Wait OHMSS is the one Queen of Thorns is the bond girl in? Now I def have to see it.
Wait OHMSS is the one Queen of Thorns is the bond girl in? Now I def have to see it.
Yep.
I'm curious. Are they rebooting the story arc with each new actor or was Craig's Bond the first time? Was it a reboot?
Eh, I just think of the movies like the Zelda games. Yes there's connections between each, but at the end of the day I don't care. I just enjoy it for what it is.
Not a reboot.
The Craig movies were the first ones to really go for a fully interconnected storyline.
The Zelda comparison for the non-Craig movies is pretty valid in that while we see a lot of the same characters, each movie is almost entirely disconnected from the previous entries.
And yeah, Casino Royale was effectively just an origin story to provide the groundwork for the new storyline that stretched thru the next few movies.
But see, that's part of what made them compelling. Each movie was like a new installment in the same universe. It was like a day in the life of Bond. Not having a connected story kept the stories fresh with no pressure to connect it to previous movies.
That's really the issue I have with the Craig movies. Casino Royale set a good tone, QoS ruined it, Skyfall delivered, and Spectre just went back to the same formula that made old Bond films successful without any of what really made it good. I personally didn't mind the whole Blofeld thing but they really didn't have to have any connection to any of the previous movies. It felt shoehorned.
I think someone said it earlier, but I think Skyfall was supposed to come last but they shelved Spectre instead.
If they go back to the "day in the life of Bond" method with the new Bond I'll be fine with it. The expectations for Craig were pretty steep because they made the origin story with him. Whoever comes next will go back to the old formula hopefully.
I'd fucking love to see a period Bond flick but it'll never happen. The 50s/60s settings in the books make them infinitely more fascinating to me than a lot of the stuff in the movies.
Per the discussion a little ways up; I enjoyed OHMSS when I watched the film and once I read the books, I absolutely loved it. The Blofeld trilogy in the books is a fantastic arch even with Thunderball being a little weak.
Anyone who is a fan of Bond absolutely owes it to themselves to read the novels; by in large they absolutely hold up and are a completely different beast than the movies almost entirely. Bond in the books is a chain smoking alcoholic who is very nearly sociopathic.
Craig in Casino Royale is the only film version of Bond that really got close to the book. Connery sort of did his own thing from the beginning, and every movie version after it was based around Connery's version.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/tom-hiddlesto...ond-1779159140According to Birth.Death.Movies, Hiddleston is in “advanced talks” to take on the role of 007.
Interesting that so many places source that site now. It's the new Latino Review.
I don't even care who Bond is right now, get the series back in the Casino Royale direction stat.
Hiddles? Hmmm.
Wow, I didn't know that Tom is only 35. That's a young Bond.
If he can buff up a bit, I'm sure he can nail it. Dude is boss. I just want to see more of the same serious tone that we've got the last few movies (with hints of comedy peppered throughout) makes for such a better Bond than the campy super out there stuff.
Have you watched The Night Manager? That scene where he runs down the beach in I think the third episode? Hiddleston is already plenty shredded