I'm a little scared...
i expect u2 die
LondonPosts: 583MI6 Agent
Now I know I'm meant to be the expectant one, but...
Quantum of Solace is sounding, increasingly, like every other generic Bond film out there.
Casino Royale was so fresh and different, there was very little that actually played by the book in terms of Bond film traditions, and I always had faith they'd continue in that vain. However, so many recent information leaks have really cast doubt in my mind.
The PTS - an extended vehicle chase. Brosnan, anyone?
The 2 Girls - although there's little information to go by, they sound quite familiar, we have the one who shags Bond early, and then dies. But even scarier, we have a 'Bond's equal'. There are very few things that terrify me. That notion is one.
Even in Casino Royale, i felt as though the 'inside traitor' theme had been done to death since Goldeneye. Yet, here it is again. Its as though they still think its original.
The villain. This also worries me. He poses as some charity fund-raiser, he holds a massive party, he's even associated with a General. Familiar? He just sounds like one big nasty mix of Carver and Graves.
Action scenes involving Harrier jets.
And now, the recent revelation of the Villain's lair. Again, I'm just seeing DAD's whole 'Eden Project' vibe shining through. It scares me.
I'm really holding onto the fact that Bond supposedly has a broken heart throughout this film. I need them push this psychological element forward. Otherwise, there's so little here to excite me
Quantum of Solace is sounding, increasingly, like every other generic Bond film out there.
Casino Royale was so fresh and different, there was very little that actually played by the book in terms of Bond film traditions, and I always had faith they'd continue in that vain. However, so many recent information leaks have really cast doubt in my mind.
The PTS - an extended vehicle chase. Brosnan, anyone?
The 2 Girls - although there's little information to go by, they sound quite familiar, we have the one who shags Bond early, and then dies. But even scarier, we have a 'Bond's equal'. There are very few things that terrify me. That notion is one.
Even in Casino Royale, i felt as though the 'inside traitor' theme had been done to death since Goldeneye. Yet, here it is again. Its as though they still think its original.
The villain. This also worries me. He poses as some charity fund-raiser, he holds a massive party, he's even associated with a General. Familiar? He just sounds like one big nasty mix of Carver and Graves.
Action scenes involving Harrier jets.
And now, the recent revelation of the Villain's lair. Again, I'm just seeing DAD's whole 'Eden Project' vibe shining through. It scares me.
I'm really holding onto the fact that Bond supposedly has a broken heart throughout this film. I need them push this psychological element forward. Otherwise, there's so little here to excite me
Comments
Yes, it does sound like a traditional Bond film, but what about CR? That featured two Bond girls, one of whom got killed, a couple of chase scenes, gambling, fighting and the uttering of the line. Yet what made it so successful was, persumably, you and many other people loved the way everything came together. That will probably be the case with QOS.
I'm sure you will love QOS and you will look back, and laugh at yourself for having any doubts.
Best bet is for it to be half-like CR and half-like the usual Bond - then everyone would be happy
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Not sure where the girls fit in in this film. Still, early days. Craig's Bond is looking more generic I must say.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Based on a couple of recent posts over in the CR thread, it seems to me that the notion of 'reboot' varies from fan to fan. To me, the notion of a 'reboot' is not so much about Bond's origin as a '00' as it is the nature of the character himself---i.e., the notion of Bond as more of a human being who makes the occasional mistake, rather than the infallible superman he'd become over the course of 40 years of film.
In that respect, CR was very much influenced by its literary source material (in the book Bond makes mistakes, and curses himself for them), and I fully expect that influence to carry over into QoS (the most direct 'follow-up' Bond film in franchise history).
I'm not at all surprised to see a few trappings of the Precious Classic FormulaTM begin to seep back into the mix: The villain can have a lair (if that's what it is) without it automatically being as OTT as a hollowed-out volcano. We can have a thrilling chase sequence as a PTS. Bond can (and probably ought to) bed at least two---or more!---Bond girls. Bond ought to meet the Main Heavy of the piece socially before hostilities commence...
Counterbalancing this is the interpretation of (Formerly) Poor DannyTM---admired by most Flemingists and derided by most Cinematic Bond Traditionalists---and the ongoing 'reboot' notion (with its accompanying literary roots) of 007 as a 'tough guy' blunt instrument with a veneer of sophistication; a hero who gets himself into jams and then fights his way out of them.
My long-shot prediction? Those who liked CR will like QoS. Those who didn't particularly care for Craig---or CR---will enjoy this one a bit more (or perhaps they will mind CraigBond a bit less
Then there are those for whom Craig will never be Bond---never never never. Oh well!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ah, your memory may be playing tricks just this once, Dan, I was perhaps even too much of a fanboy back in 2006 - I do remember the arguments well
You are right in the respect that Casino Royale did contain many of these 'classic' elements, and perhaps the whole 'overhaul' notion can distract from that.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I suppose we will just have to wait and see how they pan out. After all the success they had with CR it sure would be a shame to give us DAD. And i can imagine the producers feel that way too.
This film is probably bound to be more generic than CR, among other things it will probably have the traditional gunbarrel. But the villans lair, the "equal" Bond girl, twise as much action .... if handled wrong this can end badly.
But I'm still very hopefull!
But remember, you have a lot of people, especially Craig and the producers, who want to make this an even better film. We have Forster, who is a better filmmaker than Campbell. And we also still have Haggis writing.
I wouldn't worry too much. :007)
The problem I have is that so far I have seen nothing fresh in QoS.
I'm surprised at how disinterested in QoS I've become. Whilst I was weeping and wailing at some of the new ideas for CR I was riveted by the whole concept and how it could come together. QoS hasn't ignited anything so far ....
“Love me or hate me, but spare me your indifference” - Joan Vinge
I agree 100%. From what I've read about the film and heard from the interviews it sounds like this is going to be more of the traditional Bond film or at least will have many traditional elements. I seem to recall hearing something about a scene that will go down as a classic moment in the series. But I also have faith that the film will keep many of the great things about CR such as focusing on the character of Bond. After all, Haggis wrote the script and Craig is still playing Bond. So my hope is that we could get an even better film than CR, one that combines all that was fresh, exciting, and character focused of that film with some more traditional Bond film elements. I'm confident that no silliness or outrageous plot devices will occur and that the writing and dialogue will be up to CR standards. I think I've read Craig mention that this film will feel like a '60s Bond film (though I thought that CR kind of felt that way, the first one in a long time to do that). I am very excited.
Same here. I'm confident the film will provide the action that a Bond film must have, but will also delve a little further into Bond's character.I'm also confident that the film will continue with the more serious tone adopted by CR. Whether it contains more of the formulaic aspects of the Bond films is anybody's guess. If it does, I don't mind, so long as whatever aspects are used serve the story rather than the other way around. But looking at the synopsis, the plot sounds far sounds more complex and intriguing than the typical Bond film, which for me was one of CR's strengths. I think the handwringing over the "equal" Bond girl, the villain's "lair" is a little premature. Is the fact that a woman plays a competing intelligence officer make her an "equal" to Bond? Is an out of the way location make it a "lair"? All we really know of these things are a few hints here and there. And who knows if those hints are really accurate. We have no real way of judging as we did with CR, where the general outline of the story was well-known. And I think that's one of the big differences this time out: we don't know the story in any detail and no script has been leaked (to my knowledge).
I think Lady Rose mentioned a lack of excitement over this one, but I sense that's probably because interest in CR was heightened by the casting of a new Bond and the use of an actual Fleming book as the source material. There were built in controversies and debates in CR that this film doesn't have. It's a blank slate. It's harder to talk about. That may change once we see a trailer or two.
I think they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. CR got highly praised for the "re-boot" but complaints for not keeping it more James Bondsey...you know the special effects, Q, Moneypenny, the girls, although there seemed plenty to me. And wasn't Vesper sort of Bond's match?
Anyway, I think they are slowly introducing the bit's of Bond that people expect and will keep with the psycological aspect that Craig introduced. I'm sure everyone is realising the pressure that the film team must be under, it's like the critics are waiting to see the much anticipated second 'sibling'. Will he look the same, act the same, meet the same expectations?
I guess we will just have to wait and see! But people, we must keep the faith. How much hype is the press putting on all of this too? False rumours, bad reporting, it all contributes to us, the fans, then worrying about what is going on. I am resting my faith in Craig bringing us the same quality of intensity set by CR. Just becasue there are a few more "heavy weight" action scenes, doesn't mean it's going to be awful. (Just no parachutes and surfing please X-( !)
I'm pretty sure that is the case. I had a similar lack of interest in TND.
The thing with CR was not only did we have a new Bond but also a very controversial one which was always going to make good reading.
I'm positive the old fires will be reignited some time soon.
Given the success of CR, veering off the present course seems highly unlikely.
Already we know that there will be "more misbehaving" from Bond in QOS. We know that the absence of Q and Moneypenny will be maintained. Marc Forster has also made it clear that he plans to get inside Bond's head and psychoanalyze (Dan's favorite
Of course, as a Cinematic Bond Traditionalist, I am not happy about these things. But I won't go as far as to say that there will be nothing for CBTs in this film.
As of right now, Craig seems to be well suited in this film. I would much rather not see any more camp shirts or leather jackets from now on. Craig also seems to have adopted a more traditional hairstyle, much better than the spiked hairstyle a la CR. Michael Wison has said that there will be a "probable" return to the traditional gunbarrel sequence. There has even been a bit of talk about gadgets from Judi Dench.
Finally, Loeffelholz and I agreed at our last summit that with a henchman named "Elvis," we might see a return to the traditional one-line humor as well.
Just how in-touch with the traditional James Bond will the filmmakers get? We will have to wait and see. For me, this will make or break the film.
In conclusion, while there may be a bit more of the traditional elements in QOS, I think it's safe to assume that Bond will be the same dark, rash, blunt instrument that won over Flemingists in CR.
So worry not my Craig-loving friends. Drink three glasses of Kool-Aid daily as prescribed. Drink an additional glass if fears persist. :v
-Roger Moore
What is Kool-Aid? I don't think we get that over here.
No Kool-Aid? How does Scotland manage without it? With the scotch, quite nicely I would imagine.
Kool-Aid is an artificially fruit-flavored, powdered drink that is mixed with water and sugar. It was a staple drink for kids back in my day, although I'm not sure it still is in our more health conscious times -- unless it's mixed with some kind of sugar substitute.
But what my compatriot is referring to is the Jonestown mass suicide of 20 years or so ago in which the Rev. Jim Jones mixed cyanide with a barrel of the drink as authorities were about to descend on his enclave in Guyana. About 1,000 of his followers "drank the Kool-Aid," an expression that has since entered the American lexicon. I'm not sure in what context Tee Hee is urging Craig-lovers to imbibe, however.
{[] for that HH. I knew it was a drink of some kind, but I didn't understand what the expression meant. I've heard it a few times in TV shows, and it always left me a little baffled.
Same here.
See, you learn something new on AJB everyday!
I think you're right about that, HH...in a sense, it's refreshing: most of the bullets from the Craig WarsTM have already been fired, and it's probably best that we're not reloading that spent ammo
When we begin to see actual 'finished' QoS footage, we'll all surely have more to talk about---pro and con. In the meantime, I'd counsel against fear... :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Oh. What a strange thing for him to say. Thanks for the explanation, though; I've often wondered about that one too.
My pleasure. Kool-Aid is kind of an American icon. It's been quite an interestiing "mixer" over the years. It should feature fairly prominently in the movies soon, when Gus Van Zandt completes a long anticipated film adaptation of Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. I don't know how well-known it is now, but the book was required reading when I was a teenager. It's about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest author Ken Kesey's promulgation of LSD in the U.S. during the Sixties. The "Acid Tests" as they were known, were parties fueled by LSD-laced Kool-Aid. These were a major spark that lead to the whole San Francisco/Haight-Ashbury hippie scene. Ironically, or maybe not-so-ironically, Jim Jones' People's Temple was a San Francisco church before moving to Guyana.
Personally from the clips I've seen so far the lighting etc seems to give me the feeling of a more classic Bond film say in keeping with FRWL or OHMSS -which for me is a really good thing. So don't be scared watch the new outing with interest rather than skeptic aprehension -believe me I am sure it will be all the more enjoyable for it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Could that "Jinx" be an April fool joke maybe???
There's no pulling the wool over your eyes, Lexi!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
{[] ;%
However we had a report on the news about flying penguins this morning, and I almost fell for it!
So I guess I'm being more wise now!