This thread would be one, and the Mr. White thread would be another...it just struck me as mildly amusing; not at all scary Yes, clearly, we must all work on our hypersensitivity
Heh; fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that you were finding it scary, but others do seem to knee jerk away from it in this thread, as if I'm saying 'Macbeth' to an actor or something!
Bond films need originality with original characters like Moneypenny and Q. Otherwise, it is just a guy running around shooting people and causing explosions just like the Bourne movies.
I'm having a hard time buying into the arguement that two characters that have appeared in 20 previous movies are considered to bring 'originality'.
Bond films need originality with original characters like Moneypenny and Q. Otherwise, it is just a guy running around shooting people and causing explosions just like the Bourne movies.
I'm having a hard time buying into the arguement that two characters that have appeared in 20 previous movies are considered to bring 'originality'.
Well, what I mean is that no other action movies have the same exact characters so it kind of makes the movie different from all the other movies out today.
Well Q and Moneypenny were both in LTK and that certainly didn't set that movie apart from all other generic action movies IMO. Of all the films I felt that was the least Bondian and was more Miami Vice like. It's the tone of the film that makes the Bond film, not necessarily Q or Moneypenny.
This thread would be one, and the Mr. White thread would be another...it just struck me as mildly amusing; not at all scary Yes, clearly, we must all work on our hypersensitivity
Heh; fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that you were finding it scary, but others do seem to knee jerk away from it in this thread, as if I'm saying 'Macbeth' to an actor or something!
I can't believe you just said that.
Arf! Best chuck some salt over your shoulder or say 'hello Mr Magpie' three times or something!
I hesitated to resurrect this thread but while reading the Battle for Bond I came across a section that I wanted to share. This quote is from a Fleming letter discussing how he thought the first James Bond film should be handled. Here it is:
We need a few touches of comedy but, unless we treat this story with an absolutely straight face and with a desperate sense of urgency, the film will collapse. Personally I’m for keeping the jokes to the minimum and getting people really sweating.” Battle for Bond PG 62.
When I read this I thought of the many discussions on AJB about this subject (and High Hopes) and thought I would post it. So from this I think you could assume that the master himself would approve of the direction the film series seems to be heading.
Of course it could be a momentary lapse of reason, after all Fleming also thought that Jimmy Stewart would be a good choice for the first Bond!.:))
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
Tradition. Q & Moneypenny are Bond tradition. Why do we all love Bond, why do we post on this site? Because of the tradition created over the past 40+ years. I am afraid that the producers are moving away from the 007 traditions into the the one size fits all Hollywood approach to action films.-{
Tradition. Q & Moneypenny are Bond tradition. Why do we all love Bond, why do we post on this site? Because of the tradition created over the past 40+ years. I am afraid that the producers are moving away from the 007 traditions into the the one size fits all Hollywood approach to action films.-{
Nah- I like 'em because they're quality, witty, well-made escapist movies- not because there's some old bloke shuffling around in the background called 'Q'
I am afraid that the producers are moving away from the 007 traditions into the the one size fits all Hollywood approach to action films.-{
Are they, though? What other modern action film features a lengthy scene of something as relatively mundane as card-playing as a central piece of the action (and the event on which the plot hinges)? Moreover, I cannot recall a recent action film with such an emphasis on a relationship between the two lead characters, such as Casino Royale. In fact, I would argue that Casino Royale is a far more sophisticated picture (especially in terms of script and character development) than other action films in recent years, including the most recent Bonds.
Put it this way, what made Die Another Day stand out from Hollywood action films? Q and Moneypenny, and that was about it. Surely it is far more important for a Bond film to be distinctive because of its quality, as opposed to a couple of characters for Bond to have a bit of silly banter with. (Obviously there is a great deal of subjectivity here as others may, and probably do, think that Casino Royale was not of a very high quality at all and that Daniel Craig should stick weird low-budget 'arty' movies like The Mother. Still, just thinking aloud).
