I've made my Peace with QOS, and like lord Melchett from Blackadder, I look upon it as One of my children Not an Offical one you understand,But rather a Backstairs Ba$t**d with one of the downstairs maids, you ship of to the country.
I'm willing to put it down to a blast of over enthusiasm from Eon believing all the praise they got for CR.and Being bamboozled by the director into thinking they where making a great new type of movie, so handed total control over to him.
But It's all behind me know, I have made a Point starting this year not to attack QOS and try and be positive about Bond 23. Everyone has an Opinion on QOS and no one is going to change their minds, so I won't be arguing anymore.
For those of you who Love it, I'm happy for you -{
and for those of Us who Hated it, I hope 23 won't be as Jarring
I know it's had to Imagine but wouldn't it be Great if Bond 23 was so Good it pleased all of us. ) That'll be they Day. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Well I am a Bond fan in a sea of "ordinary cinema goers" who were in agreement. The character felt like a robot in this film, which was devoid of feeling. Mr Craig felt more like Arnie in this film. An overly convoluted plot did not help.
QOS's brutal violence would have sat better had it made sense, and had context. - For example the awful killing of Slate - setting aside it did nothing to help the plot, - rather the reverse, and if makes no sense for Bond as a character. Aside from that he is leaving corpses lying around like a trail of breadcrumbs. Plus at the end, he does not kill the one person he did want revenge on? (Sorry, ranting now).
Literally Bond and film Bond are both killers, but literary Bond always seems to do it with precision; - killing is the only option and there are usually no alternatives when he does it. If he gets it wrong, the consequences would be disastrous. Ok, this is a reboot, but nevertheless, Mitchell - a shot in his hand, and he could have been captured and interrogated. - It would have been better for all if he HAD been interrogated. Slate - a link to Le Chiffre, who was Independent from Quantum - Bond thinks he was a "dead end?!" As for the guy at the Opera, (not the Bodyguard on the roof though that was an error and a big one, the one in the changing rooms before then) - could he not have just knocked him out?! - This shows a lack of considering the options and the potential repercussions that Bond seemed to have learned learned by the end of CR. (He captured White, didn't kill him.) It would have helped had the filming techniques been better, but blind violence for the sake of blind violence is careless, and to me, in a Bond film tasteless.
As for Bond versus Bourne? I have not watched the Bourne films and I don't want to. There are certain characteristics of the Bond films that carry through right up to CR, and one of those is the violence is tempered with humour, the story and the characters - good and bad. If Bond tries too hard to be something else, I will simply stop watching - and be a fan of the existing films that I love. Bond does not need to resort to blood and gore. Those are cheap tactics of the wannabe films.
Sir Miles - which thread would that be? Not the one that makes, ahem interesting reading? (Jokes aside I don't envy you!)
Mmmm - well Bond was 'robot' like...that's how he was through CR and add to the fact that his girlfriend was a double-agent and then gave herself to try and save Bond...I'm sure that would tend to play havoc with any emotions you had left
Mr Slate's death ? Well...it advanced the plot by making Camille think Bond was Slate...and if someone attacks you - with the intent of killing of you - maybe you'd try and stop them any way you could...in this case it would appear that capture wasn't an option...and Bond calls him a 'dead end' because to say "I've killed him" on an open line is silly. Bond does leave a 'trail of corpses'....he was in the SBS before and they are trained to kill and move on...not drag prisoners around with them...plus he's new and learning as he goes...and he captured White - and look how well that turned out ) Plus it would make for a very short movie ! As for the guy at the Opera ? Are we really certain Bond kills him ???
You mention the literary Bond and his precision - and also mention the violence tempered with humour in the films - you want it both ways when it suits....there isn't much humour in the books...and Bond kills with precision in QoS...
But hey...you don't like it..then you don't like it...and I'm never going to change your opinion...I'm sure you'll be happier when the franchise returns to the DAD type of film )
Well I am a Bond fan in a sea of "ordinary cinema goers" who were in agreement. The character felt like a robot in this film, which was devoid of feeling. Mr Craig felt more like Arnie in this film. An overly convoluted plot did not help.
QOS's brutal violence would have sat better had it made sense, and had context. - For example the awful killing of Slate - setting aside it did nothing to help the plot, - rather the reverse, and if makes no sense for Bond as a character. Aside from that he is leaving corpses lying around like a trail of breadcrumbs. Plus at the end, he does not kill the one person he did want revenge on? (Sorry, ranting now).
Literally Bond and film Bond are both killers, but literary Bond always seems to do it with precision; - killing is the only option and there are usually no alternatives when he does it. If he gets it wrong, the consequences would be disastrous. Ok, this is a reboot, but nevertheless, Mitchell - a shot in his hand, and he could have been captured and interrogated. - It would have been better for all if he HAD been interrogated. Slate - a link to Le Chiffre, who was Independent from Quantum - Bond thinks he was a "dead end?!" As for the guy at the Opera, (not the Bodyguard on the roof though that was an error and a big one, the one in the changing rooms before then) - could he not have just knocked him out?! - This shows a lack of considering the options and the potential repercussions that Bond seemed to have learned learned by the end of CR. (He captured White, didn't kill him.) It would have helped had the filming techniques been better, but blind violence for the sake of blind violence is careless, and to me, in a Bond film tasteless.
As for Bond versus Bourne? I have not watched the Bourne films and I don't want to. There are certain characteristics of the Bond films that carry through right up to CR, and one of those is the violence is tempered with humour, the story and the characters - good and bad. If Bond tries too hard to be something else, I will simply stop watching - and be a fan of the existing films that I love. Bond does not need to resort to blood and gore. Those are cheap tactics of the wannabe films.
Sir Miles - which thread would that be? Not the one that makes, ahem interesting reading? (Jokes aside I don't envy you!)
Mmmm - well Bond was 'robot' like...that's how he was through CR and add to the fact that his girlfriend was a double-agent and then gave herself to try and save Bond...I'm sure that would tend to play havoc with any emotions you had left
Mr Slate's death ? Well...it advanced the plot by making Camille think Bond was Slate...and if someone attacks you - with the intent of killing of you - maybe you'd try and stop them any way you could...in this case it would appear that capture wasn't an option...and Bond calls him a 'dead end' because to say "I've killed him" on an open line is silly. Bond does leave a 'trail of corpses'....he was in the SBS before and they are trained to kill and move on...not drag prisoners around with them...plus he's new and learning as he goes...and he captured White - and look how well that turned out ) Plus it would make for a very short movie ! As for the guy at the Opera ? Are we really certain Bond kills him ???
You mention the literary Bond and his precision - and also mention the violence tempered with humour in the films - you want it both ways when it suits....there isn't much humour in the books...and Bond kills with precision in QoS...
But hey...you don't like it..then you don't like it...and I'm never going to change your opinion...I'm sure you'll be happier when the franchise returns to the DAD type of film )
And it's nice to have a grown-up conversation
Some great points on this thread.
If I may, I'd add;
Bond is a spy, a life that allows little relaxation and grows towards a shallow and often unmarked reward. You'd be edgy and even a little grumpy.
Sir miles sums up an sbs alumni well.... If forced to shoot, shoot to kill. On that Haitian balcony he was exposed and threatened and had no choice. Besides slade gives him a serious fight and would have been difficult to pacify. Bond opted for speed and safety from the threatening environment, over information and mission.
As regards QoS being violent, what about CR? I'm rarely disturbed by violence in films but the stairwell scene will always shock and I recall sitting in a private showing, having just seen it once before a few days ago, and a pretty girl sat next to be turning her head away and visibly wincing as bond strangles the general.
Bond has always had violence, and didn't M refer to the breadcrumb trail early on in CR?
No for me this new form of "3-D" violence comes direct from the Borne films, which I knew would leave their mark on bond films due to their success, and havnt been disappointed.
As long as bonds don't try to out-Bourne the bournes I'm relaxed, and so far thats the case for me. tB2 I think you hit the nail right on the head there....but I'd suggest u watch the bournes, they are really excellent portrayals of the excellent ludlums they are based upon.
Finally, I won't try to defend the plot here having given in and tried on another thread.
But the fact that bond doesn't let emotion drive him to kill yusef shows that he has matured as a man and agent and can be trusted to complete his missions.
And of course that scene has one of the most gorgeous bond girls ever, stana katic -{
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Re the last two posts:
All valid points Gentlemen. Perhaps in time I may consider watching the Bourne films, but not if the stunt and action scenes are edited in the same way. That aspect of QOS gave me a headache, and spoilt all the action scenes..
As to the narrative aspects? I have accepted that I don't understand QoS. I have watched it 2.75 times, and there are things I didn't understand, missed completely or was simply not to my taste. Its ironic, because I felt CR had a lot of traditional aspects to it, while QOS was a complete departure. Some of the things you have highlighted are blatant misreads of the film on my part. Its just frustrating that the narrative (something I usually follow reasonably fluidly) made this film so broken and disjointed that I could not keep with it.
As to the books and the films? I saw films first, and only got my hands on the Moonraker and Goldfinger novels a few years ago. (I have also read the Quantum Short stories now too.) I see Literary Bond as a different entity from the cinematic Bond. I can't put my finger on it, but if he was filmed, I see literary Bond as a more period drama format in the nineteen fifties-sixties period, different from the glamour and splash of the films. Maybe its the style of Fleming's writing? Maybe its just me. I did grow up with Sir Roger's take on 007!
The Violence? I guess it does come to understanding what the bigger picture is. I agree the stairwell fight in CR sticks in the mind, as does Bond's torture by Le Chiffre later on. One very physical, the other psychological (our perspective, not poor 007s!) With QoS, I didn't get it, or the style of it, and that made it blatant. - I have to admit though, I would be edgy about letting anyone under 15 seeing either film, but that is another issue altogether.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
OHMSS is still the most violent Bond film, QOS is probably the next closest but still a ways back from it. Oddly, they are, to my eyes at least, the two Bond films with the deepest emotions running through them.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
As to the books and the films? I saw films first, and only got my hands on the Moonraker and Goldfinger novels a few years ago. (I have also read the Quantum Short stories now too.)
So you've only read the three books ? And yet you say the literary Bond only kills with precision and when it's the only option ?
The Violence? I guess it does come to understanding what the bigger picture is. I agree the stairwell fight in CR sticks in the mind, as does Bond's torture by Le Chiffre later on. One very physical, the other psychological (our perspective, not poor 007s!) With QoS, I didn't get it, or the style of it, and that made it blatant. - I have to admit though, I would be edgy about letting anyone under 15 seeing either film, but that is another issue altogether.
Really ? My son has watched both films many, many times - he's even watched them on his own - and he's only 9 now ! He LOVES them...he knows the violence isn't real...we've watched some of the extras and I've discussed the films with him...I'm more worried about any bad language !
But I take your point
YNWA 97
Bella_docQuantum's next target (Canada)Posts: 51MI6 Agent
Well I am a Bond fan in a sea of "ordinary cinema goers" who were in agreement. The character felt like a robot in this film, which was devoid of feeling. Mr Craig felt more like Arnie in this film. An overly convoluted plot did not help.
I wouldn't go as far as comparing our Bond with Captain Cardboard ) Bond/DC does display emotion, it's just really subtle rather than non-existent. As for the plot, I thought it was more vague and insubstantial than convoluted, but same difference I suppose.
QOS's brutal violence would have sat better had it made sense, and had context. - For example the awful killing of Slate - setting aside it did nothing to help the plot, - rather the reverse, and if makes no sense for Bond as a character. Aside from that he is leaving corpses lying around like a trail of breadcrumbs.
I'm sure one could make a case for why each one of Bond's kills in QoS had to happen right then and there (except for the attempted murder of Haines' bodyguard, I still don't get that one), but what I found more frustrating was that Bond *himself* never bothered to give an explanation even when under pressure to clear his name. And the excuse that he didn't trust anyone at MI-6 doesn't really hold since he still trusted M and could have just told her in private. I guess it goes back to the script being disjointed and feeling half-finished. Too bad, 'cause I think it had the makings of a good story in there somewhere.
I think the biggest thing I missed in CR and QOS were some of the old fight staging from the 60's films, where a lot of the scenes were shot from medium shots to show where Bond and his enemy were in relation to the space - then intercut with closeups for impact. Many of the latest Bourne and Bond fights are done in your face and fast cut. leaving me confused. Look at the difference between Craigs fight in the Haiti hotel room and Lazenby's hotel fight in the beginning of OHMSS. Sure, Craig is defending his life and is forced to kill the man by stabbing him, but it did not have to be written that way. Lazenby only knocked the villain out - and the villains slightly humourous attempt at trying to get up and then passing out along with a great Bond post fight quip "Gate crasher..I 'll leave you to tidy up.", was for me one of the charms of the old films. You could have a break the furniture-knuckle dust up, then lighten the severity of the scene with the throw away quips. I think they need to bring this back, at least in a small way, in the next Craig film. The brutality of CR came from the producers trying to reboot the series and put the brutality of Flemings book on the screen. I'm glad they did it. Now, however, I think they can afford to lighten back up a bit (not a lot...but they could dial it back and have lethality but not with so much brutality). I blame the raw brutality of QOS on the director as much as the writers. Sure Bond was on a revenge mission, but he is not Jason Bourne. For example, look at Die Hard. Bruce Willis had some really awful fights and also got beat up though the film, but there were still great moments of humor in it (Ho, Ho, Ho...Now I have a machine gun, etc.). You also had an enteraining, witty, yet cold killer of a villain who met with a great, crowd pleasing, satisifying death. The next Bond film should be along these lines for me. I realize they are trying to have Craig's Bond closer to Fleming's Bond, but the problem is that you now have a whole series of films that have been done for over forty years that started with putting more wry humor in them, and throwing out that whole tradition to me would be too much. I love Flemings novels, but he kept the humor almost non existent because he was trying to ground his wild tales into reality. For the films, I still need some wit to lighten my mood after a tense, dangerous scene.
Yeah, they do need to sort Craig's wit out, I don't think he should do one liners as such, but it should have some lightness. Problem is, Craig is so based in realism in his performance, it doesn't work to have him do a one-liner, cos lets face it, no one does that in real life, makes little quips to themselves. A bit of sarcy one-upmanship with villains, like ironically dialogue in Pulp Fiction, I can see Craig doing. His best one-liner is in Layer Cake when the Serb hitman calls him up and he seems about to invite him round for coffee. Worth checking out.
The shared joke with the audience is what Connery, Moore, Brosnan all did, what Lazenby tried to do (but failed). Craig doesn't seem to want to do that, he seems shy and doesn't seem to know how to anyway. He's dead keen to keep his own persona out of the role, so he seems to be shutting us out. H Ford mind you, always v private but knew how to register that certain something with the audience.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Catch up time,
M - fair play to Sir M Jnr. I'm not a parent, so purely guessing from that standpoint. As for the language? Don't worry, as soon as he hits secondary school that's when its a lost cause! (At least it was for me.) . Re the books, I can only judge by what I have been able to read so far - which admittedly is not much. Detailed opinion on the films? Hell yeah! Knowledgeable about the books, - def not! Its purely what I think of the stories I have had the luxury to read.
Bella Doc? - Re getting back to a CR style, I'm with you all the way!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
They do need to lighten Bond a little, Mabey give Craig some Oneliners But make them more Cold/Cruel. As Humor is part of everyday life everyone makes Jokes to get through the day. Even the most heated and Stressful jobs Have to have a way of releasing the tension. I'm not saying go back to the Roger Moore jokes kind of Humor but rather the earily Bonds, As in Dr No when Bond asks the door man of the Governor's House to make sure the dead driver doesn't get away. Not laugh out loud funny but they'd put a smile on your face.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Yeah, they do need to sort Craig's wit out, I don't think he should do one liners as such, but it should have some lightness. Problem is, Craig is so based in realism in his performance, it doesn't work to have him do a one-liner, cos lets face it, no one does that in real life, makes little quips to themselves. A bit of sarcy one-upmanship with villains, like ironically dialogue in Pulp Fiction, I can see Craig doing. His best one-liner is in Layer Cake when the Serb hitman calls him up and he seems about to invite him round for coffee. Worth checking out.
The shared joke with the audience is what Connery, Moore, Brosnan all did, what Lazenby tried to do (but failed). Craig doesn't seem to want to do that, he seems shy and doesn't seem to know how to anyway. He's dead keen to keep his own persona out of the role, so he seems to be shutting us out. H Ford mind you, always v private but knew how to register that certain something with the audience.
Great post Nap, and I do see what you mean. It's like there is a limited amount of scope when Craig is making a one liner to himself... (which is what he does...) rather than his predecessors, who somehow managed to be speaking to US, without making it obvious. It's very subtle - but does change the dynamic.
It's almost like Craig hasn't got the confidence... but I can't quite believe that. Perhaps he’s trying not to be like the others?
As for the Layer Cake reference, GREAT scene. One of my favourites.
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Cheers Lexi. Bad contenders include "Every penny of it" when he's introduced to Vesper "I'm the money." It's a poor gag anyway, but no one could say that in real life and not sound a prat. Thing is, Craig's hesitation can also be read as young Bond not having mastered a one-liner yet, as with his nervy come-on to Solange outside the casino where he seems almost like a rat caught in the headlights. Also, 'She got sea sick" or whatever it was after the boat action scene in QoS. It's not badly delivered, but even the likes of Dirty Harry can deliver stuff like that with a swagger and nod to the audience. Problem is, take that away and it drives it home what a brutal, depressing life Bond actually leads. Which may be more morally responsbile in a way, but it don't make for a fun movie.
I think they could give Craig a bit of the Richard Burton type dialogue from stuff like The Wild Geese, that might suit him. It's less obvious Burton is playing to the audience, but it's not too dour.
Glad you woke this thread nap..... Some quality comments above.
Sir m - great that you take the time to sit down and walk ur lad through the films - my dad took me to my first few bonds - GF and FRWL - and on the walk home he would explain them to me.
That's what got me into Bond ( apart from pussy-g and astons... ) and is one of my most treasured parts of my relationship with my dad. Your son will feel the same after you're gone, I'm sure.
Bella-doc, ur not the only one who tgt the attempted murder of the special branch guy made little sense...to me bond was goaded into it by someone he clearly didn't respect - and was trying to kill him. It also felt a homage to the scene in Cairo with RM - held by the tie on a wall.
But in fact the the SB guy doesn't die from the fall - green has him killed per the rules of the quantum group.
Cmndratticus, you brought up the whole issue of "quips" and this may be one of biggest weaknesses in the DC films so far. Liked ur observation that even Bruce Willis could pull them off! And for me they have always been a big part of the charm of bond films. What other franchise is known for such great one liners?
But in comedy, delivery is more than half the parcel, and I agree with most on here that DC is still finding his own "pitch" - though he's definitely getting better. To be honest I didn't feel the CR script was upto the best bond standard, inspite of the fact that Campbell worked wonders with it. Same could be said for Goldeneye, but the cheeky one-liner has always been part of brosnan, and the one-liners were classic - ok no more foreplay, she always liked a good squeeze, etc...
Nap, good point about layer cake ,and the Serb call....every time someone mentions that film it makes me want to break it out again....maybe tonight. It was the film that convinced me DC could do Bond. And it's a great movie in it's own right with some great "lockstock" performances.
TP2 - spot on abt secondary school.....once his boy enters the gates his vocab will double exponentially every 7 days.... And language is a tool, no different to a sharp blade.... It can sculpt beauty, or it can inflict pain and craft evil..... It's upto the user and this knowledge is part of maturity. Caveat emptor.
Sir m - great that you take the time to sit down and walk ur lad through the films - my dad took me to my first few bonds - GF and FRWL - and on the walk home he would explain them to me.
That's what got me into Bond ( apart from pussy-g and astons... ) and is one of my most treasured parts of my relationship with my dad. Your son will feel the same after you're gone, I'm sure.
Well...I had thought of sticking around for a little while longer yet )
He really enjoys them...especially the fights and the women - no idea where he gets that from
When my daughters were very young and it was my time to read Bedtime stories, I'd do an Abridged version of one of my favourites.OHMSS or Goldfinger. B-) Hasn't helped as they have no interest In the Bond films
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
When my daughters were very young and it was my time to read Bedtime stories, I'd do an Abridged version of one of my favourites.OHMSS or Goldfinger. B-) Hasn't helped as they have no interest In the Bond films
When my daughters were very young and it was my time to read Bedtime stories, I'd do an Abridged version of one of my favourites.OHMSS or Goldfinger. B-) Hasn't helped as they have no interest In the Bond films
"... and after Tracy got a teeny-weeny bullet in her head, James lived happily ever after ... so, it's late, sweetheart. Sleep well!"
Yeah, they do need to sort Craig's wit out, I don't think he should do one liners as such, but it should have some lightness. Problem is, Craig is so based in realism in his performance, it doesn't work to have him do a one-liner, cos lets face it, no one does that in real life, makes little quips to themselves. A bit of sarcy one-upmanship with villains, like ironically dialogue in Pulp Fiction, I can see Craig doing. His best one-liner is in Layer Cake when the Serb hitman calls him up and he seems about to invite him round for coffee. Worth checking out.
The shared joke with the audience is what Connery, Moore, Brosnan all did, what Lazenby tried to do (but failed). Craig doesn't seem to want to do that, he seems shy and doesn't seem to know how to anyway. He's dead keen to keep his own persona out of the role, so he seems to be shutting us out. H Ford mind you, always v private but knew how to register that certain something with the audience.
Great post Nap, and I do see what you mean. It's like there is a limited amount of scope when Craig is making a one liner to himself... (which is what he does...) rather than his predecessors, who somehow managed to be speaking to US, without making it obvious. It's very subtle - but does change the dynamic
It's almost like Craig hasn't got the confidence... but I can't quite believe that. Perhaps he’s trying not to be like the others?
As for the Layer Cake reference, GREAT scene. One of my favourites.
CR suggested how it could be done. That sly look when he (Bond) knows that the other guy has the detonator clipped to his belt and is about to go Booom ! Or the lovely moment when Bond is mistaken for a Valet and makes the man pay for his mistake. DC pulls this sort of play off very well, and that sense of playful badness is pure Connery/Bond. if they play up the rebellious element it could work. Lots of precedent for it from Connerry setting off the alarm at Shrublands just for the he'll of it, to Brosnan needlessly damaging expensive kit in TND, or Lazenby stealing the centre-fold in OHMSS.
Though I know we reference the actors having the ability to deliver the quips, it's definitely up to the writers to deliver first. All the bad puns in the films are their faults - not the actors having to choke on them. They also don't need to come after every death in the future films - just a few would be fine. A humorous action is just as sufficient at times - Connery in Thunderball pausing to pick a grape off the fruit as he sneeks out of a room , for example. I thought the mistaken valet scene in CR with Craig bashing the car and creating the alarm distraction was well done, because not only did it show Bond's sardonic sense of humor, it also showed his quick thinking - that he could use the action to aid in his plan to sneak into the Security room. The follow up with him greeting that arrogant owner of the car with the wry smile and "Guten abend" as he walked away was the type of humor Craig does well and the writers need to keep in the future films.
Sadly, last two posts nail it. The humour in both those cases is an extension of Craig's slightly cagey, self-satisfied. thuggish demeanour, the way he is in real life. {:)
To me the humor is there. It's not in your face, but there's just a touch here and there. I'm not looking for what came to be the classic Bond film humor though. I prefer the subtlety and overall restraint.
To me the humor is there. It's not in your face, but there's just a touch here and there. I'm not looking for what came to be the classic Bond film humor though. I prefer the subtlety and overall restraint.
I'm with you...I don't want a return to the Moore era of comedy (great though it was/is)...Dalton just about got away with the cheesy lines they gave him....and even Brosnan suffered with some stinkers - which even he admitted too...
Daniel has had some good lines...and IMO his films so far have struck the right balance.. -{
It has been suggested from various corners by whoever at any given time that Craig seemed out of place right from the off, theaters were introduced to some actor who seemed better prepared to be working for WWE wrestling and they found an issue with the hair color
You know how it is, someone finds something about a new release they disagree with, Bond has always been dark haired from 1962-2006, this new chap was something new and the physique seemed a bit out of place.
BUT- Craig was OK in the first film if you take the above out of the equation, he was the epitome of action and certainly was an agent you felt could rely on, even if he did break into M'S residence early on, I wouldn't have liked to have gone up against him
But what I saw on Craig's face wasn't indifference, or boredom---it was, primarily, concern about getting it over with---and a hint of pity behind an outward mask of indifference, which speaks to the layers of Bond's evolving character. Some might well say I'm all wet on this, and fair enough, but that's what I saw. And the scene does also go to the heart of Bond's licence to kill. All the same, I can see the point of those who'd rather get back to escapism -{
I know I'm replying to an ancient post, here, but I can't help but describe what I saw in that scene. To me, it was aversion. He was looking away from the dastardly deed he was performing. He wasn't bored, or preoccupied, but simply averting his eyes to the scene beneath his hands - the brutal killing of a man. He didn't want to look at it, and instead looked up and away.
That's what I got out of it. And it didn't seem out of the Fleming character, if you ask me. In the opening passages to Goldfinger, Bond is haranguing himself over his hand-to-hand-killing of a nameless Mexican street-hit-man. Bond's not an emotionless robot - he's a man; a tough, ruthless, man; but he is affected by what he does.
Comments
I'm willing to put it down to a blast of over enthusiasm from Eon believing all the praise they got for CR.and Being bamboozled by the director into thinking they where making a great new type of movie, so handed total control over to him.
But It's all behind me know, I have made a Point starting this year not to attack QOS and try and be positive about Bond 23. Everyone has an Opinion on QOS and no one is going to change their minds, so I won't be arguing anymore.
For those of you who Love it, I'm happy for you -{
and for those of Us who Hated it, I hope 23 won't be as Jarring
I know it's had to Imagine but wouldn't it be Great if Bond 23 was so Good it pleased all of us.
Mmmm - well Bond was 'robot' like...that's how he was through CR and add to the fact that his girlfriend was a double-agent and then gave herself to try and save Bond...I'm sure that would tend to play havoc with any emotions you had left
Mr Slate's death ? Well...it advanced the plot by making Camille think Bond was Slate...and if someone attacks you - with the intent of killing of you - maybe you'd try and stop them any way you could...in this case it would appear that capture wasn't an option...and Bond calls him a 'dead end' because to say "I've killed him" on an open line is silly. Bond does leave a 'trail of corpses'....he was in the SBS before and they are trained to kill and move on...not drag prisoners around with them...plus he's new and learning as he goes...and he captured White - and look how well that turned out
You mention the literary Bond and his precision - and also mention the violence tempered with humour in the films - you want it both ways when it suits....there isn't much humour in the books...and Bond kills with precision in QoS...
But hey...you don't like it..then you don't like it...and I'm never going to change your opinion...I'm sure you'll be happier when the franchise returns to the DAD type of film
And it's nice to have a grown-up conversation
Some great points on this thread.
If I may, I'd add;
Bond is a spy, a life that allows little relaxation and grows towards a shallow and often unmarked reward. You'd be edgy and even a little grumpy.
Sir miles sums up an sbs alumni well.... If forced to shoot, shoot to kill. On that Haitian balcony he was exposed and threatened and had no choice. Besides slade gives him a serious fight and would have been difficult to pacify. Bond opted for speed and safety from the threatening environment, over information and mission.
As regards QoS being violent, what about CR? I'm rarely disturbed by violence in films but the stairwell scene will always shock and I recall sitting in a private showing, having just seen it once before a few days ago, and a pretty girl sat next to be turning her head away and visibly wincing as bond strangles the general.
Bond has always had violence, and didn't M refer to the breadcrumb trail early on in CR?
No for me this new form of "3-D" violence comes direct from the Borne films, which I knew would leave their mark on bond films due to their success, and havnt been disappointed.
As long as bonds don't try to out-Bourne the bournes I'm relaxed, and so far thats the case for me. tB2 I think you hit the nail right on the head there....but I'd suggest u watch the bournes, they are really excellent portrayals of the excellent ludlums they are based upon.
Finally, I won't try to defend the plot here having given in and tried on another thread.
But the fact that bond doesn't let emotion drive him to kill yusef shows that he has matured as a man and agent and can be trusted to complete his missions.
And of course that scene has one of the most gorgeous bond girls ever, stana katic -{
All valid points Gentlemen. Perhaps in time I may consider watching the Bourne films, but not if the stunt and action scenes are edited in the same way. That aspect of QOS gave me a headache, and spoilt all the action scenes..
As to the narrative aspects? I have accepted that I don't understand QoS. I have watched it 2.75 times, and there are things I didn't understand, missed completely or was simply not to my taste. Its ironic, because I felt CR had a lot of traditional aspects to it, while QOS was a complete departure. Some of the things you have highlighted are blatant misreads of the film on my part. Its just frustrating that the narrative (something I usually follow reasonably fluidly) made this film so broken and disjointed that I could not keep with it.
As to the books and the films? I saw films first, and only got my hands on the Moonraker and Goldfinger novels a few years ago. (I have also read the Quantum Short stories now too.) I see Literary Bond as a different entity from the cinematic Bond. I can't put my finger on it, but if he was filmed, I see literary Bond as a more period drama format in the nineteen fifties-sixties period, different from the glamour and splash of the films. Maybe its the style of Fleming's writing? Maybe its just me. I did grow up with Sir Roger's take on 007!
The Violence? I guess it does come to understanding what the bigger picture is. I agree the stairwell fight in CR sticks in the mind, as does Bond's torture by Le Chiffre later on. One very physical, the other psychological (our perspective, not poor 007s!) With QoS, I didn't get it, or the style of it, and that made it blatant. - I have to admit though, I would be edgy about letting anyone under 15 seeing either film, but that is another issue altogether.
So you've only read the three books ? And yet you say the literary Bond only kills with precision and when it's the only option ?
Really ? My son has watched both films many, many times - he's even watched them on his own - and he's only 9 now ! He LOVES them...he knows the violence isn't real...we've watched some of the extras and I've discussed the films with him...I'm more worried about any bad language !
But I take your point
I'm sure one could make a case for why each one of Bond's kills in QoS had to happen right then and there (except for the attempted murder of Haines' bodyguard, I still don't get that one), but what I found more frustrating was that Bond *himself* never bothered to give an explanation even when under pressure to clear his name. And the excuse that he didn't trust anyone at MI-6 doesn't really hold since he still trusted M and could have just told her in private. I guess it goes back to the script being disjointed and feeling half-finished. Too bad, 'cause I think it had the makings of a good story in there somewhere.
I don't know about Thunderbird, but I'd be happy when they return to a CR type movie.
The shared joke with the audience is what Connery, Moore, Brosnan all did, what Lazenby tried to do (but failed). Craig doesn't seem to want to do that, he seems shy and doesn't seem to know how to anyway. He's dead keen to keep his own persona out of the role, so he seems to be shutting us out. H Ford mind you, always v private but knew how to register that certain something with the audience.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
M - fair play to Sir M Jnr. I'm not a parent, so purely guessing from that standpoint. As for the language? Don't worry, as soon as he hits secondary school that's when its a lost cause! (At least it was for me.) . Re the books, I can only judge by what I have been able to read so far - which admittedly is not much. Detailed opinion on the films? Hell yeah! Knowledgeable about the books, - def not! Its purely what I think of the stories I have had the luxury to read.
Bella Doc? - Re getting back to a CR style, I'm with you all the way!
Great post Nap, and I do see what you mean. It's like there is a limited amount of scope when Craig is making a one liner to himself... (which is what he does...) rather than his predecessors, who somehow managed to be speaking to US, without making it obvious. It's very subtle - but does change the dynamic.
It's almost like Craig hasn't got the confidence... but I can't quite believe that. Perhaps he’s trying not to be like the others?
As for the Layer Cake reference, GREAT scene. One of my favourites.
I think they could give Craig a bit of the Richard Burton type dialogue from stuff like The Wild Geese, that might suit him. It's less obvious Burton is playing to the audience, but it's not too dour.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir m - great that you take the time to sit down and walk ur lad through the films - my dad took me to my first few bonds - GF and FRWL - and on the walk home he would explain them to me.
That's what got me into Bond ( apart from pussy-g and astons...
Bella-doc, ur not the only one who tgt the attempted murder of the special branch guy made little sense...to me bond was goaded into it by someone he clearly didn't respect - and was trying to kill him. It also felt a homage to the scene in Cairo with RM - held by the tie on a wall.
But in fact the the SB guy doesn't die from the fall - green has him killed per the rules of the quantum group.
Cmndratticus, you brought up the whole issue of "quips" and this may be one of biggest weaknesses in the DC films so far. Liked ur observation that even Bruce Willis could pull them off! And for me they have always been a big part of the charm of bond films. What other franchise is known for such great one liners?
But in comedy, delivery is more than half the parcel, and I agree with most on here that DC is still finding his own "pitch" - though he's definitely getting better. To be honest I didn't feel the CR script was upto the best bond standard, inspite of the fact that Campbell worked wonders with it. Same could be said for Goldeneye, but the cheeky one-liner has always been part of brosnan, and the one-liners were classic - ok no more foreplay, she always liked a good squeeze, etc...
Nap, good point about layer cake ,and the Serb call....every time someone mentions that film it makes me want to break it out again....maybe tonight. It was the film that convinced me DC could do Bond. And it's a great movie in it's own right with some great "lockstock" performances.
TP2 - spot on abt secondary school.....once his boy enters the gates his vocab will double exponentially every 7 days.... And language is a tool, no different to a sharp blade.... It can sculpt beauty, or it can inflict pain and craft evil..... It's upto the user and this knowledge is part of maturity. Caveat emptor.
Finally, nap, I'd never thought of Henry ford in this light.....
I guess the only quip I recall from the very private auto-genius was this..
"you can have it in any colour sir, as long as it's black"
Well...I had thought of sticking around for a little while longer yet
He really enjoys them...especially the fights and the women - no idea where he gets that from
And his vocabulary is pretty wide as is it
Sounds like he's been reading esquire too then.....
Could have been an abridged too far ? 8-)
CR suggested how it could be done. That sly look when he (Bond) knows that the other guy has the detonator clipped to his belt and is about to go Booom ! Or the lovely moment when Bond is mistaken for a Valet and makes the man pay for his mistake. DC pulls this sort of play off very well, and that sense of playful badness is pure Connery/Bond. if they play up the rebellious element it could work. Lots of precedent for it from Connerry setting off the alarm at Shrublands just for the he'll of it, to Brosnan needlessly damaging expensive kit in TND, or Lazenby stealing the centre-fold in OHMSS.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm with you...I don't want a return to the Moore era of comedy (great though it was/is)...Dalton just about got away with the cheesy lines they gave him....and even Brosnan suffered with some stinkers - which even he admitted too...
Daniel has had some good lines...and IMO his films so far have struck the right balance.. -{
You know how it is, someone finds something about a new release they disagree with, Bond has always been dark haired from 1962-2006, this new chap was something new and the physique seemed a bit out of place.
BUT- Craig was OK in the first film if you take the above out of the equation, he was the epitome of action and certainly was an agent you felt could rely on, even if he did break into M'S residence early on, I wouldn't have liked to have gone up against him
I know I'm replying to an ancient post, here, but I can't help but describe what I saw in that scene. To me, it was aversion. He was looking away from the dastardly deed he was performing. He wasn't bored, or preoccupied, but simply averting his eyes to the scene beneath his hands - the brutal killing of a man. He didn't want to look at it, and instead looked up and away.
That's what I got out of it. And it didn't seem out of the Fleming character, if you ask me. In the opening passages to Goldfinger, Bond is haranguing himself over his hand-to-hand-killing of a nameless Mexican street-hit-man. Bond's not an emotionless robot - he's a man; a tough, ruthless, man; but he is affected by what he does.