• bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The Craig films certainly showed the more cold, gritty side of Bond that was portrayed in the books, but that wasn’t really the intent of the earlier films. The earlier films were made more lighthearted and fun on purpose, really only following the books for the basic story. Even Brosnan’s Bond still kept a bit of the whimsical nature to an extent, though they certainly were catering to the 90s action audience. Craig’s Brosnan more crossed into psychological thriller in my opinion, and I wasn’t too big on them.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      whimsical nature

      Which is why my favorite Daniel Craig Bond moment is the Casino Royale naked torture scene. Bond telling the torturer to hit him again, then laughing because he’s “scratching my balls” is peak whimsy (within the new Bond universe).

      I want my Bond to be a bit silly, and that was sadly the only time they did it.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        100% agree. Half the reason I love the old Bond movies was because they were so goofy, along with some good action scenes and a fun storyline. The new stuff just strikes me as big budget boxoffice grabs. They aren’t bad, but they aren’t 007. That said, the newer Casino Royale was miles better than the 1967 version. I love Peter Sellers, but that movie tried way too hard and failed miserably.