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2007
Agreed, L880...CR stands out, both among Bond films and films in general. Seems to me there's much more going on here than in the cookie-cutter Hollywood action films discussed above...but then I'm far from unbiased
There are specific things I like in my Bonds, and CR dots most of the 'i's and crosses most of the 't's for me :007)
Perfect? Far from it; I always have gripes, but the final balance is what always counts, and with CR (for me) the scales definitely tipped in Craig's/Eon's favour.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I would argue that Casino Royale is a far more sophisticated picture (especially in terms of script and character development) than other action films in recent years, including the most recent Bonds.
(Obviously there is a great deal of subjectivity here as others may, and probably do, think that Casino Royale was not of a very high quality at all and that Daniel Craig should stick weird low-budget 'arty' movies like The Mother. Still, just thinking aloud).
I'd agree that CR was at a higher level of sophistication than other recent action films and of a very high quality especially compared to its predecessor. It's a great film which I've enjoyed over and over again. But (and there was clearly a "but" coming!) I'm going to quote my late father- "It's a good film, but the hero didn't have to be called James Bond". Dad thought that it didn't feel like a James Bond film- he'd been obliged to watch all of the others by me (being forced to take me to the cinema in the 60s to watch double-bills such as DN/TB or FRWL/GF, then later watching them on TV and later still getting a loan of my videos and more recently DVDs) and though never a fan, grew to enjoy watching them. And he didn't think Craig was good casting, a feeling shared by myself.
My enjoyment in watching CR has gone through stages such as appreciation of the Fleming content, admiration at the admittedly necessary expansion and updating of the story, and amazement at the manner in which Daniel Craig managed to carry the film (aided and abetted by an admirable supporting cast) despite his dissimilarity to the character he was playing. Craig doesn't look like Bond; he doesn't sound like Bond; but he certainly acts like him.
I read all of the books before persuading my Dad to take me to a Bond film (this would be in the mid-60s, so Sean Connery would be 007); I therefore had a mental image of what James Bond looked like, admittedly influenced by the then omnipresence of (Sir) Sean. And I've lived through Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan inheriting the role. The casting of Daniel Craig has been the first time I've had doubts- and in case the preceding comments (not to mention other comments in other threads) haven't been clear- the man can act, and is completely capable of carrying a film. However, so can Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Ian McKellen, Will Smith, Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks (to name just a few)- and none of them could accurately portray Bond.
I don't want to go on record as a Craig-hater; a Craig-doubter would be more accurate. While not impressed with his initial casting, I felt it best to reserve judgement till actually seeing him in the part. Having done so, I'm still reserving judgement- there was so much else to CR that I feel it necessary to do so- but am prepared to be convinced. Roll on Bond 22...
They need to bring Q and Moneypenny back IMO. They are part of what Bond films are all about. CR was different, but I think the next Bond film should return back to the usual Bond formula again. Otherwise it wont feel like a Bond film (Like CR).
Don't get me wrong, I like CR as a Bond film... But more films like it are uncalled for. Let's get back to what Bonds about. Bring back Q and Moneypenny!
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Casino Royale is not a good film, once again I see Babs and Michael moving away from the "formula". The formula that made Bond popular for 40 years and stretched across generations. Without "formula" and "tradition" Bond loses out as a series that bridges generations.
"Formula" equals "predictable" and "tradition" represented by repetitive charecters, gimmicks and situtations becomes a bore - especially when it goes on for four decades. "Tradition" is great for marches and music, but it is artistic death in a film.
There is still plenty of room for the Bond films to grow and develop into new and exciting thrillers, full of compelling charecters - all within the framework laid down by Ian Fleming. We don't need to see anymore midgets with daggers, tall men with steel teeth and villians with cats ... been there seen it!!!
Comments
I'm having a hard time buying into the arguement that two characters that have appeared in 20 previous movies are considered to bring 'originality'.
Well, what I mean is that no other action movies have the same exact characters so it kind of makes the movie different from all the other movies out today.
