(honestly, even the bad reviews make it sound very Flemingesque even as the reviewer bemoans that lack of nudge-nudges and wink-winks, which on my Blue Planet having nothing whatsoever to do with Bond :007)
Hi Blueman and hope you've been well (don't know if you'll remember me from days of yore but I'm saying hi anyway )
I've said to someone else that some of the Bondian touches and moments are still there, its just on a much more subtle level than before so really could/should appeal more broadly to people looking to see a sophisticated spy rather than a Johnny English-esque type (if that makes sense!). I think the humour in the film has been missed on certain levels - I've also seen a lot of people say they've noted it more on their 2nd viewing.
I hope you (and the rest of the US contingent) let us all know what you think of the film
Does HH still hang around these parts by the way - I haven't seen him around the place!
See, comments like yours make me think it'll be more up my alley than not. But as with every Bond film post-60s, I go with expectations of greatness knowing full well it's hardly ever the case - Craig in the role is a big plus for me, but even almost half of Connery's Bond output ended up so-so to downright awful (last half of TB, all of YOLT, DAF, NSNA... a lot of unsatisfying Bond in all that ). Really liked CR, the little issues I have with it don't detract from the overall great Bondness captured by Campbell/Craig/everybody. QOS sounds like it'll be a similar success, different but still quite good. But like always, reserve my right to be bitterly disappointed.
Saw a comment by Craig, he wants Forster back for 23...
It is a *lot* of action but people are saying it lacks depth but I think taken in context as a follow on from CR I think it makes sense. I think DC's performance is strong and is riddled with the revenge it needs to be to drive the story and some of the more intricate and 'dependent on CR's plot' moments.
I guess (as a Craig-as-Bond fan like me :007)) you and some others here will feel the same as I do, in that it's not perfect but it makes sense, *is* Bond and not Bourne and sets up for a great Bond 23. I'd say go and expect to enjoy the overall film rather than love it and you wouldn't be too disappointed.
Oh God, no. Apted or Campbell, if they decide to bring back a director.
I agree. Apted did a great job in TWINE. Campbell is 2 for 2 so far IMO. I say let's give him the chance to hit another one out of the park.
I second this thought. Please no more of this. And Apted has always been a director I respected a lot, so I'd love to see him back.
Blue, it's great to see you in high spirits! Well at least you, like others, will probably enjoy the movie, which is good. It's not fun being as disappointed as I am.. but hey good times will come for MEEEEE too when Cavill takes over :v
Still, will await your review
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
(just goes to show, even among the modern Bonds there are big gulfs of preference...)
Really does sound like Forster made a modern Bond film from more Fleming-type sensibilities (mindful that a thriller in '08 shouldn't look at all like a thriller in '63 IMO, but doesn't mean they can't share similar bents and drifts).
So, I'm very geeked to see this dude's take on Bond (honestly, even the bad reviews make it sound very Flemingesque even as the reviewer bemoans that lack of nudge-nudges and wink-winks, which on my Blue Planet having nothing whatsoever to do with Bond :007) ). Like with Campbell, I'm worried about the final mix, but from the huge biz QOS's doing, sure isn't a LTK. {:)
I've said to someone else that some of the Bondian touches and moments are still there, its just on a much more subtle level than before so really could/should appeal more broadly to people looking to see a sophisticated spy rather than a Johnny English-esque type (if that makes sense!). I think the humour in the film has been missed on certain levels - I've also seen a lot of people say they've noted it more on their 2nd viewing.
ah, I love these clichees:
So, people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars??
Come on guys, this is a kindergarten discussion level from the 80s and not everyone who does not miss the above mentioned ingredients is a Flemingist.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's a fair point, bondtoys. But (like I said) I was thinking not of Bondfans (the ways of which are legion and, like Lovecraftian thingys, indescribable), but of reviews I've read: great film, so-so Bond film - and cuz of missing nudge-nudge wink-wink Bondisms the reviewer likes and expects to be there. For me, not having those types of Bondisms makes it sound better (whether or not it makes the mark, I'll let you know Friday :007) ).
Yeah, this is not a great film, it's definitely not in the same league as Casino Royale. The editing in this had to be done by a chimp on high doses of caffeine. Forster was the WRONG guy for these kinds of movies. There are going to be A LOT of angry movie goers when this thing is dropped on the general public. It's utterly vapid rubbish and if you didn't like the shaky cam from the Bourne films, you'll hate this. Not only is the camera work shaky, there is a cut placed every .5 seconds for the entire stretch of any "action" scene. It's ridiculous. The entire movie is ridiculous. I'm still puzzled at him using Mathis as a human shield, and then, tossing him in the trash can?!?!?! I mean... WTF? I couldn't believe how silly that scene went off. Do yourselves a favor, save your money, and rent it. And this comes from a guy that loved CR.
This could've been a fantastic movie, I feel there's one in there somewhere. Maybe it's on the cutting room floor. Unfortunately this ain't it. And no more Forster... ever... EVER. They've nearly undone everything they did right in CR. X-(
So, people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars??
No: they're missing the gunbarrel where it belongs, an enjoyable theme song, Q & Moneypenny, "Bond... James Bond", and editing that doesn't make you need an oculist.
So, people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars??
No: they're missing the gunbarrel where it belongs, an enjoyable theme song, Q & Moneypenny, "Bond... James Bond", and editing that doesn't make you need an oculist.
Thank you. They're missing JAMES BOND, not just the elements. He is not in this movie. Blue, I absolutely respect the different taste and of course there's room for everyone, and I'm glad you're still firmly positive.
But I think you're misunderstanding what the critics are saying about the movie. The critics are saying that the character Fleming created isn't there because the elements that make him James Bond that were created by Fleming and all the subtleties of the character that Fleming wrote aren't there. It's not a mere matter of gadgets at all. It's a matter of total absence of humour, total absence of Q, Moneypenny, gunbarrel sequence, "Bond, James Bond", style, wit, cleverness.. basically some filmic plus ALL the elements that Fleming created that make James Bond who he is instead of a random spy.
This movie isn't more Flemingesque at all in my opinion, it is a far, far cry from what Fleming wrote. The character of James Bond isn't there. That's what the critics are going on about. There's none of the intelligence James Bond has in the books, none of the atmosphere that surrounds Bond, let alone the wit and the "taste" for even killing scenes that Fleming had. It is nonstop action with shaky camera with a guy who could be anyone but James Bond. The missing elements that make this agent James Bond and not just a whatever dude are the elements Fleming created that diversified Bond from all the other spies. Not just gadgets and wink-wink. (That are anyway a part of James Bond.)
The fundamentals are missing here. There's no difference between Bond and Mission:Impossible or Bourne in this one. It's a random spy, not James Bond. And it's not just about the guy not looking like James Bond, as most actually said that despite that, Craig saves the little that can be saved, and he would have been great with a completely different script. It's about the substance of the movie, that is not a James Bond movie. It has the name, but not the characteristics. I think the last review summed it up pretty well (though.. may I advise editing and using spoiler tags for that Mathis part? )).
One expects to go see Bond, and they don't find him. That's what is disappointing. Again, not more Flemingesque at all, I think the poor guy is turning into his grave seeing what they made of his character in this one.. they made him disappear in favour of a Bourne clone. The disappointing thing is that it is especially the character of Bond that is turned into Bourne, not just the whole atmosphere of the movie.
I am afraid I completely disagree that there are a lot of Flemingesque moments.. I think there are none. I actually think most of the moments specifically undo what Fleming's work was in building up Bond's character. If I was Fleming, I would sue these people for calling James Bond a character that's got nothing to do with what he created (other than the custom-made suits).
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
See, and if I was Fleming, I'd have sued EON after they trashed YOLT, eased up a bit cuz of OHMSS - but then sued and sued and sued again! Heck even the 60s Bonds were cuted-up way past what Fleming wrote (BTW, he has no sense of humor, a bit of a sardonic and ruthless wit, but nothing at all in anything he wrote ever struck me as funny... where's my lawyers!)
Dour, bitter, p'ed off - that's the (IMHO) very Flemingesque Bond I'm hoping to see in QOS. Bond the film icon is a very different creature from what Fleming wrote IMO; if I never see the former again I'll be a happy Bond fan. I don't think that'll happen, but glad to hear QOS shed some of CR's "flare." (and yes, I'm sure the next guy they get will be much more to your liking, Alle, EON seems to run in circles, they'll get back to a more Moore-like Bond soon enough - good for you, sad for me, but oh well).
See, and if I was Fleming, I'd have sued EON after they trashed YOLT
That would have been logistically difficult wouldn't it?
I agree that many of the films stray a long way from what Fleming wrote but I would say that QoS strays from both the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond. Whether it is intelligence, style, womanizing, loving the good life, wit...they are all largely missing from the new instalment.
See, and if I was Fleming, I'd have sued EON after they trashed YOLT
That would have been logistically difficult wouldn't it?
I agree that many of the films stray a long way from what Fleming wrote but I would say that QoS strays from both the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond. Whether it is intelligence, style, womanizing, loving the good life, wit...they are all largely missing from the new instalment.
I think this sums it all up. Not only is the Fleming Bond not there. But the cinematic Bond is not there either. There's big, fat nothing regarding the character.
I see the adjectives you are listing Blue and they apply but they are just a PART of what Fleming wrote about Bond, and not all of it and not the predominant part. What you write is only 50% of the character Fleming wrote in his books. There's the dour and bitter but there's also the stylish and witty, and clever and savvy and knowing all things stylish and luxurios. Plus the womanizer. In the books, not just in the movies. And it's all completely and totally missing in QoS (as most of it was in CR in my opinion, I think the hype around CR has been way exaggerate, and the second part with Bond acting with Vesper like a Barbara Cartland cheap romance novel dude really made me cringe). Anyway, CR or not, even those who loved CR are heavily criticising this movie so I do not think it is a matter of it being more "flemingesque" at all.
I never said that all the previous movies are perfect compared to what is Fleming's account of the character and story. But a lot of them I find very good, and much closer to the actual essence of the Bond character than any of the stuff that we see in QoS. Just me of course, and I repeat, if someone likes the movie, good for them, at least someone is happy!
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited November 2008
Just as the Bond character was significantly reinvented in 1962, it was again reinvented in 2006, but mind you, it was not a return to the Fleming roots/essence/etc. As sincere, intense, high-caliber, refreshing or different Craig/Campbell/Brocolli/Haggis' interpretation of Bond was in CR, different from what came before does not automatically equate it to being Fleming and any assertions otherwise is nothing but subjective and excessive enthusiasm. Please, let's see this new Bond as he is, as an exciting, compelling and highly appealing alpha-male interpretation of the Bond character, which is how I've learned to enjoy Craig. With that, I've had to put aside my preconceptions of the cinematic and literary Bond and see Craig's Bond as a bad-a** anti-hero...a cross between Derek Flint and Jason Bourne and Jack Carter.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR and QoS is the closest to Fleming since Dalton. In fact, if I had to make a list of the portrayals closest to Fleming, QoS would be hard to top. I'm not sure why many others haven't seen this too. I wrote a few stand-out scenes why I think this in the other review thread, but didn't want to put any spoilers in here to ruin it for you guys...
And needless to say Moore's and Brosnan's would be near the bottom of my list, obviously....:v
That's a fair point, bondtoys. But (like I said) I was thinking not of Bondfans (the ways of which are legion and, like Lovecraftian thingys, indescribable), but of reviews I've read: great film, so-so Bond film - and cuz of missing nudge-nudge wink-wink Bondisms the reviewer likes and expects to be there. For me, not having those types of Bondisms makes it sound better (whether or not it makes the mark, I'll let you know Friday :007) ).
I just wanted to point out, that most of the people, who critisize QoS are not doung so, because the gunbarrel sequence is not at the beginning, the gadgets are missing, jokes, Q and Moneypenny are missing, which has been kind of implemented in the 2 quoted comments.
The sillyness is (thank god!!!)long gone and it makes absolutely no sense to refer to this like some of the magazines.
And gadgets per se are not good or bad, it depends on the context. Noone complained about the presence of gadgets in FRWL and GF, an invisible car is surely to be critisized!
So, I'd just ask to keep these ridiculous clichees aside and get some more depth into the entire discussion.
And this depth, I am missing in QoS, it has been there in CR.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Just as the Bond character was significantly reinvented in 1962, it was again reinvented in 2006, but mind you, it was not a return to the Fleming roots/essence/etc. As sincere, intense, high-caliber, refreshing or different Craig/Campbell/Brocolli/Haggis' interpretation of Bond was in CR, different from what came before does not automatically equate it to being Fleming and any assertions otherwise is nothing but subjective and excessive enthusiasm. Please, let's see this new Bond as he is, as an exciting, compelling and highly appealing alpha-male interpretation of the Bond character, which is how I've learned to enjoy Craig. With that, I've had to put aside my preconceptions of the cinematic and literary Bond and see Craig's Bond as a bad-a** anti-hero...a cross between Derek Flint and Jason Bourne and Jack Carter.
Amen.
Happy for you that you manage to enjoy Craig, Supes! I can't because I can't see Bond in him, but that said, that really isn't my only gripe about QoS, and neither is it the main one. Craig's a decent actor, so it's not his fault if things go down the tubes. I really take issue with the script, the editing, the atmosphere.. everything that screenwriters and director put into this movie. I find it just wrong and disappointing. And totally un-Bondian. And very BOURNIAN ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
So, I'm very geeked to see this dude's take on Bond (honestly, even the bad reviews make it sound very Flemingesque even as the reviewer bemoans that lack of nudge-nudges and wink-winks, which on my Blue Planet having nothing whatsoever to do with Bond :007) ). Like with Campbell, I'm worried about the final mix, but from the huge biz QOS's doing, sure isn't a LTK. {:)
I've said to someone else that some of the Bondian touches and moments are still there, its just on a much more subtle level than before so really could/should appeal more broadly to people looking to see a sophisticated spy rather than a Johnny English-esque type (if that makes sense!). I think the humour in the film has been missed on certain levels - I've also seen a lot of people say they've noted it more on their 2nd viewing.
ah, I love these clichees:
So, people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars??
Come on guys, this is a kindergarten discussion level from the 80s and not everyone who does not miss the above mentioned ingredients is a Flemingist.
I'd be interested where in my post I'm saying that "people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars" - these are your words, not mine. I was simply giving my opinion on QoS in response to some of the reviews and comments I've seen. I believe I'm entitled to do that.
I think if you look hard enough here then you'll find enough people willing to commiserate with you that the film was poor and that you didn't like it. However, there are some of us that do see Bond both in Craig and in QoS, just, as I've posted here before, maybe not the slick finished-article Bond we've been used to before.
I do resent that you consider these discussions kindergarten level. I would've thought people who cared enough to avoid personal insults and kept the conversation to the subject at hand, such as myself and Blueman as quoted above, were above the level that others see fit to sink to.
I suppose I've always associated Johnny English with Brosnan more than anyone else (probably having grown up with Moore and ironically finding him more believable as Bond) but I see more now where you were coming from in quoting that.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR and QoS is the closest to Fleming since Dalton.
I do too, actually. He's perhaps closer to the internal essence of Fleming's man---possibly moreso than Connery. Supes' point about the significant reinventions of the character, in 1962 and 2006, is a good one.
Craig's Bond is the one who got his nuts thwacked, after all...and his is the one who might provoke a villain into beating the s**t out of him, so as to distract him into leaving a blowtorch in the room with which to burn through the ropes holding him, only to submit to the blast of a steam-hose...or the one who might actually get his pinky finger broken if he gets caught in the wrong part of New York City.
To me, this is the Fleming element that really counts: the man of action who gets himself into trouble and has to fight his way out. What's personally gratifying to this Bond fan is that such a James Bond was never considered cinematically viable in eras gone by. Now it clearly is, and that is exciting.
Everything else---the comma of black hair, someone's idealized and highly subjective take on 'very good looking,' the specified height, the obligatory 'shaken, not stirred' and 'Bond...James Bond,' are just window dressing---the garnish on the side of a hearty meal.
Therefore, I'd assert that Craig's Bond is, indeed, the closest to the essential core of Fleming's work. Subjective? Sure. Many (perhaps most) will disagree. That's okay.
They're ALL Cinematic Bond, after all, and decidedly not Literary Bond---never do the two truly and completely meet...and they never will. There are merely degrees of Fleming in each actor who tackles this iconic role, and each fan decides for him or herself which is most present---and important to one's own personal vision of the character.
And golly, I blanch at the notion of excessive enthusiasm! That can get you killed around here... B-)
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 think Craig's portrayal of Bond in CR and QoS is the closest to Fleming since Dalton.
I do too, actually. He's perhaps closer to the internal essence of Fleming's man---possibly moreso than Connery. Supes' point about the significant reinventions of the character, in 1962 and 2006, is a good one.
Craig's Bond is the one who got his nuts thwacked, after all...and his is the one who might provoke a villain into beating the s**t out of him, so as to distract him into leaving a blowtorch in the room with which to burn through the ropes holding him...or the one who might actually get his pinky finger broken if he gets caught in the wrong part of New York City.
To me, this is the Fleming element that really counts: the man of action who gets himself into trouble and has to fight his way out.
Everything else---the comma of black hair, someone's idealized and highly subjective take on 'very good looking,' the specified height, the obligatory 'shaken, not stirred' and 'Bond...James Bond,' are just window dressing---the garnish on the side of a hearty meal.
Therefore, I'd assert that Craig's Bond is, indeed, the closest to the essential core of Fleming's work.
Well said!! Could not agree more! When reading the nastier sides to the Fleming novels, (being kicked about and stamped on by Kidd & Wint, trying to kill himself by holding his breath, going beserk for the first time in his life and battering the living daylights out of Goldfinger, rubbing soap in his eyes to pass off as an infection, whacking someone with a Rolex knuckle-duster, etc.) this is Craig's Bond.
Well said!! Could not agree more! When reading the nastier sides to the Fleming novels, (being kicked about and stamped on by Kidd & Wint, trying to kill himself by holding his breath, going beserk for the first time in his life and battering the living daylights out of Goldfinger, rubbing soap in his eyes to pass off as an infection, whacking someone with a Rolex knuckle-duster, etc.) this is Craig's Bond.
Me three!
Fair enough, Craig doesn't look like Bond is supposed to look, but he acts it perfectly, which is far more important. And anyway, who wants a Hoagie Carmichael lookalike?
Sean Bean doesn't look anything like Richard Sharpe, but he's bloody good in the part. He's not even a Londoner. But he's still Sharpe.
When reading the nastier sides to the Fleming novels, (.....) this is Craig's Bond.
) ) I agree that the nastier side of Fleming's Bond is Craig's Bond glidrose) ) (sorry, as we say in Italian, you served it on a silver platter here! )). Which is exactly why Craig is not and will never be Bond for me. He is just and only the nastier side, a minor part of Bond, not all of the character. While the other actors, all of them, to a smaller or bigger degree, managed to convey many more aspects of James Bond. I find Craig's Bond, and QoS in particular, a VERY partial part of Fleming's Bond. More so than all the predecessors. And I'm not ok with it.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I suppose I've always associated Johnny English with Brosnan more than anyone else (probably having grown up with Moore and ironically finding him more believable as Bond) but I see more now where you were coming from in quoting that.
It's funny how Craig fans, in defense of their favorite, always resort to bashing Brosnan. Surely Brosnan is not the most different from Craig out of all the previous Bond actors?
I grew up with Moore too, and a couple of his films are among my all-time favorites, but I really can't see him as a more believable Bond than Brosnan was. To me, Brosnan has the comic touch of Moore, but he brought another dimension, and that is a toughness that Moore lacks. Therefore, I think that his portrayal of Bond is more balanced. For example, I can't see Moore being as mean-looking and efficient (fighting-wise) as Brosnan in the scene in the banker's office in TWINE. And how about the great fistfight with Sean Bean on the satellite dish in GE? Moore, with all due respect, wouldn't have been able to be nearly as convincing in a brutal fight like that.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
It's funny how Craig fans, in defense of their favorite, always resort to bashing Brosnan.
Not me. I always bash Moore Love the guy, mind you...a great Saint B-)
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
Never thought of Fleming's Bond as all that of a luxury *****, more like going with whatever flow the story puts him in, high class or low. Adaptable. He enjoys mud as much (sometimes more so) as he enjoys comfy shoes. Bond can be very brand-conscious, but I think that's Fleming's particular foible just inserted (and if you think about it, that part of Bond's persona doesn't really translate to today's Gap world - Vesper shot him down for it even in CR! What Fleming wrote as trying to make Bond "appreciative of the good life" is now borderline vulgar and Walmarty-crass). To me what's key about it is Bond delights in his senses, whatever it is he's sensing in the moment. And that (I think) is what keeps him alive and exciting and Bond (and what other franchises have piggybacked on lately, as EON had been dropping the ball somewhat IMO). As long as Bond is kept firmly in the moment with all the sights/sounds/textures vibrantly felt, then it's definitely in Fleming's tradition of a thriller. As I read the books anyway. And why I'm not at all sorry to see a lot of the Moore-style Bondisms fade (antithetical to Fleming's thriller?), and glad to hear of some kickass action scenes coming our way in a Bond story that has Bond with a lot of vested interest in it from the jump point (IMO the best Bond books have that element at some point...well, most do anyway but thinking of CR-love story, DN-it grows on him, OHMSS-love story, YOLT-revenge).
I realize a more Fleming Bond ain't everybody's cup of tea, at least as it's embodied in the current guy. But I'm very excited to hear (some) Bondfans and reviewers (lamenting missing Bondisms) complain about QOS, just tells me it's likely more of what I like and want in a Bond film. Different strokes and all that.
I suppose I've always associated Johnny English with Brosnan more than anyone else (probably having grown up with Moore and ironically finding him more believable as Bond) but I see more now where you were coming from in quoting that.
It's funny how Craig fans, in defense of their favorite, always resort to bashing Brosnan. Surely Brosnan is not the most different from Craig out of all the previous Bond actors?
I grew up with Moore too, and a couple of his films are among my all-time favorites, but I really can't see him as a more believable Bond than Brosnan was. To me, Brosnan has the comic touch of Moore, but he brought another dimension, and that is a toughness that Moore lacks. Therefore, I think that his portrayal of Bond is more balanced. For example, I can't see Moore being as mean-looking and efficient (fighting-wise) as Brosnan in the scene in the banker's office in TWINE. And how about the great fistfight with Sean Bean on the satellite dish in GE? Moore, with all due respect, wouldn't have been able to be nearly as convincing in a brutal fight like that.
I am going to continue to defend myself against the rather pointed bashing I'm taking in this thread so here goes.
I have no problem stating that I like DC as Bond, the last time I looked that wasn't a crime nor against the AUP of this website which is presently the way it's beginning to feel. I don't think its fair to quote me then generalise so broadly, it doesn't account at all for Bond fans just liking DC's interpretation of what is Bond.
I have no problem stating that DC has become my favourite Bond. I do have a problem with people accusing me of Brosnan bashing just because of that fact.
I don't feel that, especially with reference to QoS that I've shoved that fact down anyone's throat and although I really liked QoS I've not objected to anyone disliking it. Bond is very much horses for courses so to speak.
I don't like, and have never liked Brosnan as Bond or in any other of his film roles. I find something slimy and used car salesman about him and always have, and hence I didn't engage with any of the Bond films he made. I feel for him like Alessandra feels for DC - total abhorrence.
I think the key difference here is the argument that will rage on boards such as this till kingdom come - what and who is Bond?
To me, until Craig, I was into the Moore representation of Bond, whatever you care to interpret that as. He was to me as suave as you like, meister of the raised eyebrow and all I'd ever thought Bond to be as I was too young and maybe not interested enough to particularly care to consider the literary Bond or the previous and subsequent Bond actors. To me Moore's Bond was always going to work smarter not harder, the spy licenced to kill who didn't always want to get his hards dirty.
I honestly believe that since Connery there hasn't always been a great deal of attention paid to whether or not Bond looked as if he could hold his own in a fistfight and that's why Craig's Bond was compared to Connery.
Now that the franchise has gone so far from what some people think is cinematic Bond, literary Bond etc etc its more a case of people taking what they want from the character as its not going to please any of the purists (whatever your denomination) from now on in I suspect.
I do find it ironic though that there's been so much comment about Bond being too much of a cold killing machine in QoS and here we are debating about which of the previous Bonds looked most brutal and ready to do battle!
I shall don my tin hat now {:) and await the incoming storm...............
Comments
Hi Blueman and hope you've been well (don't know if you'll remember me from days of yore but I'm saying hi anyway
I've said to someone else that some of the Bondian touches and moments are still there, its just on a much more subtle level than before so really could/should appeal more broadly to people looking to see a sophisticated spy rather than a Johnny English-esque type (if that makes sense!). I think the humour in the film has been missed on certain levels - I've also seen a lot of people say they've noted it more on their 2nd viewing.
I hope you (and the rest of the US contingent) let us all know what you think of the film
Does HH still hang around these parts by the way - I haven't seen him around the place!
See, comments like yours make me think it'll be more up my alley than not. But as with every Bond film post-60s, I go with expectations of greatness knowing full well it's hardly ever the case - Craig in the role is a big plus for me, but even almost half of Connery's Bond output ended up so-so to downright awful (last half of TB, all of YOLT, DAF, NSNA... a lot of unsatisfying Bond in all that
Saw a comment by Craig, he wants Forster back for 23...
I guess (as a Craig-as-Bond fan like me :007)) you and some others here will feel the same as I do, in that it's not perfect but it makes sense, *is* Bond and not Bourne and sets up for a great Bond 23. I'd say go and expect to enjoy the overall film rather than love it and you wouldn't be too disappointed.
Oh God, no. Apted or Campbell, if they decide to bring back a director.
I agree. Apted did a great job in TWINE. Campbell is 2 for 2 so far IMO. I say let's give him the chance to hit another one out of the park.
I second this thought. Please no more of this. And Apted has always been a director I respected a lot, so I'd love to see him back.
Blue, it's great to see you in high spirits!
Still, will await your review
(just goes to show, even among the modern Bonds there are big gulfs of preference...)
Really does sound like Forster made a modern Bond film from more Fleming-type sensibilities (mindful that a thriller in '08 shouldn't look at all like a thriller in '63 IMO, but doesn't mean they can't share similar bents and drifts).
ah, I love these clichees:
So, people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars??
Come on guys, this is a kindergarten discussion level from the 80s and not everyone who does not miss the above mentioned ingredients is a Flemingist.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
This could've been a fantastic movie, I feel there's one in there somewhere. Maybe it's on the cutting room floor. Unfortunately this ain't it. And no more Forster... ever... EVER. They've nearly undone everything they did right in CR. X-(
No: they're missing the gunbarrel where it belongs, an enjoyable theme song, Q & Moneypenny, "Bond... James Bond", and editing that doesn't make you need an oculist.
Thank you. They're missing JAMES BOND, not just the elements. He is not in this movie. Blue, I absolutely respect the different taste and of course there's room for everyone, and I'm glad you're still firmly positive.
But I think you're misunderstanding what the critics are saying about the movie. The critics are saying that the character Fleming created isn't there because the elements that make him James Bond that were created by Fleming and all the subtleties of the character that Fleming wrote aren't there. It's not a mere matter of gadgets at all. It's a matter of total absence of humour, total absence of Q, Moneypenny, gunbarrel sequence, "Bond, James Bond", style, wit, cleverness.. basically some filmic plus ALL the elements that Fleming created that make James Bond who he is instead of a random spy.
This movie isn't more Flemingesque at all in my opinion, it is a far, far cry from what Fleming wrote. The character of James Bond isn't there. That's what the critics are going on about. There's none of the intelligence James Bond has in the books, none of the atmosphere that surrounds Bond, let alone the wit and the "taste" for even killing scenes that Fleming had. It is nonstop action with shaky camera with a guy who could be anyone but James Bond. The missing elements that make this agent James Bond and not just a whatever dude are the elements Fleming created that diversified Bond from all the other spies. Not just gadgets and wink-wink. (That are anyway a part of James Bond.)
The fundamentals are missing here. There's no difference between Bond and Mission:Impossible or Bourne in this one. It's a random spy, not James Bond. And it's not just about the guy not looking like James Bond, as most actually said that despite that, Craig saves the little that can be saved, and he would have been great with a completely different script. It's about the substance of the movie, that is not a James Bond movie. It has the name, but not the characteristics. I think the last review summed it up pretty well (though.. may I advise editing and using spoiler tags for that Mathis part?
One expects to go see Bond, and they don't find him. That's what is disappointing. Again, not more Flemingesque at all, I think the poor guy is turning into his grave seeing what they made of his character in this one.. they made him disappear in favour of a Bourne clone. The disappointing thing is that it is especially the character of Bond that is turned into Bourne, not just the whole atmosphere of the movie.
I am afraid I completely disagree that there are a lot of Flemingesque moments.. I think there are none. I actually think most of the moments specifically undo what Fleming's work was in building up Bond's character. If I was Fleming, I would sue these people for calling James Bond a character that's got nothing to do with what he created (other than the custom-made suits).
Dour, bitter, p'ed off - that's the (IMHO) very Flemingesque Bond I'm hoping to see in QOS. Bond the film icon is a very different creature from what Fleming wrote IMO; if I never see the former again I'll be a happy Bond fan. I don't think that'll happen, but glad to hear QOS shed some of CR's "flare." (and yes, I'm sure the next guy they get will be much more to your liking, Alle, EON seems to run in circles, they'll get back to a more Moore-like Bond soon enough - good for you, sad for me, but oh well).
That would have been logistically difficult wouldn't it?
I agree that many of the films stray a long way from what Fleming wrote but I would say that QoS strays from both the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond. Whether it is intelligence, style, womanizing, loving the good life, wit...they are all largely missing from the new instalment.
I think this sums it all up. Not only is the Fleming Bond not there. But the cinematic Bond is not there either. There's big, fat nothing regarding the character.
I see the adjectives you are listing Blue and they apply but they are just a PART of what Fleming wrote about Bond, and not all of it and not the predominant part. What you write is only 50% of the character Fleming wrote in his books. There's the dour and bitter but there's also the stylish and witty, and clever and savvy and knowing all things stylish and luxurios. Plus the womanizer. In the books, not just in the movies. And it's all completely and totally missing in QoS (as most of it was in CR in my opinion, I think the hype around CR has been way exaggerate, and the second part with Bond acting with Vesper like a Barbara Cartland cheap romance novel dude really made me cringe). Anyway, CR or not, even those who loved CR are heavily criticising this movie so I do not think it is a matter of it being more "flemingesque" at all.
I never said that all the previous movies are perfect compared to what is Fleming's account of the character and story. But a lot of them I find very good, and much closer to the actual essence of the Bond character than any of the stuff that we see in QoS. Just me of course, and I repeat, if someone likes the movie, good for them, at least someone is happy!
And needless to say Moore's and Brosnan's would be near the bottom of my list, obviously....:v
I just wanted to point out, that most of the people, who critisize QoS are not doung so, because the gunbarrel sequence is not at the beginning, the gadgets are missing, jokes, Q and Moneypenny are missing, which has been kind of implemented in the 2 quoted comments.
The sillyness is (thank god!!!)long gone and it makes absolutely no sense to refer to this like some of the magazines.
And gadgets per se are not good or bad, it depends on the context. Noone complained about the presence of gadgets in FRWL and GF, an invisible car is surely to be critisized!
So, I'd just ask to keep these ridiculous clichees aside and get some more depth into the entire discussion.
And this depth, I am missing in QoS, it has been there in CR.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Amen.
Happy for you that you manage to enjoy Craig, Supes!
I'd be interested where in my post I'm saying that "people, who critisize QoS are doing so because they are missing the gadgets, the winks-winks and invisible cars" - these are your words, not mine. I was simply giving my opinion on QoS in response to some of the reviews and comments I've seen. I believe I'm entitled to do that.
I think if you look hard enough here then you'll find enough people willing to commiserate with you that the film was poor and that you didn't like it. However, there are some of us that do see Bond both in Craig and in QoS, just, as I've posted here before, maybe not the slick finished-article Bond we've been used to before.
I do resent that you consider these discussions kindergarten level. I would've thought people who cared enough to avoid personal insults and kept the conversation to the subject at hand, such as myself and Blueman as quoted above, were above the level that others see fit to sink to.
With the wink-wink and stuff, I have quoted blueman, sorry, if this did not come thru.
And you like QoS. Good!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I do too, actually. He's perhaps closer to the internal essence of Fleming's man---possibly moreso than Connery. Supes' point about the significant reinventions of the character, in 1962 and 2006, is a good one.
Craig's Bond is the one who got his nuts thwacked, after all...and his is the one who might provoke a villain into beating the s**t out of him, so as to distract him into leaving a blowtorch in the room with which to burn through the ropes holding him, only to submit to the blast of a steam-hose...or the one who might actually get his pinky finger broken if he gets caught in the wrong part of New York City.
To me, this is the Fleming element that really counts: the man of action who gets himself into trouble and has to fight his way out. What's personally gratifying to this Bond fan is that such a James Bond was never considered cinematically viable in eras gone by. Now it clearly is, and that is exciting.
Everything else---the comma of black hair, someone's idealized and highly subjective take on 'very good looking,' the specified height, the obligatory 'shaken, not stirred' and 'Bond...James Bond,' are just window dressing---the garnish on the side of a hearty meal.
Therefore, I'd assert that Craig's Bond is, indeed, the closest to the essential core of Fleming's work. Subjective? Sure. Many (perhaps most) will disagree. That's okay.
They're ALL Cinematic Bond, after all, and decidedly not Literary Bond---never do the two truly and completely meet...and they never will. There are merely degrees of Fleming in each actor who tackles this iconic role, and each fan decides for him or herself which is most present---and important to one's own personal vision of the character.
And golly, I blanch at the notion of excessive enthusiasm! That can get you killed around here... B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well said!! Could not agree more! When reading the nastier sides to the Fleming novels, (being kicked about and stamped on by Kidd & Wint, trying to kill himself by holding his breath, going beserk for the first time in his life and battering the living daylights out of Goldfinger, rubbing soap in his eyes to pass off as an infection, whacking someone with a Rolex knuckle-duster, etc.) this is Craig's Bond.
Me three!
Fair enough, Craig doesn't look like Bond is supposed to look, but he acts it perfectly, which is far more important. And anyway, who wants a Hoagie Carmichael lookalike?
Sean Bean doesn't look anything like Richard Sharpe, but he's bloody good in the part. He's not even a Londoner. But he's still Sharpe.
It's funny how Craig fans, in defense of their favorite, always resort to bashing Brosnan. Surely Brosnan is not the most different from Craig out of all the previous Bond actors?
I grew up with Moore too, and a couple of his films are among my all-time favorites, but I really can't see him as a more believable Bond than Brosnan was. To me, Brosnan has the comic touch of Moore, but he brought another dimension, and that is a toughness that Moore lacks. Therefore, I think that his portrayal of Bond is more balanced. For example, I can't see Moore being as mean-looking and efficient (fighting-wise) as Brosnan in the scene in the banker's office in TWINE. And how about the great fistfight with Sean Bean on the satellite dish in GE? Moore, with all due respect, wouldn't have been able to be nearly as convincing in a brutal fight like that.
Not me. I always bash Moore
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Never thought of Fleming's Bond as all that of a luxury *****, more like going with whatever flow the story puts him in, high class or low. Adaptable. He enjoys mud as much (sometimes more so) as he enjoys comfy shoes. Bond can be very brand-conscious, but I think that's Fleming's particular foible just inserted (and if you think about it, that part of Bond's persona doesn't really translate to today's Gap world - Vesper shot him down for it even in CR! What Fleming wrote as trying to make Bond "appreciative of the good life" is now borderline vulgar and Walmarty-crass). To me what's key about it is Bond delights in his senses, whatever it is he's sensing in the moment. And that (I think) is what keeps him alive and exciting and Bond (and what other franchises have piggybacked on lately, as EON had been dropping the ball somewhat IMO). As long as Bond is kept firmly in the moment with all the sights/sounds/textures vibrantly felt, then it's definitely in Fleming's tradition of a thriller. As I read the books anyway. And why I'm not at all sorry to see a lot of the Moore-style Bondisms fade (antithetical to Fleming's thriller?), and glad to hear of some kickass action scenes coming our way in a Bond story that has Bond with a lot of vested interest in it from the jump point (IMO the best Bond books have that element at some point...well, most do anyway but thinking of CR-love story, DN-it grows on him, OHMSS-love story, YOLT-revenge).
I realize a more Fleming Bond ain't everybody's cup of tea, at least as it's embodied in the current guy. But I'm very excited to hear (some) Bondfans and reviewers (lamenting missing Bondisms) complain about QOS, just tells me it's likely more of what I like and want in a Bond film. Different strokes and all that.
I am going to continue to defend myself against the rather pointed bashing I'm taking in this thread so here goes.
I have no problem stating that I like DC as Bond, the last time I looked that wasn't a crime nor against the AUP of this website which is presently the way it's beginning to feel. I don't think its fair to quote me then generalise so broadly, it doesn't account at all for Bond fans just liking DC's interpretation of what is Bond.
I have no problem stating that DC has become my favourite Bond. I do have a problem with people accusing me of Brosnan bashing just because of that fact.
I don't feel that, especially with reference to QoS that I've shoved that fact down anyone's throat and although I really liked QoS I've not objected to anyone disliking it. Bond is very much horses for courses so to speak.
I don't like, and have never liked Brosnan as Bond or in any other of his film roles. I find something slimy and used car salesman about him and always have, and hence I didn't engage with any of the Bond films he made. I feel for him like Alessandra feels for DC - total abhorrence.
I think the key difference here is the argument that will rage on boards such as this till kingdom come - what and who is Bond?
To me, until Craig, I was into the Moore representation of Bond, whatever you care to interpret that as. He was to me as suave as you like, meister of the raised eyebrow and all I'd ever thought Bond to be as I was too young and maybe not interested enough to particularly care to consider the literary Bond or the previous and subsequent Bond actors. To me Moore's Bond was always going to work smarter not harder, the spy licenced to kill who didn't always want to get his hards dirty.
I honestly believe that since Connery there hasn't always been a great deal of attention paid to whether or not Bond looked as if he could hold his own in a fistfight and that's why Craig's Bond was compared to Connery.
Now that the franchise has gone so far from what some people think is cinematic Bond, literary Bond etc etc its more a case of people taking what they want from the character as its not going to please any of the purists (whatever your denomination) from now on in I suspect.
I do find it ironic though that there's been so much comment about Bond being too much of a cold killing machine in QoS and here we are debating about which of the previous Bonds looked most brutal and ready to do battle!
I shall don my tin hat now {:) and await the incoming storm...............