What exactly was Roger Moore's in excuse then..
yeah, that's what I thought back at the time. I mean, Brosnan wasn't like in his 70s or something...
edit: ok, moore was 58 in his last bond movie, sean connery was 41 for Diamonds are Forever. Brosnan would have been 45 or 46 for his last bond movie.
Craig is 43 now, but he looks older.
Last edited by Bender; 11-04-2011 at 04:54 PM.
To my understanding, it had less to do with his age than it did with everyone wanting to wash its hands of the suckfest that was Die Another Day. The fact that movie was panned scared folks into thinking there was no longer an audience for the cheeky/cheesy Bond, rather than thinking there wasn't an audience for ty writing and lackluster directing. The decision after that one came out was to go in another direction, which kind of ruled out Brosnan as continuing the franchise -- as much as I liked him as Bond, he's not right for something like Casino Royale.
On top of that, I think he'd somewhat lost interest in doing it any longer.
I forgot about Die Another Day. That means Brosnan would have been 48 or 49... older than I thought.
I like Casino Royale for the most part; Quantum of Solace sucked.
I actually like that it's not a cheesy franchise anymore; I can't even watch a Roger Moore Bond movie.
Craig is hot.
+1
Connery is still the best Bond.
---
I grew up in the later Roger Moore Bond period so my first experience with the character was the quippy wrinkled old man who somehow got women half his age to sleep with him without any sort of financial... considerations. The whole thing was ridiculous.
Thought Bronson did a fine job bringing respectability back to the franchise... just wish the producers had given a about the stories they were telling. After GoldenEye, all the Bronson films we complete trash script and plot wise. And Bond was still essentially a cartoon character. Just one that looked better in a Tux and was somewhat believable in action scenes.
Craig makes Bond a real, non-cartoon character again for me. Casino Royale is my absolute favorite Bond movie, and although Solace wasn't as good I like the over-arching mythology they are establishing. In many ways corporations have more power than most governments these days, so I think the plot is heading into interesting territory if they continue to follow Bonds attempts to unravel the global corporation / conspiracy that is Quantum.
It took them a long time to make the third Craig film because MGM was in bankruptcy and had no money to finance another film, but was also reluctant to sell the rights given it was the only viable franchise the studio has. Eventually they came to a shared agreement with Sony to get the film going.
Been reading a lot of rumors that Idris Elba is being strongly considered as Craig's eventual replacement. Rumors of course mean nothing, but that would definitely renew my interest in the franchise. Elba is a of an actor, and I think a lot more versatile than Craig. Perhaps even more importantly, he can be charming. Having a Bond who lacks charm is a problem.
Brosnan didn't look like he could kick ass the way he did in the movies. At least Craig is believable when he's destorying mofos left and right.
And yes, Quantam of Solace sucked. It was action scene, rest for 5 minutes, action scene, rest for 5 minutes, repeat.
Haven't liked a Bond movie since Goldeneye.
I really like Craig as an actor. Casino Royale was ok, but it didn't do much for me. Not a fan of his Bond.
The original Bond was supposed to soften the blow of England's crumbling empire with a schoolboy fantasy of unlimited power, virility and adventure. Do the newer Bond's address the UK's role as America's butt-boy?
daniel craig's version saved the bond franchise imo.. otherwise i wouldn't have cared for another bond movie after brosnan's last one
I love Bond movies. Always have, always will. Of course Connery is my favorite in the role, but I think Craig does a good job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote