Young man Craig

Napoleon Plural

Ah, time flies. Anyone remember this thread I began two years ago entitled Old Man Steptoe?

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=26223

Anyway, log onto www.empireonline.com/magazine for the new Empire Craig cover. Wish we could all age in reverse!

frostbitten

I am aging in reverse

Seriously, though, Craig looks appropriately tough and battle-weary on that cover. What is more worrisome to me than his looks, however, is the line about QoS being "the bloodiest Bond ever". I'm still not sure this is the right direction for the Bond series in the long term.

Strangeways

Wow! Thanks Nap!

DC looking hotter than ever, can't wait for the new issue of Empire and (of course) QoS!!!

{[]

8420

just cant wait for empire will it be in asda do you think

Loeffelholz

frostbitten wrote:

...Craig looks appropriately tough and battle-weary on that cover. What is more worrisome to me than his looks, however, is the line about QoS being "the bloodiest Bond ever". I'm still not sure this is the right direction for the Bond series in the long term.

I rather like the sound of that "bloodiest Bond ever" thing... B-)

Whether or not it is the right direction for Bond, in the long run, is debatable---I'd argue that Fleming's literary hero got roughed up quite a bit, and this has been mostly ignored in the films until recently---but I think it's most certainly the right direction for Bond right now.

darenhat

I think the pic looks good. Similiar to Dalton at the end of LTK.

Craig looks tough...even if he doesn't look like Bond. (Had to throw that in! :v )

Loeffelholz

Rereading that "Old Man Steptoe" thread takes me back to the violent era of the Craig Wars^TM...

And, to the departed benskelly, who said I was wrong about the gun and the suit in the final scene of CR (end of page 3/beginning of page 4):

I was right...YOU were wrong

) Ah well...that felt good. Too bad he's not here to appreciate it )

Lexi

Strangeways wrote:

Wow! Thanks Nap!

DC looking hotter than ever, can't wait for the new issue of Empire and (of course) QoS!!!

{[]

I agree with you totally...(as always) but I do agree that the photo that NP was reminding us of was not a great one...however, I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of Empire and we are almost under 60 days now...it's like Christmas when I was 12!

Loeffelholz

I still think that Empire photo from '06 looks cool... B-)

Hardyboy

Are you sure "bloodiest Bond ever" isn't just British slang? Y'know--"bloody this" and "bloody that?" :007)

Sir Miles

8420 wrote:

just cant wait for empire will it be in asda do you think

I would expect so - I bought my copy today

frostbitten

Loeffelholz wrote:

I rather like the sound of that "bloodiest Bond ever" thing... B-)

Whether or not it is the right direction for Bond, in the long run, is debatable---I'd argue that Fleming's literary hero got roughed up quite a bit, and this has been mostly ignored in the films until recently---but I think it's most certainly the right direction for Bond right now.

I took the "bloodiest Bond ever" phrase to mean that the violence in this movie in general will be the most realistic and graphic out of all the Bond films so far (with all characters suffering more bloody consequences of the fisticuffs or gunshots or whatever), rather than just Craig being roughed up more and showing more wear-and-tear. Otherwise, they could have said "the most bloodied Bond ever".
Besides possibly having a bad effect on the younger segment of a typical Bond movie audience, this move is yet another indication of how much the producers have been influenced by the Bourne series, whether they want to admit it or not.

Loeffelholz

frostbitten wrote:

Besides possibly having a bad effect on the younger segment of a typical Bond movie audience, this move is yet another indication of how much the producers have been influenced by the Bourne series, whether they want to admit it or not.

I don't really see it that way. To me, they're revisiting the spirit of the character's source material, which predates Mr. Ludlum's Bond-influenced creation by a good-Godly margin. Perhaps in terms of editing, etc., citing a Bourne influence is probably a fair cop---though once again Bond was doing these kinds of things a long time ago, and if it took the Bourne films to get the preeminient franchise hero in movie history back on track, I'm not going to quarrel with it! :007) We've had no shortage of the alternative over the past decade or two.

I'm all for what they're doing---though they'll trim whatever's needed to keep their precious PG-13 rating in the States, so...

blueman

Agree with Loeff. Bond is bloody, should be bloody, when he isn't bloody he generally sucks.

Frost, can't help but notice you have films like FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, and DN in your top 12, which IMO are fairly bloody Bonds. So graphic violence in your Bond pudding can't be too bad, eh?

frostbitten

blueman wrote:

Frost, can't help but notice you have films like FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, and DN in your top 12, which IMO are fairly bloody Bonds. So graphic violence in your Bond pudding can't be too bad, eh?

I'm not objecting to the level of violence for my sake (I'm old enough to see something like a Saw film without suffering from any lingering psychological trauma ). I'm more concerned about the fact that if Bond films become more and more graphic in their depiction of violence, they may stray from being the family-friendly films that they have been (although CR did push the envelope with the PTS and the torture scene). Such a change in tone may eventually result in declining box office performance, although I may be underestimating the modern movie-going audience's tolerance for violence here.

BTW, of the movies that you mentioned, I would say that only LTK can really be deemed as having a high level of graphic violence. I liked that movie more for Dalton's performance and Talisa Soto's ... "charm" than for its bloody bits.

Loeffelholz

I think Eon is going to do whatever is necessary to stay within the PG-13 range for the states, for obvious commercial reasons; not sure what that translates to across the pond. Perhaps your greater concern is the overall darker tone of the films during Craig's arc?

An effective 'litmus test' for this seems to be how audiences reacted to Vesper's behaviour after the stairway incident in CR, and the subsequent shower scene. Clearly, Vesper is affected by the brutal personal experience of what it means to be near a '00' agent when he earns his salary. Another would be Bond's moment of reflection as he slams a shot of bourbon and looks at his own bloody face in the lavatory mirror. 'Death without consequence' seems to be going the way of the dinosaur in the new regime, and to me it just works.

This seems the crux of the matter, when discussing differences between Bonds pre-Craig and post-Craig. Some fans don't seem to find the same sense of fun within the seriousness of the piece---what Maibaum once referred to as 'deadpan spoofing,' which IMO has merely been tweaked to accomodate the evolving sensitivities of the times---to me, it's just the sort of fun I got from the books, but clearly it's not to everyone's taste.

But I'm gratified to see new Bond fans checking out the character as a result...this is a good thing.

Napoleon Plural

Well I would argue that it's only Empire's tag line, not the producers'.

But in any case, you could argue it's all to with going back to Fleming; LALD and FRWL are two very bloody books that spring to mind, in particular the train carriage soaked in blood that Bond has to mop up.

emtiem

Loeffelholz wrote:

Rereading that "Old Man Steptoe" thread takes me back to the violent era of the Craig Wars^TM...

And, to the departed benskelly, who said I was wrong about the gun and the suit in the final scene of CR (end of page 3/beginning of page 4):

I was right...YOU were wrong

) Ah well...that felt good. Too bad he's not here to appreciate it )

I'm glad you were too! Reading through that again makes me remember how horrible people here were, he could be particularly nasty. 'I expect U2 die' makes a very good point on page two of that thread regarding that!

The issue of Empire is worth picking up too; lots of lovely new Quantum pics, plus some nice rare ones of the old Bonds too.

Lexi

emtiem wrote:

The issue of Empire is worth picking up too; lots of lovely new Quantum pics, plus some nice rare ones of the old Bonds too.

I got my copy today...reading it slowly to savour the feature...(and a great spread on other Bonds too...)The cover photo is so much better in your hands, rather than on the computer screen.

:x *sigh*

Sir Miles

Lexi wrote:

The cover photo is so much better in your hands, rather than on the computer screen.

:x *sigh*

I find that true of everything, Lexi

Strangeways

OMG! It's out there.
I will get mine tomorrow morning when we do the weekly shop!

{[]

Lexi

Strangeways wrote:

OMG! It's out there.
I will get mine tomorrow morning when we do the weekly shop!

{[]

...and trust me you won't be dissapointed ! :v

HowardB

As I recall, Connery was pretty chewed up by the end of Dr. No. With regards to realistic violence, the Connery Bonds (at least through Thunderball)were considered pretty graphic in their depiction of violence and sadism for that era. Bond's cold blooded execution of Strangways in Dr. No was considered quite shocking in '62. Back then, movie heroes didn't blow people away with a couple extra slugs to the spine despite having them at their mercy. And of course, let us not forget Bond's fight with Red Grant on the train in FRWL. So again, when you look at history in context, Bond again trumps Bourne as a trail blazer re depiction of violence on the silver screen.

frostbitten

HowardB wrote:

Bond's cold blooded execution of Strangways in Dr. No was considered quite shocking in '62. Back then, movie heroes didn't blow people away with a couple extra slugs to the spine despite having them at their mercy.

That may have been shocking in '62, but it is positively tame compared to some of the things that took place in CR, let alone QoS (which, if Empire's tag line is to be believed, will be even bloodier than CR). The shock value of that DN scene comes not from the graphic way the violence is depicted, but rather from the unexpected behavior of the hero (shooting a helpless victim). The violence in that scene in no way rivals Craig's first kill in CR. In fact, it was a clean, clinical kill that resembles Craig's second kill in CR and which, BTW, is how I imagine a 00, if one exists in real life, would probably go about executing his mark. Also, there was very little, if any, blood shown in the Connery Bond's kills. I'm all for Eon showing us a spectacular fistfight or chase scene, but would hope that they would stay away from an excessive use of the fake red stuff or showing mangled and maimed bodies. (I can always watch an HK martial-arts movie for that ). So far, Eon has pushed the envelope a few times, but they haven't crossed the line IMO, and I hope they won't start in QoS.

Strangeways

Just got back from shopping with my copy of EMPIRE.
Pretty good, some lovely pics from QoS but I have to say that the customary bits and bobs from other Bond movies does my head in. There was nothing new there, just more of the same rehashed garbage which magazing publishers wheel out everytime there is a new 007 film on it's way.

Still, a nice starter to Bond season. me thinks that there will be loads more (GQ etc) before 31/10/08!

{[]

Napoleon Plural

Total Film magazine has a cover of that WW2 Tom Hanks film Valkerie or whatever, plus a double sided poster of QoS, the original shadow teaser on one side and the suited with a tommy gun shot of the current one.

blueman

frostbitten wrote:

HowardB wrote:

Bond's cold blooded execution of Strangways in Dr. No was considered quite shocking in '62. Back then, movie heroes didn't blow people away with a couple extra slugs to the spine despite having them at their mercy.

That may have been shocking in '62, but it is positively tame compared to some of the things that took place in CR, let alone QoS (which, if Empire's tag line is to be believed, will be even bloodier than CR). The shock value of that DN scene comes not from the graphic way the violence is depicted, but rather from the unexpected behavior of the hero (shooting a helpless victim). The violence in that scene in no way rivals Craig's first kill in CR. In fact, it was a clean, clinical kill that resembles Craig's second kill in CR and which, BTW, is how I imagine a 00, if one exists in real life, would probably go about executing his mark. Also, there was very little, if any, blood shown in the Connery Bond's kills. I'm all for Eon showing us a spectacular fistfight or chase scene, but would hope that they would stay away from an excessive use of the fake red stuff or showing mangled and maimed bodies. (I can always watch an HK martial-arts movie for that ). So far, Eon has pushed the envelope a few times, but they haven't crossed the line IMO, and I hope they won't start in QoS.

Frosty I really think you're not looking at the context correctly. For the early 60s, the Bond films were as "violent" as CR is today - if not more so because of the groundbreaking nature of what was shown (especially that cold-blooded DN kill, I don't think you can overstate how much of a wow factor Connery had in that scene as a sexy assassin, for '62 that broke about every taboo there was - the mainstream equivalent today would be those stupid torture-porn films like SAW, more graphic sure but they tap the very same vein, sex + violence). Bond started out way over the line (partly why it was so popular, people just had to go see the new big bad), and only gradually got softer. CR was a solid step back to what Bond started out as, which is away from kiddie fare, yes. QOS will likely be about the same, maybe more, but remains to be seen if audiences drop (CR as a one-time curiosity thing?). With all the waaaaay kiddie stuff out there, I'm thinking EON has gauged the market well and the audience for a more violent Bond (compared to the last 20 years or so) will be quite strong indeed. Look at that dreadful DARK KNIGHT film, made gazillions and it's comic book film black as pitch.

Not worried about "bloody" Bond at all in this market.

HowardB

Frosty, you really hit the nail on the head re putting on screen violence and sex within the context of the early 60's, especially in the States. Remember in '62 the US film industry was not long removed from the control of the Hayes Office, which went so far as to not allow a married couple to sleep in the same bed on film!! In 1962, a suave, tough, British agent assasinating and fornicating his way across the globe was pretty racy stuff. IMO, I believe the level of violence in QOS will be on the same level as CR...brutal and jarring but not overly graphic or bloody. Also, the ratings board in the US tend to be more lenient with big budget films from the major studios and tend to get more hung up on sex and language than violence. IMO, if CR was a low budget film from a small studio or independent it would have been an "R".

Loeffelholz

HowardB wrote:

...a suave, tough, British agent assassinating and fornicating his way across the globe...

I just wanted to take a second, and savour that elegant statement :007)

That's it, of course. My affection for James Bond---in a nutshell B-) Well said, HowardB...

Lexi

Surely I it would be a big mistake for Eon not to continue along the line of a more violent, darker Bond. The introduction to this, IMO in CR was just right, and I would expect QoS to follow, if not bring us more "blood". QoS would surely then not be teemed a sequel, if it wasn't following on with the violence established in CR.

One of the major reasons I loved CR so much, is this injection of realism. How it was portrayed, the effects it had on Vesper, to me was a responsible yet 'entertaining' depiction of what could happen in the field of Bond. It wasn't glorifying it, which to me, makes this type of film all the more enjoyable. I don't like violence for violence sake...(probably one of the reasons I didn't really like TDK) but I do like meaty action films, and if QoS comes with more blood and guts, then fine. Bring it on.

blueman

HowardB wrote:

Frosty, you really hit the nail on the head re putting on screen violence and sex within the context of the early 60's, especially in the States. Remember in '62 the US film industry was not long removed from the control of the Hayes Office, which went so far as to not allow a married couple to sleep in the same bed on film!! In 1962, a suave, tough, British agent assasinating and fornicating his way across the globe was pretty racy stuff. IMO, I believe the level of violence in QOS will be on the same level as CR...brutal and jarring but not overly graphic or bloody. Also, the ratings board in the US tend to be more lenient with big budget films from the major studios and tend to get more hung up on sex and language than violence. IMO, if CR was a low budget film from a small studio or independent it would have been an "R".

I do believe you're agreeing with me, Howie. Frostbitten is the dude I was trying to lure to the dark side. B-)

And concur with Loeff, great one-sentence definition of what Bond was in the original, and should be always.