• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Next Bond film will likely maintain a less serious tone

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ogrNIuD.gif

LOL

Fern
 
I once read that most diehard Bond fans felt that Dalton's portrayal of Bond was the most accurate to Fleming's vision. Not sure if that's true or not, but I honestly didn't mind Dalton either.

Yep--and very similar to Craig in Casino Royale, and Connery only in Dr No.

Very hard-nosed, doesn't GAF about anything, and tends towards violence and speed to get shit done. I wasn't a big fan of License to Kill, but I loved The Living Daylights.


I liked Skyfall on it's own, but I didn't really like it as a Bond film. It seemed like something else entirely. Casino Royale was pretty much perfect, however.
 
I'm fine with a campy James Bond; I have a soft spot for some of the Roger Moore films, and they were absurd. But Daniel Craig is the wrong actor for it. He does serious Bond great; he'd be terrible at being campy.

Actually, now that I think about it, most Bond films rely on a bit of camp; the gadgets range from preposterous to idiotic, and not one of them is believable as a real piece of spy gear.

agreed

though not moore, one of the most ridiculous ones to me is probably diamonds are forever
 
Back
Top