Where exactly did the Craig Bond films go wrong? I know that there are a lot of problems, but I submit that there's a sort of ur-problem that all other problems flow from: people who didn't understand the draw of Bond as a character thought it would be beneficial to explore his past and motivations.
Die Another Day got so much negative feedback for how fucking stupid it was that Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson decided to go the opposite direction.
The problem is they went too far so we ended up with a film that was stripped of almost everything Bondian and became a generic action film that happens to include a poker scene. The next film, Quantum of Solace, went even further and came up smelling like a Jason Bourne film.
Sam Mendes has tried to undo some of the damage but only with minimal success. No offense to anyone who lloves Daniel Craig and his films but IMO they're all rather forgettable
>>71149246
>no quips
>no gadgets
>same car
>forgettable villains
>grimdark and super serious
when they decided that modern bond had to be gritty.
>>71149422
This.
>craig
>bond
>>71149422
I think you're a little out of touch with the Bond franchise if you think this was just pendulum swinging. It's like you don't know the reception Moonraker got.
>>71149433
>>71149471
I don't think the grittiness was ever a problem. Go read the books, it's there. The CraigBond (CB hereafter because I'm lazy) was crafted as a personal drama where they rub a psychopath's nose in the results of his actions over and over again. It's this entire idea of personal accountability tied in with exploration of motives and past that really make the films fall on their face, especially in the final two movies (e.g. there's literally no reason for Bond to take M to his boyhood home. Blofeld being injected as Bond's kinda-brother. Dench's M being mommy, etc.)
>>71149246
They tried to do James Bourne. Which wasn't bad, all things considered, since that franchise was over and both of them are spies. But QoS failed (undeservedly IMO but still) so they decided to change direction and hired Mendez with his maudlin art-shit and plots stolen from capeshit. He created one shitty well-praised movie and one even shittier that even the audiences hated.
>>71149750
>I think you're a little out of touch with the Bond franchise if you think this was just pendulum swinging. It's like you don't know the reception Moonraker got.
Exactly what is it that I don't know? A lot of people loved Moonraker when it came out, one critic even called it the best Bond film ever.
The overt silliness did cause some backlash which led to For Your Eyes Only being more grounded, but still very Bondian. I'm having trouble understanding the point you're trying to make, if any
>>71149750
When a franchise has been around for 20 films over the course of half a century, nobody really cares about the books they were originally based on.
As somebody who doesn't particularly like Bond I thought Skyfall was the best Bond movie ever.
>>71149995
Especially when the books aren't even that good. Fleming is a piss-poor writer, he had good ideas but his prose is terrible. The movies are so much better
>>71149886
>They tried to do James Bourne.
Which is kind of hilarious because it's a callback to Book Bond.
>>71149915
It's pretty clear when I outright state that if you think this is just course correction, you're out of touch. The CB was an outright reboot.
>>71149995
>I don't care about the books and think everyone agrees with me
More to the point, it's not necessarily a matter of caring about the books, it's more about knowing where this stuff comes from.
>>71150015
Skyfall was a legitimately terrible movie. It was slow and ponderous, illogical, and up its own ass with pretension in all aspects trying to be important but failing on all accounts.
>>71149995
The only time I ever hear anyone bring up the books is when they're trying to defend the Craig movies.
>They're more like the books so that means they're the best
>checkmate!
Most of them probably haven't even read them, they're just regurgitating opinions they've seen online. After all there plenty of disparities between the novels and the Craig films, it's not like they're some kind of super-accurate representation
>we'll never get a film series with the feel of Metal Gear Solid
>we'll never get a non-manwhore Bond who operates like an actual spy instead of a propped-up globetrotting dipshit
>>71150258
>it's not necessarily a matter of caring about the books, it's more about knowing where this stuff comes from
It came from Connery's rapey playboy portrayal of the character, along with Moore's jokester ladies' man portrayal. Those two defined the character of James Bond.
>>71149246
The writers strike fucked Quantum of Solace. Never saw Spectre, but Sam Mendes seemed obsessed with recycling stuff from the 60s.
>>71150407
>>we'll never get a non-manwhore Bond who operates like an actual spy instead of a propped-up globetrotting dipshit
Gritty or non-gritty, book or movie, that's literally the exact opposite of James Bond.
>>71150015
>as someone who's not only a neophyte, but a total pleb as well, here's my opinion
Thanks. Now kindly go eat shit.
>>71150258
>It's pretty clear when I outright state that if you think this is just course correction, you're out of touch. The CB was an outright reboot.
It was a reboot? Really? Thank you for that shocking revelation, I had no idea
A hard reboot was a course correction, just like the soft reboot that was the Dalton films after the ridiculous AVTAK. There's nothing you can tell me that I don't already know, and repeating that I'm "out of touch" isn't going to convince anyone that you're right
The Craig!Bond films failed because they came in the middle of the Bourne-esque "gritty action" film saturation, and also because society's tastes have changed. The Cold War is over, white men aren't the darlings of the world anymore and a lot of people are tired of seeing squave white guys outwit Russians and brown people while fucking hot bitches. It's a story that's been done to death and no longer fits the narrative people would like to see.
>>71150258
>Skyfall was a legitimately terrible movie. It was slow and ponderous, illogical, and up its own ass with pretension in all aspects trying to be important but failing on all accounts.
lol cool buzzwords
daily reminder that Connery didn't want to do more, even for dozens of millions $
daily reminder that Moore didn't want to do more, even for dozens of millions $
daily reminder that Craig doesn't want to do more, even for dozens of millions $
really makes you think
have a nice day
>>71150494
>A hard reboot was a course correction, just like the soft reboot that was the Dalton films after the ridiculous AVTAK.
No, a reboot is not a "course correction", it's starting over, dispensing with everything that's come before. A course correction is like adjusting the course of a missile in flight. A reboot is blowing it up and launching another.
>I had no idea.
Yeah, it's pretty damn clear you don't.
>There's nothing you can tell me that I don't already know.
Yet here you are, posting on 4chan. All that "knowledge" has served you well.
>"repeating that I'm out of touch"
You are. And you repeating that you're not isn't making your assertions any more true.
>convince anyone that you're right
>implying I give the slightest shit about people choosing to be wrong about a made up character
>>71150488
lmao enjoy your fucking awful manchild franchise
They failed because they started out with a gritty take on Bond that was exciting and dumped it completely by the end of the third film for '60s nostalgia and ridiculous plots. Blofeld being Bond's brother is literally right out of Austin Powers.
The decline was actually pretty similar to the progressive failure of the Brosnan films.
>>71150638
Doesn't make them untrue.
>>71150634
>white men aren't the darlings of the world anymore and a lot of people are tired of seeing squave white guys outwit Russians and brown people while fucking hot bitches
So they basically turned on their own fanbase? Because that's who you just described. They could have kept their niche without resorting to becoming just another generic, flavor of the month action flick in order to appeal to children and millennials.
The worst thing about the Daniel Craig era of James Bond is that there was in my opinion, this underlying sense of being ashamed to be James Bond movies and trying to be something different "We arent like those other Bond movies" type thing
>>71150671
>No, a reboot is not a "course correction", it's starting over, dispensing with everything that's come before. A course correction is like adjusting the course of a missile in flight. A reboot is blowing it up and launching another.
Semantics, a hard reboot is a change of course. A drastic one, sure, but I don't see why you acted condescending just because I didn't specify it was a hard reboot in my first post. Everyone already fucking knows that
Jesus, why do Craig fans sperg out so hard whenever anyone criticizes his films?
>>71150712
>by the end of the third film for '60s nostalgia and ridiculous plots
Fucking what? Skyfall was when it completely jumped the shark and stopped even pretending to a James Bond movie. It's the furthest possible thing from "60's nostalgia".
>>71150927
No, it's not "semantics". You're trying to turn it into one to be less wrong, but sure, go ahead and defend your internet honor.
>Craig fans sperg out
I'm not a fan in the slightest.
>>71151000
The car was pure nostalgia. Also the final scene with new M. No argument about the plot being hot garbage.
>>71150927
>why do craig fans sperg out so hard whenever anyone criticizes his films
Because they are the movies they grew up with as children and will say anything to defend them as the best, when most other fans hate the direction they took with the franchise when they hired Craig.
>>71150849
very true
They even did away with the dancing silhouettes in the opening credits, which seemed to me like they were saying "look everyone, we're not chauvinist anymore!" That plus the gratuitous shot of Craig showing off his bod a la Ursula Andress screamed of trying to appeal to women and prevent any complaints about muh soggy knees
>>71151024
Go back and read my original post. I said "they decided to go in the opposite direction." Exactly how is this untrue or show that I didn't know it was a reboot? How does this show that I'm out of touch? You've yet to explain this, or anything really besides being a condescending autist
>>71151086
>the car was pure nostalgia
That's like saying using the name "James Bond" was pure nostalgia. It's not an Easter egg, or even a reference only fans would pick up on. It's just a way of saying, "WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS A JAMES BOND MOVIE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! IT'S AIMED TOWARDS A NEW GENERATION OF FANS AND DEPARTS WILDLY FROM EVERYTHING THAT'S WORKED BEFORE, BUT LET'S FIND A WAY TO GIVE A NOD TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO GREW UP WITH THE SERIES, BECAUSE THAT WILL GIVE PARENTS A REASON TO GO SEE IT AND WE WILL COVER ALL DEMOGRAPHICS!"
>>71151245
It's not "the opposite direction" though. That's the point you keep missing. It's an entirely different understanding of the character.
>>71151086
How the fuck is there a scene killing off a FEMALE M that many hated anyway entirely nostalgia?
>>71151399
Die Another Day is silly and over-the-top. Casino Royale is gritty and down-to-earth. Brosnan played a sauve ladies' man, Craig a hard assassin.
Opposite directions, the fact that it's a reboot or that it's a "different understanding of the character" doesn't make what I said any less true. A reboot can go in the opposite direction of what it is rebooting, in fact with Casino Royale that was the motivation behind rebooting it in the first place.
>>71151432
Because a galaxy far, far away is actually Hell
>>71151432
Jesus, really? Who hated Judi Dench?
>>71151589
>Dench, in general
No one. Dame Dench is fucking awesome
>Dench's M
Most everyone.
>>71151589
Men who aren't cucks.
#BrExit #Trump2016
>>71151619
This is the first I've heard of that. Is this like 4chan everyone or real people?
>>71151432
I think he's saying they recreated M's office from the 60s
>>71151589
I like Judi Dench and she was a good M, but her casting was spoiled by the fact that it was an obvious and hamfisted attempt to seem progressive. Especially since in her very first scene in her office with Bond has her calling him a misogynist.
I was glad to see her go
>>71150844
Maybe, but the point of a movie is to make money. The early Bond films/books played off of Western Exceptionalism and Russophobia because that was how people were feeling at the time. Regardless of how you feel about "children and millennials", they're the primary viewing demographic now.
>>71151540
>here I do actually play semantics again to seem less wrong.
You're hilariously oversimplifying and putting to lie the idea that you already know anything relevant about both Bond and how stories and characters actually work.
Go back to any of the prior changes in direction and you'll see that the core character remains the same. The very foundation of the character, its very conceit of the entire franchise is changed in CB.
>>71151672
Real people, but a hyperbolic statement.
>>71151692
Don't forget the whole mommy complex+the standing over a chick drowned in oil and downdressing Bond for using women.
>>71151726
>reboot movies are making more money than movies ever had
>lets just stop doing anything original while at the same time actively killing every franchise anyone loves from the past
Absolutely disgusting.
>>71149246
The main flaw with the Craig movies is that the writers felt the need to connect the films together in unecessary ways, as if to create an ongoing story arc, when really the films would have been better off being more discrete, like the series was up to that point.
This decision hurt QoS greatly by trying to make it a direct sequel to Casino Royale. This was a terrible choice and combined with the writers strike and general poor plot of QoS led to the film having no real identity of it's own other than being a poor Casino Royale follow up.
They showed restraint next and it worked. Skyfall succeeds because it tells it's own story, with M and Silvia, with none of the baggage of the earlier movies. The Bond backstory introduced would have been fine if it was just confined to Skyfall, but it grew out of control and played too large a part in Spectre.
Spectre is where things reach breaking point though. The film's attempts to retroactively force all the previous movies into one coherent story fails and the reveal that Blofeld was pulling the strings all along is both laughable and harms the earlier films. The attempts to retcon the motivations of previous characters and justify introducing the villanous SPECTRE organisation so soon after QUANTUM fall flat. It's poor writing and retconning more in line with the MGS series than James Bond
Casino Royale and Skyfall were the best because they had the oppurtunity to be their own films. QoS and Spectre are burdened with the task of tying everything together into one story and they are weaker films because of it
>>71149422
This is what I've been saying for a long time.
You get it, anon, you get it.
We need a Bond film that isn't stripped of it's elements and isn't over-the-top, a right combination of both, i.e. another Goldeneye.
>>71149246
Because Bond just doesn't work anymore. Espionage has changed and so have values. Only way a Bond character could work in this day and age would be as an anti-hero with a really really dark side. An outspoken one. And that simply does not compute with fun.
Only solution would be to have the movies take place in the past or in some undefined setting, examples are Man from Uncle and Archer.
Imho Archer is the closest and best thing to Bond we'll be able to get in the foreseeable future.
>>71151836
She was right, but I don't think that moment was supposed to feel progressive or whatever, because he curbstomps her guards and basically tells her to go fuck herself.
>>71151971
I honestly can't see how you can put Skyfall and CR in the same category in any way other than the "stories were the more discrete of the two" which I honestly do not believe salvages the head-up-ass pretension of Skyfall.
>>71152056
>Only way a Bond character could work in this day and age would be as an anti-hero with a really really dark side. An outspoken one. And that simply does not compute with fun.
That was Craig Bond in Casino Royale.
>>71149647
They don't laugh. They smile.
>>71152128
I was thinking more explicit, but yes, you could see it that way. And as I said, it didn't work.
>>71152056
Bond takes place in another universe, cinematic universe, so no, it doesn't matter about spies today. In Bond's universe, gadgets, girls, villains with signature elements and fast cars make sense.
None of the shit in any of the Bond films could have ever happened in real life, except perhaps Casino Royale, I wouldn't be surprised if a secret agent has gone through something similar to what happened in that film, before; but that's because it was the most realistic Bond ever made, arguably.
Other than that the films are pure cinematic fantasy.
>>71151736
And here I try to make the discussion more civil and you have to act like a faggot again.
>You're hilariously oversimplifying and putting to lie the idea that you already know anything relevant about both Bond and how stories and characters actually work.
I love how you just insult me without actually saying anything meaningful or addressing anything I said
>Go back to any of the prior changes in direction and you'll see that the core character remains the same. The very foundation of the character, its very conceit of the entire franchise is changed in CB.
I know all this. You're acting like it's some big secret or something. Again, it doesn't make what I said any less true. The character was changed because they wanted to take the franchise in a different direction. You have yet to provide any argument to the contrary except repeating "it's a hard reboot" and calling me an idiot for "not getting it." Pathetic
>>71152056
>Because Bond just doesn't work anymore.
I call bullshit.
I bet if a major studio put out a Connery-styled Bond it would blow up the box office.
>values have changed
I think it's more just the studios don't want to offend with big budget stuff. It's not that the general values have changed so much that there isn't a very large percentage of people who'd happily go to such a movie, it's just studios don't want to deal with the vocal minority who feel that such a movie would affect them.
>>71152100
It's a retarded scene that literally shows M as being a head-in-sand incompetent. That particular discussion should have happened literal decades ago if it were to happen.
>>71152198
So the Craig movies weren't over the top enough. I think I see what you mean and I agree.
>>71152253
>Connery-styled Bond
>in this day and age
And what would you suggest this should look like?
>>71152246
>more civil
I don't care how civil it is or your intentions. You've revealed yourself to be worthless and will be treated as such.
>I know all this.
You clearly don't.
I'll pretty much admit it, while I like Craig in some ways, I think his Bond and the movies failed for the most part. Casino Royale was probably the only good thing to come out of him, Skyfall looked nice, and was entertaining, but shallow and forgettable.
I actually think the Brosnan films as a whole were slightly better, holy fuck that's bad.
I think the franchise is maybe dead, 24 films and they've exhausted so many scenarios and whatnot I think they've run out of ideas; that, and the fact that the people running it, including Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson are incompetent and don't really know what they're doing. They need smart, creative and talented people to run the franchise if they want to continue the series. Otherwise I think it's done, but of course, they'll still keep beating a dead horse for money.
>>71152031
>We need a Bond film that isn't stripped of it's elements and isn't over-the-top, a right combination of both, i.e. another Goldeneye
So basically a return to the original, Connery style Bond film? That's what I'd like to see. Even make them period pieces and go back to Cold War stuff and pre-internet technology/gadgets.
That's where the Brosnan films went wrong. Without Communism, and with the rapid rise of computer technology and the internet, they literally had no idea what direction to take the character, because everything changed, and as many times as they've tried, nobody wants to watch someone sitting behind a computer screen; that's what people look at all day in real life.
Then instead of going back to making old school Bond films they apparently just said fuck it, and copied the Bourne movies, which just happened to be popular at the time.
>>71152262
No. The Craig films, as the first post best post responded, went in the complete opposite direction of DAD and became stripped of everything. The Producers hyper-reacted to the backlash of DAD's outlandishness, so we didn't get any middle ground, classic Bond films. CR was great though, but that's cause of Martin Campbell and the book and the fact they put a shit load of effort into it.
The films need to stay middle ground, like Goldeneye, not too stripped of Bond elements but not over-the-top, just right.
>>71152031
As good as it sounds to get another GoldenEye, I don't see it happening. Post 9/11 audiences are so obsessed with grittiness and anti-heroes and the like that they would reject it.
They just need to stop making 007 films. James Bond is dead, time to take him off life-support.
>>71152468
>CR was great though
Only it wasn't. It was sad, boring and utterly forgettable except for Craig's face and the Chris Cornell song.
>>71152298
The same thing it looked like back then. Take the success of Archer as an example. Men will always love a suave prick who bangs hot chick's and doesn't give a shit.
>>71152373
>So basically a return to the original, Connery style Bond film? That's what I'd like to see. Even make them period pieces and go back to Cold War stuff and pre-internet technology/gadgets.
No, that would be different. But still good. I've been thinking about that, having period pieces and whatnot, a Bond film taking place in the 60s, connery-like, released today. Would be refreshing.
What I meant was Goldeneye really just nailed the right formula for a grounded Bond film in the modern day age. It took place in modern times, had comedic but not too comedic moments, had gadgets but not over the top ones, exciting chase scenes, sexy smart and substantiatve somewhat Bond girls, and a villain that we cared about.
>>71152528
What's your thoughts on Archer?
>>71152298
Different anon, but...
>have bond get called out for being slightly racist and ignorant when in an exotic locale
>have bond get bested by a strong female character at some point
Everything else remains the same, but there's equality and understanding without sacrificing the character.
>>71152561
While he's operator as fuck.
>>71152370
Craig killed the franchise. No charisma. They turned it into a Bourne movie, but Bourne outclassed them in every way.
>>71152528
>Post 9/11 audiences are so obsessed with grittiness and anti-heroes and the like that they would reject it.
Yeah because that explains why Marvel with it's lighthearted and campy shit with quips is doing so well right?
It doesn't matter if it's in the style of Goldeneye and the like, what matters if it's good. That's it. People already know the franchise and people only care if a movie is good, however it is made.
>>71152528
>Post 9/11 audiences are so obsessed with grittiness
[citation needed]
This is the kind of attitude that gets us a Ghostbusters reboot where instead of having 4 different characters has 4 different "the wacky one".
Don't think for a moment that suits have any clue what they are doing or that audiences have such distinctive tastes (even while getting them entirely wrong, I mean it's like you don't even realize that the safest investment for a studio is to fund an Adam Sandler movie).
>>71152370
I think other than a vocal minority, pretty much everyone agrees with everything you're saying.
>>71152561
>Men will always love a suave prick
And women.
How do you think Sean Connery has a reputation as being one of the sexiest men ever? Thinking stuff like Bond only appealed to men is highly idiotic.
>>71151930
I'm with you to an extent- the lack of risks or original ideas in Hollywood is pretty gay. I don't shed any tears for James Bond though, as to me it's kind of like blackface: the ideas and implications it's source espoused are no longer relevant.
>>71152592
Die in a fire.
>>71152579
It's funny but a bit too obnoxious for my tastes.
That said I see your point, the problem is that audiences only accept it because it's a full-on comedy. Modern audiences don't like tongue-in-cheek or camp, it has to be either serious or a sitcom. Anything that tries to blend drama with lighthearted comedy is derided as corny and dumb
It's why we don't get shows like Hercules, Xena, Buffy, Angel, etc anymore
>>71152698
>the ideas and implications it's source espoused are no longer relevant.
Again, how so?
>>71152620
I agree somewhat, however I do think it's a good thing that they were willing to try new things and give us a gritty Bond, unfortunately it went to shit for the most part.
>>71152698
Again, Archer. You fucking dumbass. The source will always be relevant
>>71152633
>Yeah because that explains why Marvel with it's lighthearted and campy shit with quips is doing so well right?
I think audiences give these films a free pass because they're based on comic books, and not many people take them seriously
>>71152698
Barbara Broccoli is largely to blame. The dumb cunt is authoritarian as fuck when it comes to the Bond franchise, she has to approve everything and she always chooses the "safe" option with making the Bond films. "No risks, gotta stick to a formula".
>>71152830
>and not many people take them seriously
fuckin kek
>>71152830
Are you seriously implying that people take any of the Bond movies seriously?
If we're being really honest, the CraigBond was treated like if someone turned ScoobyDoo into a horror movie directed by Rob Zombie.
>>71152816
No one laughs with Archer. He gets laughed AT, and the writers go through great pains in every episode to show that he's basically a dumbass manchild.
I really don't understand your point. Bond movies should be more like a show that's literally a parody of Bond movies?
>>71152924
I bet you also don't get how Team America World Police worked.
>>71152924
kek, you don't even understand the appeal of Archer
>>71152638
Eh, I'm probably overstating things but gritty films/shows seem to have increased in popularity exponentially in this century, while fun tongue-in-cheek stuff has mostly faded in relevance
>>71151540
This guy gets it. The idiot who is replying to him needs to get checked for autism.
>>71152920
>Are you seriously implying that people take any of the Bond movies seriously?
I should have worded it differently, what I meant was that not many people care about superhero films they just see them as throwaway entertainment.
On the other hand, James Bond is an established franchise with a great legacy that many film fans actually respect.
>>71152987
>in relevance
Stop using this term or even thinking about it.
What is "relevant" is simply what is advertised the most/best. Dark and gritty shit is what gets greenlit more often than not at the higher budget levels because they are believed in by the gatekeepers as consistent earners. Look at American Pie's return to the 70s/80s style raunchy comedy. Market gets flooded for a bit with knockoffs, then they stop making as much money, so next genre up. The whole Star Wars thing is only happening because Star Trek was commercially viable, something people gave up on for a long damn time. It's all people copying other people's success, over and over again, at the higher levels.
Casino Royale and Skyfall were good.
Quantum of Solace was, as someone said earlier, a film that forgot it was bond and just went full action with an almost laughable plot and bond girl dynamic.
Spectre tried to be more like classic bond films while blending with Craig's brute style Bond but it simply ended up feeling like a mediocre version of both.
The problems with the Craig Bond are when they try to deviate from the formula of this iteration being the colder brute side of Bond with less comedy and less flirtatious charm. Casino Royale and Skyfall remained more true to what the Craig flavor should have been in each movie.
>>71152698
>the ideas and implications it's source espoused are no longer relevant
While colonialism, racism, and misogyny are frowned upon these days, a bad ass male lead who can both be suave and funny, fight baddies and seduce women, who's undercover identity as a rich, jet-setting playboy is really his real identity while he saves the world in his spare time, is as old as history, and will never become an outdated male fantasy.
>>71153170
you make a fair point
>>71152714
All I was saying was throw a bone or two to the sjw's so that 90% of the discussion isn't about a vocal minority complaining about issues that are barely relevant, and shouldn't reflect negatively on the character.
>>71153068
>I can't see the difference from say the Star Trek that kept core character conceits while wildly changing everything else and CraigBonds which changed core character conceits but I'm the autistic one
Gotcha.
>>71152724
>Anything that tries to blend drama with lighthearted comedy is derided as corny and dumb
Explain the success of Marvel then.
>>71152816
People defending Craig often bring up Austin Powers as a big reason for the change. Archer just took it a step further away from being taken seriously if it were to go back to a bit of old school camp (which is what I'd like to see).
>>71152924
>No one laughs with Archer
>implying
The guy has quality bants. Of course people laugh when he burns people.
>>71152920
>CraigBond was treated like if someone turned ScoobyDoo into a horror movie directed by Rob Zombie
That's actually a really good analogy.
RZ movies are occasionally decent, but what kind of a reaction would you expect if you slapped the Scooby Doo name on them and lured in a bunch of SD fans?
>>71153454
Why? Seriously, who cares if the character is universally loved/vocal minority bitching about some aspect of them? As a matter of fact, you'll have a vocal minority bitching about something all the time, but the more important thing is who really gives a shit if a womanizing Bond is demonized?
A great example of not giving a shit if your character is liked and has resulted in a beloved character is Frank Underwood. To further distance the idea that pandering to special interest groups is bad is Don Draper. The moral of characters like these is that the best tack to take is to give an interesting character, then let the audience react how they will. I mean hell, for another example, look at Wolf of Wallstreet. The film reveled in excess, but showed it neutrally letting people just decide what they liked or hated about it.
A womanizing, misogynistic, rapey Bond would be interesting as fuck compared to milquetoast alternatives.
>>71153512
You got me there, maybe there's something about it being based on a comic book that makes people not care? Because it seems you can only get away with it if it's about superheroes
>>71153512
>Explain the success of Marvel then
It's literally: Children will watch whatever is marketed to them and love it because they are children and don't know any better.
This has always been the case, and has nothing to do with the quality of media the children of a certain generation are forced to grow up with.
>>71153781
eh, Dramadies are a huge thing in critical circles (and regularly suck at the box office)
>>71153827
But Marvel movies are popular with most critics too (on average)
>>71149246
Dunno. I really enjoyed all of Craig Bond's movies. He was quite different from the others. Bit of a thug and not so much of a classy, british gentleman. Looking forward to the next Bond, and hopefully he'll reinvigorate and bring something new to the franchise.
>>71153827
>Children
I'm pretty sure that young adults are the driving force here.
>>71153827
>implying Marvel is marketed to children exclusively
That's really almost like saying Indiana Jones or classic Bond was marketed to children, or Star Wars.
>>71153884
>dramadies are a huge thing in critical circles
I.e. critics praise little indie movies as a welcome change from the big budget cookie cutter schlock that has flooded the market in the past decade, knowing full well that nobody really cares because those movies aren't making any money to begin with.
bump.
Decent thread. Haven't seen that in a while.
>>71153953
>Star Wars.
It was. Literally. It's like the movie version of the first Transformers series. Everything about it was designed with merchandizing in mind.
>>71153953
Classic Bond was more geared toward adults, Indiana Jones was geared towards everybody, and Star Wars was enjoyed by everybody, but targeted at children.
None of that matters, though, because everything is different about the "movie going experience" these days compared to what it was when any of those movies came out.
>>71154037
So was Jurassic Park. Your point?
>>71150649
Craig took the job to make all his actions scenes without stunt double so they can be more realistic. The movies probably took a big toll in his body and certainly it wouldn't be safe to make EVEN MORE Bond films. He was a great Bond, I liked him
>>71154140
No, it actually wasn't. Star Wars was designed from the ground up to target kids.
>your point
That it's really stupid to say that Star Wars wasn't targeted at kids.
>>71154655
It's kind of dumb to pretend that a movie about dinosaurs wasn't marketed to children (I was 8 when it came out and yes, it was heavily marketed to children).
On the other hand, the biggest Michael Crichton fans were probably also the biggest Bond fans: businessmen who needed something to read on their plane trips around the world (flying was still kind of cool in the early 90's).
>>71154930
>It's kind of dumb to pretend that a movie about dinosaurs wasn't marketed to children (I was 8 when it came out and yes, it was heavily marketed to children).
I can tell that you were only 8 when it came out because yes, there was some marketing aimed at bringing kids in, there was also marketing that made it look like a horror movie.
But aside from that, acknowledging that one thing was literally built from whole cloth to be aimed at kids while another wasn't is not somehow denying that the latter wasn't adapted to suit that purpose.
>>71150649
>daily reminder that Connery didn't want to do more, even for dozens of millions $
You're aware he wanted MORE money that they weren't willing to pay, right?
So to all of you saying we should get a "true" modern Bond movie...wasn't that kind of what Kingsmen was?
>>71149246
James Bond was never good.
>>71156690
>implying "good" is an indicator of a successful movie in any respect.
>>71156690
And neither was 4chan, but a decade later and we're all still here...
