those things. As a kid I have mimicd this scene numerous times, and I'm going to do it right now.
Din0might7 2 years ago
I've always thought Pierce was a joke as bond. I don't know why, I can see the appeal I guess. But he had the charm and sophistication of a second rate television actor. The shoes were too big for him to feel and that's why he had the WORSE bond movies under his belt. Golden Eye was the only watchable one.
AmbulanceProductions 2 years ago
"--he had the WORST bond movies under his belt. Golden Eye was the only watchable one.--"
That's actually a really good point! I never thought about it that way. Come to think of it, Goldeneye really is the only Brosnan Bond film that I liked.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
but he is a good Bond.
MrJamesBourne 2 years ago
@standinstann I liked Die Another Day with Halle Barry. One reason is because at the beginning of the film he is tortured and once he makes it back to England he still manages to keep the charm that is an essential part of the bond character. I can't picture Daniel Craig reacting the same way under similar circumstances
MegaBeamish 1 year ago
@AmbulanceProductions I never accepted Brosnan as Bond. But now, after Quantum of Solace, he's suddenly become "the good old days".
Sonicmountain09 1 year ago
@AmbulanceProductions I loved Brosnan's Bond, but that's just me.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
Stan, all good points, but i think these new incarnations of Bond are quite good, i believe that the franchise was dying a little and with popularity of the Bourne franchise they needed to reinvented Bond to compete with that. Essentially making bond a more gritty character, i don't think he's a "big dumb thug" more a guy fighting to stay alive in "do or die" situations. And as a fan of ALL the bond movies I love the new direction and casting of these movies. Just my opinion as a lifelong fan.
MADmac055 2 years ago
"The name's Bond........Bale Bond!!!!"
schradww00 2 years ago 2
Bale for the next Bond.
MojoWeedPatrol9 2 years ago 2
I'm actually glad there was no Q, to me Desmond Llewelyn didn't just play Q, he was Q in the sense that anyone else playing him is just wrong.
I also strongly recommend the Timothy Dalton films, Dalton has a nice balance between Brosnan's charm and sophistication, and Craig's ruthlessness.
TheFandango19 2 years ago
I think Godzilla is the longest running series i think its a fari bti older and is still running and has 30 films, i cant honestly say daniel craig has ever bothered me as bond to be honest
FilmRangers 2 years ago
As it turns out, the Japanese Godzilla series has been running for 8 full years longer than the Bond films.
Godzilla celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 2004 with 'Godzilla: Final Wars,' and ended with a total of 28 films (excluding the American remake)
QUANTUMJOKER 2 years ago
WOW! That's a HELL of a long series!
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hated the fact that they left out the shooting camera scene. It's as important as him saying "Bond, James Bond!" It is just tradition. I like Casino Royal but Quantum of Solace just didn't seem like a Bond film.
Blizzard78 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here's the biggest problem with your shitty ass vid. You claim that this is a comparison of the old Bonds, and the new series, but you present false facts like, all the other Bonds are accepted by most people. Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean. Q and Moneypenny are supposed to be in it. These are factual things your're dealing with, and they are completely wrong. There was an outcry for all of them. Bond is supposed to be ruthless, and Q and Moneypenny don't always need to be in it....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
I didn't say that all the other Bonds are accepted by most people, I said that I got the sense that people were generaly okay with having a new face some in and play Bond.
I also didn't say that Q and Moneypenny are supposed to be in it, I said I wished they had been.
You keep using the word "facts" as if this is a critical essay. This is (as is written in the descriptoin) "my thoughts on the new Bond". (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
If you don't like my thoughts and opinions, that's perfectly fine, if you disagree with them, that's even better, but you're taking this WAY too seriously, and you're geting way too angry about it.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i actually thought Daniel Craig was a good actor for the james bond movie because the makers of the film were trying to make more of a real life movie.
nick005agent 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do some research on Bond. Get educated on the material, because everthing you said is dead wrong.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
You're saying that my comments are dead wrong based on the entirety of the bond material, well, I'm not talking about the entirety of the bond material; I'm talking about the films.
I dont have to become a Bond fan boy in order to make comment on a Bond film
And If I have to do research in order to enjoy a film, then the film makers have failed to make a good and accessible film for all audiences.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fine, your talking about the fucking films. Well guess what. This film continuity is completely new, and has nothing to do with the old films, and when you base your ideas on the way this continuity should be, on the old films which this continuity has nothing to do with, then your showing yourself to be a completely ignorant idiot.
No, you don't have to be a Bond fan to make a comment on a Bond film, but when your comments are dead wrong, in every possible way, then you need to do research.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Reaserch about what?
The Bond franchise has established its self as a campy series about a spy, turning that into a serious character driven reboot was new, suprising, and different.
You're talking aobut what I said at though I had ripped the character, or either of the films a new asshole, and I don't know where you're geting that from.
I prefered the campy, fun bond films, but I also enjoyed the new ones, and I understand what they were they were trying to go with the franchise...
standinstann 2 years ago
That's basically all I said in this thing, and you're flying off the handle and spiting out a bunch of fanboy exposition as though I had pissed on the whole thing.
Actualy watch the video next time rather than just hearing what your fanboy brain THINKS I'm saying.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You said that Bond isn't ruthless and mean. What the fuck are you basing that on? You've never read the books, so its not on that, and this film series has nothing to do with the old continuity, so you can't base it off of that either. So what says that Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean? Your piss poor idea? When you complain about the plot not making sense, that's a sensible complaint. When you say a character is not supposed to be the way he is, then you're just an ignorant dick....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
"You said that Bond isn't ruthless and mean. What the fuck are you basing that on?"
The early films.
You've never read the books, so its not on that, and this film series has nothing to do with the old continuity, so you can't base it off of that either.
I certainly can. That this new series has nothing to do with the old continuity is EXACTLY THE POINT I'M MAKING (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
if you actualy LISTEN to what I said, I said that this is a very different Bon than film audiesnces were used to, but I understand what they're trying to do with the character, and I go on to say that I prefered the more light hearted Bond, but didn't hate this one.
Calm your ass down, grow up, and stop geting hysterical.
Fanboy.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't know anything about Bond, yet you post a video listing some dead wrong facts. You said that you've never seen such an outcry for a new Bond. Well, one, you're only 28 years old, so your not old enough to know shit about that, and two, Craig is the first Bond where people can freely exress themselves online for all to hear. So of course, this is why you only heard an outcry for Craig. Not all the old Bonds are accepted, as you claim that they are. Get your facts straight numbnuts....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
I don't know anything about the entirety of the Bond material, no. I know the filma and what I liked about them, and that's all I'm talking about.
People who talk about Bond online arent limited to the modern Bond films and they've talked about the older films a lot.
Also, I heard a lot of outcry about Brosnan, and that he was basically just playing his TV role. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
What's more, audiences accepted Casino Royal was WAY more than they accepted "tomarrow never dies" which went too far the other way with the campyness and sillyness, and so did I.
Again, you're talking aobut this like it's a debate over the Gospel. It's James Bond, and I didn't say anything bad about it, I only said things that irritated you.
standinstann 2 years ago
Yuo do understand that the Bond novels and films arent a biography or documentary about a real person don't you? There are no "facts" to analyze. I can only talk about the material I'm familier with, and what I liked and didn't like about the change, and that's exactly what I did.
Grow up.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Bond isn't ruthless." - Your ignorant words.
Yes he is. When the hell did Casino Royale ever say he wasn't. When the hell did Quantum ever say he wasn't. Neither movie said he was a nice guy, but you say he's not supposed to be. Based on what? Oh, based on the old movies, which these movies have nothing to do with. You are completely clueless. If you're going to make a video, get your damn facts straight. Know a little about what you're talking about....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't have to do research to enjoy these films, but when you make a stupid, fucking stupid, remark like, Bond isn't ruthless and mean, then you need to do some research because that's not a complaint on the film. That's a display of your level of ignorance. You say, fuck you, to Ian Fleming, and you know nothing of James Bond. You're complaints are dead wrong, and that is not something to be proud of. Learn a little bit about Bond, before you make stupid remarks about the character again.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
If you actualy watch the video I made you'l see that I'm contrasting this bond with the older films.
Did they establish Bond as a ruthless thug in the older films? No, did they in this? yes. That's what I'm saying.
Did I HATE that move? No. Did I hate the films? No. Did I prefer the more campy bond, sure I did.
standinstann 2 years ago
I don't know where your fanboy brain got the idea that I was saying "fuck you" to anybody, but you realy need to calm down. We aren't talking about the ark of the covenant here, it's fucking James Bond for fuck sake.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You said that Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean. That's a big fuck you to the creator. You don't base that idea off any of the books. You can't base that idea of the old films, since this is a completely new continuity. So where did you get this idea from. It was pulled out of your ass, and you say that your idea of the character is how its supposed to be, and the creators idea is not. That's certainly a big fuck you to Ian Fleming.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
"You said that Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean. That's a big fuck you to the creator."
It has nothing to do with the creator, it has to do with the films, I can't say "fuck you" to an author that I've never read.
I can and did base that on the old films, and I pointed out (if you actualy watch the video) that I understood what they were trying to do with the character, and why they made him the way they did. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, you aren't contrasting this with the old films. If you were, you would say things like, this film series doesn't need Q and Moneypenny in it so much, rather than saying that Ian Fleming's story is bullshit for not having them in it. You say that you have never seen such an outcry for a new actor and also say that generally everyone accepts all the old ones, and that all that changed when Craig was hired. No. There was always an outcry, and many people still don't accept some of the old Bonds
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Holy cow, do you kiss the Bond novels every night before you go to sleep?
I said that Craig got more of a reaction from Bond fans than I had ever heard, and that's true. I did not say: "No other bond actor got an outcry from fans."
If anyone else got a big outcry, I wasn't aware of it, and I'm still not aware of it, and if they did, it has nothing to do with the video I made, I'm talking about my own personal take (as, again, stated in the description) on the newer Bond films.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Did they establish Bond as a ruthless thug in the older films? No, did they in this? yes. That's what I'm saying."
No, numbnuts. You didn't say that. You said that Bond isn''t supposed to be ruthless and mean. Isn't supposed to be. Not, wasn't ruthless and mean in the old films. You said, he isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean at all. Your facts are dead wrong, and your basing it off you ignorant, piss poor mind. Bond isn't supposed to be ruthless and mean, because you say so? Bullshit...
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
My exact words were: "frankly, I don't think that Bond is a mean or ruthless person"
I did not say "according to all the material, Bond isn't a mean or ruthless person".
You again use the word "facts" as if we're talking about an academic subject.
I'm talking from my perspective about what I liked in the older Bond films, and I said so everywhere. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
You are flying off the handle, and geting some wierd idea that I'm trashing the Bond material, I don't know why that is, but all I can tell you is: calm down, it's a fucking youtube video.
standinstann 2 years ago
Grow up and Calm down.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, and I was one of those guys who was disgusted by Craig when he was first hired....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Do a little bit of research. Read some of the books. Analyze some of the movies. Actually put thought into watching them, rather than just saying, oh I want gadgets, oh I want camp and I want women, through the whole thing. Bond movies have the potential to be great films, not just fun films. But if they keep listening to people who want camp, gadgets, and unecessary scenes and characters that don't add to the plot, then it won't happen.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
There's more here.... Q and Moneypenny not being in it is not bullshit. In fact, with Casino Royale, that's the novel. This is what I was just talking about. Putting characters and situations in, just because, rather than making sure that they are actually needed in the story, is fucking stupid. Q wasn't needed in either, neither was Moneypenny, and it would have been fucking stupid to devote a scene that has nothing to do with the plot, to them, just so they can be in the movie. Stupid idea....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Mentioning the gunbarrel, it would have been pretty odd, moving into a movie that is supposed to be a sequel - a direct continuation of the last one, but starting it off with a gunbarrel sequence, that makes it feel like you're entering an entire new adventure. That would have been quite fucking wierd. Maybe that's why they didn't put the gunbarrel at the beginning.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Now, they're going down the right track. They're focusing on making the greatest movie possible, and not just making a typical Bond movie. If you don't need a scene where Bond goes to get equipment that he'll hardly ever use, or plays only a small part of the story, then don't put it in there, just because you did in a lot of the other films. Bond doesn't need to introduce himself the same way to everybody that he runs across, like he did in A View to a Kill. All Bond films needn't be the same.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
I hear so many people telling me, that they go to the movies, to a two hour movie, so they can see a three minute long segment where Bond is talking to Q. You spend money to see that. Then others try to say they spend money to see a little 20 second bit at the beginning of the movie. And they don't even reshoot it for every movie. They shoot it once and just use it again for every movie. Also, he needs to say Bond, James Bond. No, he doesn't. He should only say it when the scene calls for it....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
No, I didn't want a darker, more serious Bond, but now that I got it, I am more content with Bond than I ever have been before.
Also, they did the gunbarrel sequence at the end of Quantum, and since we're talking about traditions, tradition is one of the things that almost ruined the Bond films so many times. Believe it or not, the success of a Bond film doesn't depend on whether he says Bond, James Bond. Or whether there's a scene with Q.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
The campy-ness is gone, because you see where campy-ness took it. It took it to Die Another Day, which was a joke of a film. James Bond coming over a tidal wave using the roof of a speed car. An invisible car. Bond using the ejector seat to do a flip. This is not James Bond and never should be. Casino Royale is exactly what James Bond should have been. That film, is exactly the kind of film Bond films should be. It almost feels like a 60s Bond film, which were also quite true to their sources...
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
"There's a really dark hostility..." You mean like Bond in the novels?
"There's a mean, ruthlessness behind this new Bond...." Still like the novels.
"I don't think that Bond is a mean or ruthless person." That just about says it all right there. You've just shown how much you really know about James Bond.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Or Christian Bale, with his soft face and puppy dog eyes. Craig is the kind of guy who, in the 50s, would have been regarded as a handsome man, no argument. Now, he looks too much like a man to be handsome. He doesn't have enough female features, so he can't be handsome. Somewhere along the way, the idea of a handsome man went to shit, and now we got people suggesting Orlando Bloom, or Christian bale as James Bond. Pretty boys. Sean Connery had a rough face. He was handsome, not a pretty boy....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Now, a handsome man, is one that has a rounded jaw. One that has cute, puppy dog eyes. One that has a soft, smooth face. One where you can't see the cheek bones, or a strong chin. One that has a jaw line, that curves down like an oval, rather than appear flat like a square. A soft looking person, like Brosnan. Now, real handsome men, like Daniel Craig, are regarded as ugly, and not what men should look like. Saying, men shouldn't look like men. Men should look like women. Like how Brosnan looked
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Daniel Craig's appearance, is what James Bond is supposed to look like. He's supposed to be handsome. Back in the day, when Bond was still a book character, handsome were men, who looked like men. Tough guys, men with square shaped jaws. Men who looked serious. Men who had strong facial features. This was what a handsome man was, and this is what Bond is supposed to be. Somewhere along the way, people started mixing up handsome, with pretty boy. I don't know why, I think that's stupid....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
"They replaced this, with this."
Oh no. You mean they took a soft looking man, who had a face that looked absolutely nothing like the way Ian Flemming described the character as looking, and replaced him with a man who had a face that looked exactly the way the novels described him as looking? That's a problem? He has the dark look. He has strong facial features. Most importantly of all, he has the perfect eyes. The mean eyes that Bond is supposed to have. You can see that at 2:19
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Or go onto some cheap petition website, and make a shitty ass petition about how they want some other guy to play him, an get the same guy under different usernames, to sign a million times, so they can get the count to go up.
The backlash has always been there. Everytime new actor is the wrong actor to get for the job, according to the majority of the fans. We accept the old ones, because they did their stuff. Everyone always attacks the new guy. Also, I say Brosnan was fucking terrible....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Sean Connery was a bad choice, because he wasn't David Niven. Then Lazenby was a bad choice, according to the fans of Connery, because he wasn't Connery. Same with Roger Moore. He was a bad choice to. When Dalton came along, he was a bad choice for being mean, then Brosnan was bad for being too soft and silly, and now Craig is a bad choice because he's too tough. The only reason Craig gets more, is because we have the internet now, and any schmuck can make a video displayhing their disgust.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
A little basic Bond information for you. Everytime they have hired an actor to play James Bond, there was a backlash, including Sean Connery. Everytime they hire a James Bond, he's always the wrong guy. No, it was not just Daniel Craig, it was everybody. I imagine you haven't seen a lot of despise for the older ones when they were hired, because you're only 28. The only one that ever concerned you was Daniel Craig's casting, because that was the only one you were old enough to give a shit about.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
They deleted the charm from his personality completely. And he is more Bourne than Bond now. Which is absolute crap.
Enough with the "cool" foot-chases across rooftops. Puke.
SonicMountain 2 years ago
Quantum of Solace is a crap film. Plain and simple. It has no story, and is just a series of special-effect action scenes.
TheSilhouette 2 years ago 2
Kind of like Die Another Day....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Dude you cant be serious.There was'nt no special effects.Thats one of the big reasons why he was a bad ass action film.That was real!
58fenix 2 years ago
frankly, i loved all of the bonds, and the new one is no diffrent, thats my oppinion
fathersky24688642 2 years ago
And the gunbarrel at the end of QOS.
The reason why they put it at the end of
the film is because it proves he's ready
to be a double 0 and it proofs he's BOND
JAMES BOND!
58fenix 2 years ago
I know this is your opinion but,there's
a lot of research you need to do.
Because there's so much about bond
that people dont get.Because to me a real
bond fan Would understand why Broccolli
and Wilson picked Craig.And to me people have been waiting for a bond like this for a long time.
58fenix 2 years ago
You see to play bond you have to have something interesting about you and he has that.Now brosnan is my favorite bond
and connery and moore are the best bonds.The thing is this people need to
know Craig is bond SO GET OVER IT!!!
58fenix 2 years ago
I remember seeing craig for the first time
and not understanding of why are they
picking him,But Before CR came out,
I started to look at some pictures of craig
to see what they see in him for bond.
And when I saw them He looked liked a
very dangerous evil type person.I knew
how they were going to portray his bond.
That were going to portay him in a dark
side way.
58fenix 2 years ago
Craig is of this time.We cant have another
brosnan or another connery or moore.
We need to change,but still need someone play bond in right ways.Trust
me if craig was'nt good enough,he
would'nt have did two bond flicks.
58fenix 2 years ago
Now if you've read the books that fleming
had wrote you would understand more.
Craig is very close to what fleming had
wrote,dark,rough,cold blooded killer,
Dangerous.Craig has the blue eyes
he's british he has the deep voice
He's perfect!
58fenix 2 years ago
So my point is is everybody that has played bond has played bond in a different way.They all hade something
bond would have.Now craig is completely
different.He plays bond in a very dangerouse way.100% danger.
58fenix 2 years ago
First of all We have hade 3 good bonds before craig,They are connery,moore and
brosnan.Check it out,Connery has played
bond in a very dangerous charming way.
Moore played bond in a laughting charming way and brosnan played bond
in a smooth way.
58fenix 2 years ago
First of all I can tell you for sure And I
mean for sure YOU ARE NOT A BOND FAN AT ALL.I mean going to lat it all down for you and answer your questions for
you!So open your eyes and READ.
58fenix 2 years ago
You are the man, for choosing Eric Serra's bond theme to GoldenEye as your opening. Simply the best.
VenusHeadTrap 2 years ago
personally i like casino royale over quantum of solice and i really enjoyed these over pierce's films.
kingbooforums 2 years ago
No Gadgets!!!!
No Q.
mitchtivi 2 years ago
This is my major problem with the new Bond direction. It's not Bond, it's a generic action flick and everything about these movies reflects that. There aren't even epic villains bent on world domination or zany henchmen. Some people feel that that's a benefit. "Oh it's more realistic. It's real" But that's not what I want to see. But they seem to be commercial success, so I just have to suffer through.
Stubrown711 2 years ago
Hey, I had to suffer through that piece of shit that was Brosnan, so now you can feel my pain....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Wayyy Wrong Godzilla is the longest Running film series in history with 29 movies.
This the first I've watched of stand in stan on his own and he's already fuckin up in the first minute
but im gonna see the rest of what he has to say. But Stan, you should add an annotation to correct that one part.
cuz thats a big fuckin fail as a movie bufffffffff
RillyMonsterZero 2 years ago
I don't think it's that big a deal really. I wasn't all together certain about that anyway, which is why I said "to the best of my knowledge."
standinstann 2 years ago
lol ya that was a bit harsh. Didnt mean to tear you a new one or anything.
Real classy of you to reply, and so quickly. Something your brother should inherit.
i more often dont share minds eye with you but i do respect you.
all best of luck with this channel.
this response earned a subscription.
I'm interested to see what u say about jesus camp but i wont watch it until i see it.
RillyMonsterZero 2 years ago
I can't reccomend it enough!
standinstann 2 years ago
He does'nt look like a big dumb thug.
He looks like a ripped up cutt up bond.
A muscular bond.He looks like someone
who could kill.There has'nt been a bond
that has looked like that.He's the first.
58fenix 2 years ago
I think Craig is the best Bond to date. Connery had a very ruthless sadistic dimension to his portrayal of Bond. Remember, this guy has a licence to kill. Plus he says the best line ever as Bond in CR... 'Do I look like I give a damn?' I liked Brosnen too but the formula was getting stale. Craig is much more like the Bond of the novels. By way standinstan, checl out Lazenby in OHMSS. Vastly underated. Anyway I hope Craigs Bond is with us for many years to come!
PrinceBishop3 2 years ago
The gunbarrel shot in Quantum of Solace is at the end of the movie. All your reivew says about you is that you deem any change as awful. Your criticisms of the techniques and elements are limited to good and bad. So basically all your reviews say are that you are an ignorant simplistic reviewer who is devoid of any knowlege of the creative process and that you are terrified of change. Seriously being as anti as possible for the sole purpose of attracting attention is so juvenile.
indiesk8r1 2 years ago
"I don't think that James Bond is a mean or ruthless person."
You need to read the novels. However, this new James Bourne is a step in the wrong direction. Craig is taking the character to psychological areas where he's not supposed to be.
HRVDNT 2 years ago
You bring up an interesting point.
Generaly speaking, when I see a movie, or a movie series, and I end up feeling confused about characters, a plot point, of even just a line of diologue, and I ask "why did this or that happen?'" or "why was this or that line in the movie?" I always hate geting the answer "Oh you need to watch X" or "you need to read the comics" or "You need to read the books" I don't want to read those things, I came to see a film. (con't)
standinstann 2 years ago
Sometimes it's necissary to have seen a television show if the movie is based on it, but even then I think it's usualy possible to introduce the audience to the character dynamics without having seen the show.
standinstann 2 years ago
Well, now that I think about it... wasn't Sean Connery's Bond very mean and ruthless? Not to everyone around him, but... man. He treated those poor women like shit.
HRVDNT 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When you make a stupid remark, like Bond isn't ruthless and mean, then yes, you need to read the fucking novel, because he is. You're idea of the character is completely wrong. And its not your character, so you can't decide what he's supposed to be like. Your opinion of the character is based on the other Bonds, and with Craig, they were being more like he was in the book. Ruthless and mean. If you want to see a film, go ahead, but don't make stupid remarks like Bond isn't ruthless and mean.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
I'm talking only about the films, not the novels: and in the films, bond was never established as being a mean ruthless thug.
standinstann 2 years ago
"Return to Oz" was a hell of a lot more like the Wizard of Oz books, and I didn't like that either because the characters were bizare and unfamilier, and the material was compleetly unlike the film that I thought it was based on.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good for the old films, but guess what, this is a new continuity, and they fucking did establish that he was ruthless for this film. That makes your remark, fucking stupid. You try to say that Bond's not supposed to be ruthless, but then say the books don't matter, and that you only care about the films, but then not take into account that this is a completely new continuity, in which they are trying to make Bond more like the Bond in the novels. Shows how un-thought at your ideas are....
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
wow, you're upset.
Well, all I can tell you is that I liked Casino Royale alot, not so much Quantum of solace, as I said in my video.
The new bond traits werent a deal breaker for me, but they were a suprise.
Unlike the older films, they gave bond something to care about and something to loose, particularly in CR, that was a welcome change: the older films were fun, but Bond was a little too infalable. If the hero is invincible he has no adversity over which to triumph.
standinstann 2 years ago
That I liked.
If they're going to go in a new direction, that's fine, as I said. I just hope that they let the character have some fun if they continue making films with Craig.
standinstann 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I posted here, because I thought I was going to get thought ideas, and remarks from somebody who did their research, and knows a little something about James Bond. Instead, I see a video by somebody who knows nothing about Bond, and gets everything dead wrong, but presents them as factual. You start off talking about, its the biggest outcry I've ever seen. Well one, you're only 28, and two, this is the first James Bond where anyone can express their opinion at any time.
ZombieMan04 2 years ago
Brosman is the best
starfoxfxfreak 2 years ago
why did they make Craig a blond bond? that's what really annoys me about those two films, i couldnt take him seriously. i know one of the other bonds had lighter hair than the others but it wasnt blond. suave and sophisticated can only be truly pulled off by a dark eyed and dark haired bond. craig's blue eyes also made him seem far too cold and kind of scary. i grew up with Brosnan as bond and thats how i'll always see bond ... sorry if thats a little biased
CombatWombat92 2 years ago
you do know daniel craig resembles more of sean connery (the only true bond) than pierce brosnan ever did. I'm sorry but I'm not much of a pierce brosnan fan and always found him a bit wimpy....i will agree daniel isn't as suave as connery though.
ramik81 2 years ago
now i havn't seen the other films but from what i've seen daniel craig looks older than the other bonds it doesn't seem like he belongs in an origin story at all
Firelordzerien 2 years ago
I'm going to agree pretty much entirely. The movies weren't awful, but they certainly weren't James Bond movies. This Bond isn't the suave, sophisticated secret agent we all know and love, he's... Well, he's the origional Ian Flemming character, which I guess is what they were going for. That works in books and short stories, but not in a film. I don't want dark and brooding, I want to have fun.
SLagonia 2 years ago
Godzilla is longer.
daftrok 2 years ago