Arf!
We need a few touches of comedy but, unless we treat this story with an absolutely straight face and with a desperate sense of urgency, the film will collapse. Personally I’m for keeping the jokes to the minimum and getting people really sweating.” Battle for Bond PG 62.
When I read this I thought of the many discussions on AJB about this subject (and High Hopes) and thought I would post it. So from this I think you could assume that the master himself would approve of the direction the film series seems to be heading.
Of course it could be a momentary lapse of reason, after all Fleming also thought that Jimmy Stewart would be a good choice for the first Bond!.:))
Nah- I like 'em because they're quality, witty, well-made escapist movies- not because there's some old bloke shuffling around in the background called 'Q'
Put it this way, what made Die Another Day stand out from Hollywood action films? Q and Moneypenny, and that was about it. Surely it is far more important for a Bond film to be distinctive because of its quality, as opposed to a couple of characters for Bond to have a bit of silly banter with. (Obviously there is a great deal of subjectivity here as others may, and probably do, think that Casino Royale was not of a very high quality at all and that Daniel Craig should stick weird low-budget 'arty' movies like The Mother. Still, just thinking aloud).
There are specific things I like in my Bonds, and CR dots most of the 'i's and crosses most of the 't's for me :007)
Perfect? Far from it; I always have gripes, but the final balance is what always counts, and with CR (for me) the scales definitely tipped in Craig's/Eon's favour.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'd agree that CR was at a higher level of sophistication than other recent action films and of a very high quality especially compared to its predecessor. It's a great film which I've enjoyed over and over again. But (and there was clearly a "but" coming!) I'm going to quote my late father- "It's a good film, but the hero didn't have to be called James Bond". Dad thought that it didn't feel like a James Bond film- he'd been obliged to watch all of the others by me (being forced to take me to the cinema in the 60s to watch double-bills such as DN/TB or FRWL/GF, then later watching them on TV and later still getting a loan of my videos and more recently DVDs) and though never a fan, grew to enjoy watching them. And he didn't think Craig was good casting, a feeling shared by myself.
My enjoyment in watching CR has gone through stages such as appreciation of the Fleming content, admiration at the admittedly necessary expansion and updating of the story, and amazement at the manner in which Daniel Craig managed to carry the film (aided and abetted by an admirable supporting cast) despite his dissimilarity to the character he was playing. Craig doesn't look like Bond; he doesn't sound like Bond; but he certainly acts like him.
I read all of the books before persuading my Dad to take me to a Bond film (this would be in the mid-60s, so Sean Connery would be 007); I therefore had a mental image of what James Bond looked like, admittedly influenced by the then omnipresence of (Sir) Sean. And I've lived through Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan inheriting the role. The casting of Daniel Craig has been the first time I've had doubts- and in case the preceding comments (not to mention other comments in other threads) haven't been clear- the man can act, and is completely capable of carrying a film. However, so can Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Ian McKellen, Will Smith, Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks (to name just a few)- and none of them could accurately portray Bond.
I don't want to go on record as a Craig-hater; a Craig-doubter would be more accurate. While not impressed with his initial casting, I felt it best to reserve judgement till actually seeing him in the part. Having done so, I'm still reserving judgement- there was so much else to CR that I feel it necessary to do so- but am prepared to be convinced. Roll on Bond 22...
Don't get me wrong, I like CR as a Bond film... But more films like it are uncalled for. Let's get back to what Bonds about. Bring back Q and Moneypenny!
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
You do have a point on this. God rest Desomond's soul.
John Cleese was excellent as Q however, and if anyone could do a good job at being Q it'd be him. Obviously nothing compared to Desmond though.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
There is still plenty of room for the Bond films to grow and develop into new and exciting thrillers, full of compelling charecters - all within the framework laid down by Ian Fleming. We don't need to see anymore midgets with daggers, tall men with steel teeth and villians with cats ... been there seen it!!!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond