What even seems to be needed is a brand new - fresher - face striding into Fiennes office in the next one. "Ah, there you are, 007."
I disagree - I still want to see Craig do at least one more turn as Bond. I'm especially anxious to see how he does in a more traditional Bond scenario , i.e. the supporting players are all in place (M,Q and Moneypenny), and he's taking on a mission without so much of a personal angle to it.
I WANT to see DC do another, too - but I think the starting-point is a disadvantage: he's been burned out and looks buggered, old, STILL
And haven't we been promised a film post QOS "without so much of a personal angle to it" before, and what did we get?
Call me soft, but I'm willing to give EON another chance to deliver on the less personal Bond movie. And I don't think Craig looks that "buggered" and old in Skyfall, so if they can get the next movie done in the next couple of years I think he'll be fine.
What even seems to be needed is a brand new - fresher - face striding into Fiennes office in the next one. "Ah, there you are, 007."
I disagree - I still want to see Craig do at least one more turn as Bond. I'm especially anxious to see how he does in a more traditional Bond scenario , i.e. the supporting players are all in place (M,Q and Moneypenny), and he's taking on a mission without so much of a personal angle to it.
I WANT to see DC do another, too - but I think the starting-point is a disadvantage: he's been burned out and looks buggered, old, STILL
And haven't we been promised a film post QOS "without so much of a personal angle to it" before, and what did we get?
Call me soft, but I'm willing to give EON another chance to deliver on the less personal Bond movie. And I don't think Craig looks that "buggered" and old in Skyfall, so if they can get the next movie done in the next couple of years I think he'll be fine.
I disagree - I still want to see Craig do at least one more turn as Bond. I'm especially anxious to see how he does in a more traditional Bond scenario , i.e. the supporting players are all in place (M,Q and Moneypenny), and he's taking on a mission without so much of a personal angle to it.
I WANT to see DC do another, too - but I think the starting-point is a disadvantage: he's been burned out and looks buggered, old, STILL
And haven't we been promised a film post QOS "without so much of a personal angle to it" before, and what did we get?
Well, Craig'll certainly keep fit enough, put a tad of weight on him and grow out his hair and he should be able to offset Roger Mooretis for one more personally.
As to EON (and DC) giving up on the emo stuff... Well, we'll have to see.
Call me soft, but I'm willing to give EON another chance to deliver on the less personal Bond movie. And I don't think Craig looks that "buggered" and old in Skyfall, so if they can get the next movie done in the next couple of years I think he'll be fine.
I WANT to see DC do another, too - but I think the starting-point is a disadvantage: he's been burned out and looks buggered, old, STILL
And haven't we been promised a film post QOS "without so much of a personal angle to it" before, and what did we get?
Well, Craig'll certainly keep fit enough, put a tad of weight on him and grow out his hair and he should be able to offset Roger Mooretis for one more personally.
As to EON (and DC) giving up on the emo stuff... Well, we'll have to see.
Skyfall is a very fine entry in the series, but nobody can deny that if the plot was a 1960s London tower block, it would have to be demolished instantly due to health and safety reasons.
Maybe Craig will get some laser skin resurfacing done before the next film...
When I saw CR, Dench returning threw me off as well. She's a really good actress and sells the role well, but they really could have gotten a new actor.
I think what happens in some series (even in television) is some actors become such good friends to the producers and writers and they're so enamored of their talent they'd rather keep using them past their sell-by-date rather than move on. Keeping her in to maintain some sense of continuity because none of other characters were there was not logical since they were starting the whole thing from scratch. However, this is all water under the bridge now.
As far as Craig going from a young new 00 to a seasoned, worn out agent -
it didn't bother me because I just enjoyed the film and how Craig played it so well. It's one of the things I like about his take on the role..unlike the old Bonds he gets the hell beat out of him through the films, so the villains (and even his own people) think he's played out, then he dips into those old Bond
reserves and comes back like lion. It's especially fun to watch him in the scenes where people think they have it over on him..then he bests them which leaves him with that little sardonic grin (as when he watched the bomber at the Miami airport blow himself up). I understand people who have
a problem with the continuity of him burning out so fast right after the first two films, but I've given up on EON and continuity. It's true that by never showing Bond's start as a 00 before they kept up the mythology of him of always be a certain age giving him a Peter Pan like quality, which allowed them to just throw him into any story minus any type of character development - as long as the topic was current. However, after forty four years of doing that and having gone through so many actors, I also understand why they felt it would be good to start the whole thing over again - especially since the original was rooted in the Cold War and was outdated now. Finally getting CR was just the inspiration they needed to get it going. It is a tough juggling act....restarting the whole series to keep it current yet maintaining some kind of continuity with the old so it stays familiar. I guess it's why they waited till this film to reintroduce the other characters and only give Bond a radio and signature Walther. They used Dench's passing, the partial destruction of the modern MI6 building (I assume they'll be returning to it) so they could show a revised MI6; the total destruction of the old Aston (and dumping even Bond's flat), and Bond himself returning. It seems to me pretty obvious they will go for a strait action film next time (like FRWL/DRNO/GOLDFINGER) with a little move humor, but still with no OTT moments. Character development? They may continue with it to some extent, but I don't think they'll have any in the next installment.
Dench probably got high thumbs up on review cards on all the films, mainly cos who else will you praise? The villains are all lacklustre since Mickey and Babs took over, so M gets inflated praise.
Recently realised, switching from India to Turkey for the pts doesn't help the 'reborn - reincarnation' line which is cuter and makes more sense if the bridge fall happens in India, the whole sense of mystery thing about how he survived would come across better.
Dench probably got high thumbs up on review cards on all the films, mainly cos who else will you praise? The villains are all lacklustre since Mickey and Babs took over, so M gets inflated praise.
Recently realised, switching from India to Turkey for the pts doesn't help the 'reborn - reincarnation' line which is cuter and makes more sense if the bridge fall happens in India, the whole sense of mystery thing about how he survived would come across better.
Dench gets praise from me for the same reason Bernard Lee gets my praise - because she's a great M!
My point is she always got disproportionate praise - because the other characters aren't up to much.
I don't think it was disproportionate at all. I think the praise is well-deserved because she is that good. And I don't know what you mean when you say "the other characters aren't up to much". The characters in the movies featuring Dench as M are up to as much as the characters in most Bond films. I guess we just see things very differently in this case, but that's okay. It's not the first time, and probably won't be the last. That's part of what makes this forum so engaging.
Well, surely you're not saying that the villains in the new lot - Le Chiffre, Greene or Silva, are as good as No, Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger or the man with the cat? Or that Brozzer's villains were either? Dench is the one authority figure who stands tall compared to those. Personally I don't think she's that good, but it's the company she keeps, and the extended screentime.
l, surely you're not saying that the villains in the new lot - Le Chiffre, Greene or Silva, are as good as No, Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger or the man with the cat?
Trevelyan, Le Chiffre, Silva and Mr White are all way stronger than Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker for a start.
l, surely you're not saying that the villains in the new lot - Le Chiffre, Greene or Silva, are as good as No, Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger or the man with the cat?
Trevelyan, Le Chiffre, Silva and Mr White are all way stronger than Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker for a start.
I agree. In addition, to me Dr. No is not that interesting as a villain and neither is Blofeld, except as personified by Telly Savalas in OHMSS.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
l, surely you're not saying that the villains in the new lot - Le Chiffre, Greene or Silva, are as good as No, Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger or the man with the cat?
Trevelyan, Le Chiffre, Silva and Mr White are all way stronger than Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker for a start.
What do you mean by stronger? When did it become required that Bond villains, or for the matter the staple characters or Bond himself, be conflicted, gritty or dysfunctional? I'm sorry, but Largo, Blofeld, et al., make up the original essence of Bond's world and what made it all wonderful, interesting and unique in the first place, in books then on the screen. Dr. No was actually a judicious improvement over the novel's character, though even a faithful interpretation of Fleming's villain would inherently be an improvement in just that, being Flemingesque, because otherwise, why still call it "Bond?"
I just don't get the desire to jettison the old in favor of the "new" rendition of Bond because to do so, because there are just so many inseperable trappings with the elements of Bond's world that you'd might as well cut free from that world and make a conscious shift toward an entirely different heroic storyline. In that regard, I do think that this current, reinvented Bond is cheating, in that it is flaunting itself in being brave, bold, edgy and different, yet it is riding on the reputation, tradition, success and prestige of its earlier incarnation...which, ironically it is trying to trash, lol.
"...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.....
When did it become required that Bond villains, or for the matter the staple characters or Bond himself, be conflicted, gritty or dysfunctional?
I think, at the risk of taking your statement too literally, that all of the Bond villains (even the duller ones) have been dysfunctional at the least. And I'm not sure why the phrase "gritty" seems to have taken off so much on Bond forums recently. I don't really get why you would think Dominic Greene is grittier than Emilio Largo, for example. Quite the opposite, I would have thought?
I'm sorry, but Largo, Blofeld, et al., make up the original essence of Bond's world and what made it all wonderful, interesting and unique in the first place, in books then on the screen.
Well, it's all opinions of course but I think the "classic" villains I mentioned in my post, Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker were the weakest of the series. Poorly written and, in some cases, poorly performed. Whereas the newer villains I mentioned, Trevelyan, Le Chiffre and Silva were all very interesting, had great backstories and the performances were fantastic.
Dr. No was actually a judicious improvement over the novel's character, though even a faithful interpretation of Fleming's villain would inherently be an improvement in just that, being Flemingesque, because otherwise, why still call it "Bond?"
Le Chiffre is directly from Fleming and Trevelyan was based loosely on Fleming's Hugo Drax. Trevelyan and Raoul Silva (Hell, even Elliot Carver) are way more faithful to the original essence of Bond's world, IMO at least, than Charles Gray's Blofeld, for example.
Although I don't agree that just because something came from Fleming it's good - The Spangled Mob and his version of Scaramanga were absolute duds.
I just don't get the desire to jettison the old in favor of the "new" rendition of Bond because to do so, because there are just so many inseperable trappings with the elements of Bond's world that you'd might as well cut free from that world and make a conscious shift toward an entirely different heroic storyline. In that regard, I do think that this current, reinvented Bond is cheating, in that it is flaunting itself in being brave, bold, edgy and different, yet it is riding on the reputation, tradition, success and prestige of its earlier incarnation...which, ironically it is trying to trash, lol.
I guess I just don't really get your point of view? You seem to think that the recent Bond films are a massive departure from the original 'essence' of the series but I think that CR, QoS and Skyfall have far more in common with Fleming and the early Bond films than, to give a few examples, Jaws and Dolly falling in love, James Bond having laser battles in space, Max Zorin psychotically spraying his employees with machine gun fire or James Bond driving around in an invisible car...
When did it become required that Bond villains, or for the matter the staple characters or Bond himself, be conflicted, gritty or dysfunctional?
I think, at the risk of taking your statement too literally, that all of the Bond villains (even the duller ones) have been dysfunctional at the least. And I'm not sure why the phrase "gritty" seems to have taken off so much on Bond forums recently. I don't really get why you would think Dominic Greene is grittier than Emilio Largo, for example. Quite the opposite, I would have thought?
I'm sorry, but Largo, Blofeld, et al., make up the original essence of Bond's world and what made it all wonderful, interesting and unique in the first place, in books then on the screen.
Well, it's all opinions of course but I think the "classic" villains I mentioned in my post, Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker were the weakest of the series. Poorly written and, in some cases, poorly performed. Whereas the newer villains I mentioned, Trevelyan, Le Chiffre and Silva were all very interesting, had great backstories and the performances were fantastic.
Dr. No was actually a judicious improvement over the novel's character, though even a faithful interpretation of Fleming's villain would inherently be an improvement in just that, being Flemingesque, because otherwise, why still call it "Bond?"
Le Chiffre is directly from Fleming and Trevelyan was based loosely on Fleming's Hugo Drax. Trevelyan and Raoul Silva (Hell, even Elliot Carver) are way more faithful to the original essence of Bond's world, IMO at least, than Charles Gray's Blofeld, for example.
Although I don't agree that just because something came from Fleming it's good - The Spangled Mob and his version of Scaramanga were absolute duds.
I just don't get the desire to jettison the old in favor of the "new" rendition of Bond because to do so, because there are just so many inseperable trappings with the elements of Bond's world that you'd might as well cut free from that world and make a conscious shift toward an entirely different heroic storyline. In that regard, I do think that this current, reinvented Bond is cheating, in that it is flaunting itself in being brave, bold, edgy and different, yet it is riding on the reputation, tradition, success and prestige of its earlier incarnation...which, ironically it is trying to trash, lol.
I guess I just don't really get your point of view? You seem to think that the recent Bond films are a massive departure from the original 'essence' of the series but I think that CR, QoS and Skyfall have far more in common with Fleming and the early Bond films than, to give a few examples, Jaws and Dolly falling in love, James Bond having laser battles in space, Max Zorin psychotically spraying his employees with machine gun fire or James Bond driving around in an invisible car...
Cubby was not responsible for the invisible car, btw, unless he was consulted during a seance.
...and really? I was not aware that Le Chiffre was directly from Fleming...but putting the jokes aside, again I bring up the importance of context. Did the actors, producers and screenwriters during Cubby's reign, have the advantage of hindsight that the latter films benefitted from? The short answer is, "no," so considering that fact and the times these early movies were made, everyone involved should be commended for their incredible contributions.
As for the question about the "Fleming=good" paradigm, what exactly are we attempting to appreciate here? LeCarre? Ludlum? The Spangled Mob in the novel was bad? You then might be implying that the movie version was an improvement? ( ...though ironically that dynamic in adapting the novel to screen actually bolsters your Mike and Babs argument in another thread.) Again, context is important to best appreciate what those 2 separate works had to offer, what motivated Fleming/the producers to go in the directions they took, etc. Ironically, the producers' decision to bring back a past-his-prime Connery (which indirectly necessitated the lighter flavor of the movie) was financially astute, which I don't see being that different from how they decided to cash in on Bourne in the recent films.
Lastly, I'm still baffled how some people actually consider the last 3 movies having "far more in common with Fleming" than their predecessors. I would appreciate reading even a few concise points on why they think so. I just don't see the logic or any valid rationale for making that leap. Yes, I give credit to 2005 CR for how the essence of the novel and several of its key elements were cleverly translated from 1953, just as I highly appreciate the immense entertainment value of the past 3 movies, as if they were Jason Stratham (who I really love) movies though with monster budgets, but even if we were to take the body of Bond films from DAF to DAD, or arguably even the Roger Moore entries, these collectively, exponentially have much more in common with Fleming than the degree of Fleming anyone can hope to find in the 3 movies so far from the reboot, in terms of essence, themes, attitudes and just the general feel of the Fleming books...serious/gritty Bond does not automatically equate with Fleming.
"...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.....
How are the last three movies more like Fleming's novels?
1. Bond gets physically hurt. Really hurt. This is important because pain is something that fascinated Fleming and that fascination informed his novels.
2. The endings of two out of three of the last three films are downbeat. Death of Vesper/Death of M. Many of the endings of the books are downbeat. CR (death of Vesper), MR (Bond rejected by Gala Brand), FRWL (Bond poisoned, presumed dead), YOLT (Bond an amnesiac), TMWTGG (Bond shot) Thunderball (Bond in the hospital) and . . . most of all OHMSS.
3. In the books Bond is a drunk, a nicotine addict, an abuser of amphtemines and pain killers. He's also clincally depressed. He doesn't like his job, but he does it out of a sense of duty. Craig's Bond comes much closer to this character than any of predecessors.
4. Craig's Bond makes mistakes. And his mistakes get people killed. Just like in the books.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
When did it become required that Bond villains, or for the matter the staple characters or Bond himself, be conflicted, gritty or dysfunctional?
I think, at the risk of taking your statement too literally, that all of the Bond villains (even the duller ones) have been dysfunctional at the least. And I'm not sure why the phrase "gritty" seems to have taken off so much on Bond forums recently. I don't really get why you would think Dominic Greene is grittier than Emilio Largo, for example. Quite the opposite, I would have thought?
I'm sorry, but Largo, Blofeld, et al., make up the original essence of Bond's world and what made it all wonderful, interesting and unique in the first place, in books then on the screen.
Well, it's all opinions of course but I think the "classic" villains I mentioned in my post, Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker were the weakest of the series. Poorly written and, in some cases, poorly performed. Whereas the newer villains I mentioned, Trevelyan, Le Chiffre and Silva were all very interesting, had great backstories and the performances were fantastic.
Dr. No was actually a judicious improvement over the novel's character, though even a faithful interpretation of Fleming's villain would inherently be an improvement in just that, being Flemingesque, because otherwise, why still call it "Bond?"
Le Chiffre is directly from Fleming and Trevelyan was based loosely on Fleming's Hugo Drax. Trevelyan and Raoul Silva (Hell, even Elliot Carver) are way more faithful to the original essence of Bond's world, IMO at least, than Charles Gray's Blofeld, for example.
Although I don't agree that just because something came from Fleming it's good - The Spangled Mob and his version of Scaramanga were absolute duds.
I just don't get the desire to jettison the old in favor of the "new" rendition of Bond because to do so, because there are just so many inseperable trappings with the elements of Bond's world that you'd might as well cut free from that world and make a conscious shift toward an entirely different heroic storyline. In that regard, I do think that this current, reinvented Bond is cheating, in that it is flaunting itself in being brave, bold, edgy and different, yet it is riding on the reputation, tradition, success and prestige of its earlier incarnation...which, ironically it is trying to trash, lol.
I guess I just don't really get your point of view? You seem to think that the recent Bond films are a massive departure from the original 'essence' of the series but I think that CR, QoS and Skyfall have far more in common with Fleming and the early Bond films than, to give a few examples, Jaws and Dolly falling in love, James Bond having laser battles in space, Max Zorin psychotically spraying his employees with machine gun fire or James Bond driving around in an invisible car...
Cubby was not responsible for the invisible car, btw, unless he was consulted during a seance.
...and really? I was not aware that Le Chiffre was directly from Fleming...but putting the jokes aside, again I bring up the importance of context. Did the actors, producers and screenwriters during Cubby's reign, have the advantage of hindsight that the latter films benefitted from? The short answer is, "no," so considering that fact and the times these early movies were made, everyone involved should be commended for their incredible contributions.
I think you may be mixing this up with another thread. I haven't mentioned Cubby Broccoli at all here. Napoleon Plural asked if any of the new villains are better that the classic villains and I responded with 4 "new" villains I think are better than 7 of the poorer "classic" villains.
The Spangled Mob in the novel was bad? You then might be implying that the movie version was an improvement? ( ...though ironically that dynamic in adapting the novel to screen actually bolsters your Mike and Babs argument in another thread.) Again, context is important to best appreciate what those 2 separate works had to offer, what motivated Fleming/the producers to go in the directions they took, etc. Ironically, the producers' decision to bring back a past-his-prime Connery (which indirectly necessitated the lighter flavor of the movie) was financially astute, which I don't see being that different from how they decided to cash in on Bourne in the recent films.
Well, yes. That is exactly my point in the other thread - the Bond film series has frequently, repeatedly and consistently changed its style and tone in order to remain relevant and appeal to an audience.
My point here was rather more simply that The Spangled Mob are a pretty poor villain. A more apt example of why it's fairly reductive to say the Fleming = good, however, is Francisco Scaramanga. Eon's version is a huge improvement on Fleming's.
just as I highly appreciate the immense entertainment value of the past 3 movies, as if they were Jason Stratham (who I really love) movies though with monster budgets
I give you credit for the very informed and thoughtful analysis that you always apply when arguing your point of view. But I have take issue with the "Daniel Craig's Bond = Jason Statham" analogy that I believe you have used more than once. Other than the fact that they both kick ass, I really can't see how they are the same. Statham's characters, for the most part, are remorseless, unstoppable mayhem machines with not a lot more to them than that. Craig's Bond, on the other hand, is an intelligent, highly-trained agent who also happens to be a flawed, somewhat conflicted man who struggles to carry out his missions for Queen and country. He gets hurt, both emotionally and physically, and he sometimes has to weigh his duties against his personal desires for revenge, redemption, respite, whatever. Although this comes through stronger in some films (CR and SF) than others (QOS), I think Craig does a great job of portraying the various aspects of Bond's character and personality (something, by the way, that I think Craig has the acting skills to pull off far better than the more limited Statham). Bottom line - the Staham/Bond comparison isn't an apt comparison in my view. But I'm sure there are others who agree with you (you can be very persuasive at times! -{ )
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
How are the last three movies more like Fleming's novels?
1. Bond gets physically hurt. Really hurt. This is important because pain is something that fascinated Fleming and that fascination informed his novels.
2. The endings of two out of three of the last three films are downbeat. Death of Vesper/Death of M. Many of the endings of the books are downbeat. CR (death of Vesper), MR (Bond rejected by Gala Brand), FRWL (Bond poisoned, presumed dead), YOLT (Bond an amnesiac), TMWTGG (Bond shot) Thunderball (Bond in the hospital) and . . . most of all OHMSS.
3. In the books Bond is a drunk, a nicotine addict, an abuser of amphtemines and pain killers. He's also clincally depressed. He doesn't like his job, but he does it out of a sense of duty. Craig's Bond comes much closer to this character than any of predecessors.
4. Craig's Bond makes mistakes. And his mistakes get people killed. Just like in the books.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
First of all, thank you. In response to your points by the numbers:
1. Bond got hurt in the very first movie at the hands of Dr. No. That’s nothing new and to take it to the next visceral level, Brosnan did that in DAD, but upping the ante so to speak as DC did in CR doesn’t necessarily give him credit for “owning it.” It just makes it intense. Even in the novels, the depiction of pain that Bond endured wasn’t as visceral as CR’s torture scene.
2. Bond’s wife was murdered in OHMSS, in 1969, so the downbeat ending is nothing new and frankly that particular one can never be topped. This particular attribute should not be seen as a merit owed to DC, since it can/cannot happen with the stroke of the screenwriter’s pen, just as Bond’s smoking is determined that way.
3. In the books, it is conveyed that Bond had an average daily consumption of about half a bottle of hard spirits, but save for a few exceptions (the only time I recall was his “bachelor’s party” with a German cab driver in OHMSS), Bond was never depicted as being a drunk or being seriously drunk. He didn’t “abuse” amphetamines and pain killers in the common sense, in which one habitually uses these substances; he used them on occasion as warranted by the situation just as wartime personnel commonly did on missions. Lastly on this point, DC doesn’t smoke, whereas all the other Bonds smoked in one form or another.
4. “ …about mistakes, I’ve made a few” …darn you, now I have Queen playing in my mind. I’m sorry, but what extraordinary mistakes has book Bond or has Craig committed that caused people to die? I’m not trying to be facetious but I just don’t remember. Extraordinary is the operative word here because none of the past Bonds were strangers to committing certain mistakes that were relevant to the plot.
Therefore, let me then say, the sum of those points, even if they’re valid or relevant, do not automatically make Craig as “the closest to Fleming’s Bond.” I would even dare to say that even if his characterization really, really approximated book Bond to the degree of channeling Fleming’s spirit, the vast dissimilarity of physical attributes alone, between his Bond and Fleming’s character would instantly negate those correlations. Bond’s physical attributes are so key to the character as conveyed by Fleming over and over and over again, and to totally jettison that gives you a character that in essence is not Fleming’s Bond.
Let me start my own list of quick hits why DC is not Fleming’s Bond:
1. DC’s angst; even in YOLT and following, you don’t see Bond seething in a sustained manner like you see with DC’s portrayal.
2. His overt disrespect for authority figures, particularly toward M; yes, Bond occasionally had inner contempt, but even in his thoughts he experienced more affection toward M than the net amount of affection of what DC has shown on screen.
3. DC’s smugness. Again, was Bond visibly that arrogant in the books? Even in his inner thoughts, he was not that cocky, especially toward women with whom he treated with restrained respect at worst, in both action and in thought.
4. DC's brutality, which seems to accentuate his personal brand as Bond. The book Bond had a cruel look on his face and was brutal at times when it was needed, but was he that brutal, to the level of being thug-like? Brosnan for example was appropriately brutal in times when it was needed, just like in the books, but you can't really say that brutality identified him in the same way it did for DC.
5. Book Bond's class, tastes, bearing, etc. Can these things be easily identifiable in DC's portrayal? Some would say, "yes," but I don't think so.
That’s just a start and I can keep on going…
"...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.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
just as I highly appreciate the immense entertainment value of the past 3 movies, as if they were Jason Stratham (who I really love) movies though with monster budgets
I give you credit for the very informed and thoughtful analysis that you always apply when arguing your point of view. But I have take issue with the "Daniel Craig's Bond = Jason Statham" analogy that I believe you have used more than once. Other than the fact that they both kick ass, I really can't see how they are the same. Statham's characters, for the most part, are remorseless, unstoppable mayhem machines with not a lot more to them than that. Craig's Bond, on the other hand, is an intelligent, highly-trained agent who also happens to be a flawed, somewhat conflicted man who struggles to carry out his missions for Queen and country. He gets hurt, both emotionally and physically, and he sometimes has to weigh his duties against his personal desires for revenge, redemption, respite, whatever. Although this comes through stronger in some films (CR and SF) than others (QOS), I think Craig does a great job of portraying the various aspects of Bond's character and personality (something, by the way, that I think Craig has the acting skills to pull off far better than the more limited Statham). Bottom line - the Staham/Bond comparison isn't an apt comparison in my view. But I'm sure there are others who agree with you (you can be very persuasive at times! -{ )
Sorry for the too quick response, BL, and thank you BTW, but I need to run in a few minutes and wanted to post while my thoughts are still fresh. In short what I'd like to say is that the list of attributes you provided for DC and JS, IMO, can be interchangeable, with some a stretch, sure. I think people need to acknowledge that today's Bond is different not only fundamentally, but in keeping with the prevailing tastes in action movies and DC's Bond seems to borrow from so many influences though the JS suggestion of mine may have to do that they're both Brits, but again, they pretty much do the same things, even more so than what Bourne or Ethan Hunt would do.
"...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.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I think you may be mixing this up with another thread. I haven't mentioned Cubby Broccoli at all here. Napoleon Plural asked if any of the new villains are better that the classic villains and I responded with 4 "new" villains I think are better than 7 of the poorer "classic" villains.
I'm sure you will agree that our respective thoughts and input on related matters should be consistent and therefore carry over across threads if they are pertinent.
"...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.....
just as I highly appreciate the immense entertainment value of the past 3 movies, as if they were Jason Stratham (who I really love) movies though with monster budgets
I give you credit for the very informed and thoughtful analysis that you always apply when arguing your point of view. But I have take issue with the "Daniel Craig's Bond = Jason Statham" analogy that I believe you have used more than once. Other than the fact that they both kick ass, I really can't see how they are the same. Statham's characters, for the most part, are remorseless, unstoppable mayhem machines with not a lot more to them than that. Craig's Bond, on the other hand, is an intelligent, highly-trained agent who also happens to be a flawed, somewhat conflicted man who struggles to carry out his missions for Queen and country. He gets hurt, both emotionally and physically, and he sometimes has to weigh his duties against his personal desires for revenge, redemption, respite, whatever. Although this comes through stronger in some films (CR and SF) than others (QOS), I think Craig does a great job of portraying the various aspects of Bond's character and personality (something, by the way, that I think Craig has the acting skills to pull off far better than the more limited Statham). Bottom line - the Staham/Bond comparison isn't an apt comparison in my view. But I'm sure there are others who agree with you (you can be very persuasive at times! -{ )
Sorry for the too quick response, BL, and thank you BTW, but I need to run in a few minutes and wanted to post while my thoughts are still fresh. In short what I'd like to say is that the list of attributes you provided for DC and JS, IMO, can be interchangeable, with some a stretch, sure. I think people need to acknowledge that today's Bond is different not only fundamentally, but in keeping with the prevailing tastes in action movies and DC's Bond seems to borrow from so many influences though the JS suggestion of mine may have to do that they're both Brits, but again, they pretty much do the same things, even more so than what Bourne or Ethan Hunt would do.
This gentlemen is a fascinating well thought out exchange of Polar opposite views conducted with elegance, flair and respect on both sides. The washy-washy liberal in me agrees with both of you to some extent. I too have used the term ' Statham Bond' in some of my posts but I can see a difference between DC's Bond and Statham, but at times the gap is not as wide as I would like, and the distinction is not as sharp as it should be to my mind. I also see Statham Bond as a dark potential of what might happen as the series continues. Daniel to my mind is a fine actor I cannot think of many who could have handled the torture scene in CR with such élan. Or held the screen by looking in the Mirror, visibly shaken (note both scenes are in CR) The main shortfall for me comes under the headings of 'class and bearing' for me DC has not exhibited this yet which tends to make his performance a bit of a one note affair. So for me he is neither quite as good as one of you believes, or as off base as the other feels.
How are the last three movies more like Fleming's novels?
1. Bond gets physically hurt. Really hurt. This is important because pain is something that fascinated Fleming and that fascination informed his novels.
2. The endings of two out of three of the last three films are downbeat. Death of Vesper/Death of M. Many of the endings of the books are downbeat. CR (death of Vesper), MR (Bond rejected by Gala Brand), FRWL (Bond poisoned, presumed dead), YOLT (Bond an amnesiac), TMWTGG (Bond shot) Thunderball (Bond in the hospital) and . . . most of all OHMSS.
3. In the books Bond is a drunk, a nicotine addict, an abuser of amphtemines and pain killers. He's also clincally depressed. He doesn't like his job, but he does it out of a sense of duty. Craig's Bond comes much closer to this character than any of predecessors.
4. Craig's Bond makes mistakes. And his mistakes get people killed. Just like in the books.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
First of all, thank you. In response to your points by the numbers:
1. Bond got hurt in the very first movie at the hands of Dr. No. That’s nothing new and to take it to the next visceral level, Brosnan did that in DAD, but upping the ante so to speak as DC did in CR doesn’t necessarily give him credit for “owning it.” It just makes it intense. Even in the novels, the depiction of pain that Bond endured wasn’t as visceral as CR’s torture scene.
2. Bond’s wife was murdered in OHMSS, in 1969, so the downbeat ending is nothing new and frankly that particular one can never be topped. This particular attribute should not be seen as a merit owed to DC, since it can/cannot happen with the stroke of the screenwriter’s pen, just as Bond’s smoking is determined that way.
3. In the books, it is conveyed that Bond had an average daily consumption of about half a bottle of hard spirits, but save for a few exceptions (the only time I recall was his “bachelor’s party” with a German cab driver in OHMSS), Bond was never depicted as being a drunk or being seriously drunk. He didn’t “abuse” amphetamines and pain killers in the common sense, in which one habitually uses these substances; he used them on occasion as warranted by the situation just as wartime personnel commonly did on missions. Lastly on this point, DC doesn’t smoke, whereas all the other Bonds smoked in one form or another.
4. “ …about mistakes, I’ve made a few” …darn you, now I have Queen playing in my mind. I’m sorry, but what extraordinary mistakes has book Bond or has Craig committed that caused people to die? I’m not trying to be facetious but I just don’t remember. Extraordinary is the operative word here because none of the past Bonds were strangers to committing certain mistakes that were relevant to the plot.
Therefore, let me then say, the sum of those points, even if they’re valid or relevant, do not automatically make Craig as “the closest to Fleming’s Bond.” I would even dare to say that even if his characterization really, really approximated book Bond to the degree of channeling Fleming’s spirit, the vast dissimilarity of physical attributes alone, between his Bond and Fleming’s character would instantly negate those correlations. Bond’s physical attributes are so key to the character as conveyed by Fleming over and over and over again, and to totally jettison that gives you a character that in essence is not Fleming’s Bond.
Let me start my own list of quick hits why DC is not Fleming’s Bond:
1. DC’s angst; even in YOLT and following, you don’t see Bond seething in a sustained manner like you see with DC’s portrayal.
2. His overt disrespect for authority figures, particularly toward M; yes, Bond occasionally had inner contempt, but even in his thoughts he experienced more affection toward M than the net amount of affection of what DC has shown on screen.
3. DC’s smugness. Again, was Bond visibly that arrogant in the books? Even in his inner thoughts, he was not that cocky, especially toward women with whom he treated with restrained respect at worst, in both action and in thought.
4. DC's brutality, which seems to accentuate his personal brand as Bond. The book Bond had a cruel look on his face and was brutal at times when it was needed, but was he that brutal, to the level of being thug-like? Brosnan for example was appropriately brutal in times when it was needed, just like in the books, but you can't really say that brutality identified him in the same way it did for DC.
5. Book Bond's class, tastes, bearing, etc. Can these things be easily identifiable in DC's portrayal? Some would say, "yes," but I don't think so.
That’s just a start and I can keep on going…
This is going to require more heavy lifting that I'm accustomed to on a Saturday.
1. Angst and Bond go hand in hand. It's there in CR (that's the first book). He doesn't like his job and to say he's obviously anguished over the death of Vesper.
2. Well, I think Craig's Bond has tremendous respect for M. If he didn't the ending of Skyfall wouldn't have been so moving.
3. Yes, Bond was always very arrogant. And Craig's Bond is nowhere near as arrogant as Connery's (which wasn't a bad thing).
4. In CR (once again, the first book) Bond is described as a "harsh, cold man." The cruelest thing Craig's Bond has ever said is "The bitch is dead" (referring to Vesper) and that's straight from the book.
5. Whatever pain Bond endures in DN the movie isn't in the same universe with what he goes through in the book. It's not even comparable. At all. In the least. Whatsoever.
6. Yeah, Tracy's killed in the movie OHMSS, but what choice did the producers have? Anything else would've been ridiculed as a cop-out. The downbeat ending was blamed for the relatively poor box office and it would be almost forty years before we got another. I would suggest that QOS is pretty downbeat as well, so now we have three in a row.
7. Bond's not an alcoholic? He downs 317 alcoholic drinks in the books. That's one every seven pages.
8. The literary Bond didn't make mistakes? In YOLT he botches several assignments at the beginning of the book, which causes M to take away his double 0 number and reassign him to the diplomatic corps. In the Craig movies, his decisions directly or indirectly have lead to the deaths of Solange, Fields, Mathis, and, arguably, M.
Oh, another downbeat ending from the books: In DAF, Tiffany Case rejects Bond at the end in favor of an American soldier.
Craig's Bond is different than the others in that he is human. He struggles, he makes mistakes, he hurts, he fails, he succeeds, you know, like the rest of us. This makes him interesting.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
How are the last three movies more like Fleming's novels?
1. Bond gets physically hurt. Really hurt. This is important because pain is something that fascinated Fleming and that fascination informed his novels.
2. The endings of two out of three of the last three films are downbeat. Death of Vesper/Death of M. Many of the endings of the books are downbeat. CR (death of Vesper), MR (Bond rejected by Gala Brand), FRWL (Bond poisoned, presumed dead), YOLT (Bond an amnesiac), TMWTGG (Bond shot) Thunderball (Bond in the hospital) and . . . most of all OHMSS.
3. In the books Bond is a drunk, a nicotine addict, an abuser of amphtemines and pain killers. He's also clincally depressed. He doesn't like his job, but he does it out of a sense of duty. Craig's Bond comes much closer to this character than any of predecessors.
4. Craig's Bond makes mistakes. And his mistakes get people killed. Just like in the books.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
First of all, thank you. In response to your points by the numbers:
1. Bond got hurt in the very first movie at the hands of Dr. No. That’s nothing new and to take it to the next visceral level, Brosnan did that in DAD, but upping the ante so to speak as DC did in CR doesn’t necessarily give him credit for “owning it.” It just makes it intense. Even in the novels, the depiction of pain that Bond endured wasn’t as visceral as CR’s torture scene.
2. Bond’s wife was murdered in OHMSS, in 1969, so the downbeat ending is nothing new and frankly that particular one can never be topped. This particular attribute should not be seen as a merit owed to DC, since it can/cannot happen with the stroke of the screenwriter’s pen, just as Bond’s smoking is determined that way.
3. In the books, it is conveyed that Bond had an average daily consumption of about half a bottle of hard spirits, but save for a few exceptions (the only time I recall was his “bachelor’s party” with a German cab driver in OHMSS), Bond was never depicted as being a drunk or being seriously drunk. He didn’t “abuse” amphetamines and pain killers in the common sense, in which one habitually uses these substances; he used them on occasion as warranted by the situation just as wartime personnel commonly did on missions. Lastly on this point, DC doesn’t smoke, whereas all the other Bonds smoked in one form or another.
4. “ …about mistakes, I’ve made a few” …darn you, now I have Queen playing in my mind. I’m sorry, but what extraordinary mistakes has book Bond or has Craig committed that caused people to die? I’m not trying to be facetious but I just don’t remember. Extraordinary is the operative word here because none of the past Bonds were strangers to committing certain mistakes that were relevant to the plot.
Therefore, let me then say, the sum of those points, even if they’re valid or relevant, do not automatically make Craig as “the closest to Fleming’s Bond.” I would even dare to say that even if his characterization really, really approximated book Bond to the degree of channeling Fleming’s spirit, the vast dissimilarity of physical attributes alone, between his Bond and Fleming’s character would instantly negate those correlations. Bond’s physical attributes are so key to the character as conveyed by Fleming over and over and over again, and to totally jettison that gives you a character that in essence is not Fleming’s Bond.
Let me start my own list of quick hits why DC is not Fleming’s Bond:
1. DC’s angst; even in YOLT and following, you don’t see Bond seething in a sustained manner like you see with DC’s portrayal.
2. His overt disrespect for authority figures, particularly toward M; yes, Bond occasionally had inner contempt, but even in his thoughts he experienced more affection toward M than the net amount of affection of what DC has shown on screen.
3. DC’s smugness. Again, was Bond visibly that arrogant in the books? Even in his inner thoughts, he was not that cocky, especially toward women with whom he treated with restrained respect at worst, in both action and in thought.
4. DC's brutality, which seems to accentuate his personal brand as Bond. The book Bond had a cruel look on his face and was brutal at times when it was needed, but was he that brutal, to the level of being thug-like? Brosnan for example was appropriately brutal in times when it was needed, just like in the books, but you can't really say that brutality identified him in the same way it did for DC.
5. Book Bond's class, tastes, bearing, etc. Can these things be easily identifiable in DC's portrayal? Some would say, "yes," but I don't think so.
That’s just a start and I can keep on going…
This is going to require more heavy lifting that I'm accustomed to on a Saturday.
1. Angst and Bond go hand in hand. It's there in CR (that's the first book). He doesn't like his job and to say he's obviously anguished over the death of Vesper.
2. Well, I think Craig's Bond has tremendous respect for M. If he didn't the ending of Skyfall wouldn't have been so moving.
3. Yes, Bond was always very arrogant. And Craig's Bond is nowhere near as arrogant as Connery's (which wasn't a bad thing).
4. In CR (once again, the first book) Bond is described as a "harsh, cold man." The cruelest thing Craig's Bond has ever said is "The bitch is dead" (referring to Vesper) and that's straight from the book.
5. Whatever pain Bond endures in DN the movie isn't in the same universe with what he goes through in the book. It's not even comparable. At all. In the least. Whatsoever.
6. Yeah, Tracy's killed in the movie OHMSS, but what choice did the producers have? Anything else would've been ridiculed as a cop-out. The downbeat ending was blamed for the relatively poor box office and it would be almost forty years before we got another. I would suggest that QOS is pretty downbeat as well, so now we have three in a row.
7. Bond's not an alcoholic? He downs 317 alcoholic drinks in the books. That's one every seven pages.
8. The literary Bond didn't make mistakes? In YOLT he botches several assignments at the beginning of the book, which causes M to take away his double 0 number and reassign him to the diplomatic corps. In the Craig movies, his decisions directly or indirectly have lead to the deaths of Solange, Fields, Mathis, and, arguably, M.
Oh, another downbeat ending from the books: In DAF, Tiffany Case rejects Bond at the end in favor of an American soldier.
Craig's Bond is different than the others in that he is human. He struggles, he makes mistakes, he hurts, he fails, he succeeds, you know, like the rest of us. This makes him interesting.
But like I said, increasing the intensity of a literary element doesn't make automatically equate to becoming the "most" of whatever that may be, just as DC's excellent acting will never make him physically morph into the key character trait of being "terribly handsome." Likewise, increasing the intensity of those qualities you listed, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, does not make him any more literary Bond-like, just as microwaving a chicken pot pie at twice the recommended time will not make it taste twice as delicious...in fact what you'll get is an exploded mess in your microwave. 8-)
Within the very examples you provided are exagerations of selected literary traits; the tremendous respect for M, that goes hand in hand with sharp and public insubordination? ...the mistakes that led to people's deaths? Again, where are they in the novels?
I would suggest an intentional use of more objectivity because when you have a favorite that borders on fanaticism (not necessarily you), it definitely colors how you see things.
"...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 give you credit for the very informed and thoughtful analysis that you always apply when arguing your point of view. But I have take issue with the "Daniel Craig's Bond = Jason Statham" analogy that I believe you have used more than once. Other than the fact that they both kick ass, I really can't see how they are the same. Statham's characters, for the most part, are remorseless, unstoppable mayhem machines with not a lot more to them than that. Craig's Bond, on the other hand, is an intelligent, highly-trained agent who also happens to be a flawed, somewhat conflicted man who struggles to carry out his missions for Queen and country. He gets hurt, both emotionally and physically, and he sometimes has to weigh his duties against his personal desires for revenge, redemption, respite, whatever. Although this comes through stronger in some films (CR and SF) than others (QOS), I think Craig does a great job of portraying the various aspects of Bond's character and personality (something, by the way, that I think Craig has the acting skills to pull off far better than the more limited Statham). Bottom line - the Staham/Bond comparison isn't an apt comparison in my view. But I'm sure there are others who agree with you (you can be very persuasive at times! -{ )
Sorry for the too quick response, BL, and thank you BTW, but I need to run in a few minutes and wanted to post while my thoughts are still fresh. In short what I'd like to say is that the list of attributes you provided for DC and JS, IMO, can be interchangeable, with some a stretch, sure. I think people need to acknowledge that today's Bond is different not only fundamentally, but in keeping with the prevailing tastes in action movies and DC's Bond seems to borrow from so many influences though the JS suggestion of mine may have to do that they're both Brits, but again, they pretty much do the same things, even more so than what Bourne or Ethan Hunt would do.
This gentlemen is a fascinating well thought out exchange of Polar opposite views conducted with elegance, flair and respect on both sides. The washy-washy liberal in me agrees with both of you to some extent. I too have used the term ' Statham Bond' in some of my posts but I can see a difference between DC's Bond and Statham, but at times the gap is not as wide as I would like, and the distinction is not as sharp as it should be to my mind. I also see Statham Bond as a dark potential of what might happen as the series continues. Daniel to my mind is a fine actor I cannot think of many who could have handled the torture scene in CR with such élan. Or held the screen by looking in the Mirror, visibly shaken (note both scenes are in CR) The main shortfall for me comes under the headings of 'class and bearing' for me DC has not exhibited this yet which tends to make his performance a bit of a one note affair. So for me he is neither quite as good as one of you believes, or as off base as the other feels.
Thanks for the kind words, Zap. And I can certainly appreciate the conflicted feelings about Craig's Bond that you have articulated so well. Things are seldom as cut-and-dried as one would like, and this issue is no different in that respect. But it makes for a great discussion! -{
Well, things have kicked off here. I must say that the Connery villains were larger than life, I can't say that about most of the recent ones, they don't have much prescence. You wouldn't name a film after them. Conversely however, Bond seems bigger than ever as an icon and a character, so it's a bit top heavy for me.
Comments
I WANT to see DC do another, too - but I think the starting-point is a disadvantage: he's been burned out and looks buggered, old, STILL
And haven't we been promised a film post QOS "without so much of a personal angle to it" before, and what did we get?
Well, Craig'll certainly keep fit enough, put a tad of weight on him and grow out his hair and he should be able to offset Roger Mooretis for one more personally.
As to EON (and DC) giving up on the emo stuff... Well, we'll have to see.
When I saw CR, Dench returning threw me off as well. She's a really good actress and sells the role well, but they really could have gotten a new actor.
I think what happens in some series (even in television) is some actors become such good friends to the producers and writers and they're so enamored of their talent they'd rather keep using them past their sell-by-date rather than move on. Keeping her in to maintain some sense of continuity because none of other characters were there was not logical since they were starting the whole thing from scratch. However, this is all water under the bridge now.
As far as Craig going from a young new 00 to a seasoned, worn out agent -
it didn't bother me because I just enjoyed the film and how Craig played it so well. It's one of the things I like about his take on the role..unlike the old Bonds he gets the hell beat out of him through the films, so the villains (and even his own people) think he's played out, then he dips into those old Bond
reserves and comes back like lion. It's especially fun to watch him in the scenes where people think they have it over on him..then he bests them which leaves him with that little sardonic grin (as when he watched the bomber at the Miami airport blow himself up). I understand people who have
a problem with the continuity of him burning out so fast right after the first two films, but I've given up on EON and continuity. It's true that by never showing Bond's start as a 00 before they kept up the mythology of him of always be a certain age giving him a Peter Pan like quality, which allowed them to just throw him into any story minus any type of character development - as long as the topic was current. However, after forty four years of doing that and having gone through so many actors, I also understand why they felt it would be good to start the whole thing over again - especially since the original was rooted in the Cold War and was outdated now. Finally getting CR was just the inspiration they needed to get it going. It is a tough juggling act....restarting the whole series to keep it current yet maintaining some kind of continuity with the old so it stays familiar. I guess it's why they waited till this film to reintroduce the other characters and only give Bond a radio and signature Walther. They used Dench's passing, the partial destruction of the modern MI6 building (I assume they'll be returning to it) so they could show a revised MI6; the total destruction of the old Aston (and dumping even Bond's flat), and Bond himself returning. It seems to me pretty obvious they will go for a strait action film next time (like FRWL/DRNO/GOLDFINGER) with a little move humor, but still with no OTT moments. Character development? They may continue with it to some extent, but I don't think they'll have any in the next installment.
Recently realised, switching from India to Turkey for the pts doesn't help the 'reborn - reincarnation' line which is cuter and makes more sense if the bridge fall happens in India, the whole sense of mystery thing about how he survived would come across better.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Dench gets praise from me for the same reason Bernard Lee gets my praise - because she's a great M!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Trevelyan, Le Chiffre, Silva and Mr White are all way stronger than Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker for a start.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I agree. In addition, to me Dr. No is not that interesting as a villain and neither is Blofeld, except as personified by Telly Savalas in OHMSS.
What do you mean by stronger? When did it become required that Bond villains, or for the matter the staple characters or Bond himself, be conflicted, gritty or dysfunctional? I'm sorry, but Largo, Blofeld, et al., make up the original essence of Bond's world and what made it all wonderful, interesting and unique in the first place, in books then on the screen. Dr. No was actually a judicious improvement over the novel's character, though even a faithful interpretation of Fleming's villain would inherently be an improvement in just that, being Flemingesque, because otherwise, why still call it "Bond?"
I just don't get the desire to jettison the old in favor of the "new" rendition of Bond because to do so, because there are just so many inseperable trappings with the elements of Bond's world that you'd might as well cut free from that world and make a conscious shift toward an entirely different heroic storyline. In that regard, I do think that this current, reinvented Bond is cheating, in that it is flaunting itself in being brave, bold, edgy and different, yet it is riding on the reputation, tradition, success and prestige of its earlier incarnation...which, ironically it is trying to trash, lol.
Better characters. More interesting. Better performances. Better dialogue.
I think, at the risk of taking your statement too literally, that all of the Bond villains (even the duller ones) have been dysfunctional at the least. And I'm not sure why the phrase "gritty" seems to have taken off so much on Bond forums recently. I don't really get why you would think Dominic Greene is grittier than Emilio Largo, for example. Quite the opposite, I would have thought?
Well, it's all opinions of course but I think the "classic" villains I mentioned in my post, Largo, Blofeld, Mr Big, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov and Whittaker were the weakest of the series. Poorly written and, in some cases, poorly performed. Whereas the newer villains I mentioned, Trevelyan, Le Chiffre and Silva were all very interesting, had great backstories and the performances were fantastic.
Le Chiffre is directly from Fleming and Trevelyan was based loosely on Fleming's Hugo Drax. Trevelyan and Raoul Silva (Hell, even Elliot Carver) are way more faithful to the original essence of Bond's world, IMO at least, than Charles Gray's Blofeld, for example.
Although I don't agree that just because something came from Fleming it's good - The Spangled Mob and his version of Scaramanga were absolute duds.
I guess I just don't really get your point of view? You seem to think that the recent Bond films are a massive departure from the original 'essence' of the series but I think that CR, QoS and Skyfall have far more in common with Fleming and the early Bond films than, to give a few examples, Jaws and Dolly falling in love, James Bond having laser battles in space, Max Zorin psychotically spraying his employees with machine gun fire or James Bond driving around in an invisible car...
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Cubby was not responsible for the invisible car, btw, unless he was consulted during a seance.
...and really? I was not aware that Le Chiffre was directly from Fleming...but putting the jokes aside, again I bring up the importance of context. Did the actors, producers and screenwriters during Cubby's reign, have the advantage of hindsight that the latter films benefitted from? The short answer is, "no," so considering that fact and the times these early movies were made, everyone involved should be commended for their incredible contributions.
As for the question about the "Fleming=good" paradigm, what exactly are we attempting to appreciate here? LeCarre? Ludlum? The Spangled Mob in the novel was bad? You then might be implying that the movie version was an improvement? ( ...though ironically that dynamic in adapting the novel to screen actually bolsters your Mike and Babs argument in another thread.) Again, context is important to best appreciate what those 2 separate works had to offer, what motivated Fleming/the producers to go in the directions they took, etc. Ironically, the producers' decision to bring back a past-his-prime Connery (which indirectly necessitated the lighter flavor of the movie) was financially astute, which I don't see being that different from how they decided to cash in on Bourne in the recent films.
Lastly, I'm still baffled how some people actually consider the last 3 movies having "far more in common with Fleming" than their predecessors. I would appreciate reading even a few concise points on why they think so. I just don't see the logic or any valid rationale for making that leap. Yes, I give credit to 2005 CR for how the essence of the novel and several of its key elements were cleverly translated from 1953, just as I highly appreciate the immense entertainment value of the past 3 movies, as if they were Jason Stratham (who I really love) movies though with monster budgets, but even if we were to take the body of Bond films from DAF to DAD, or arguably even the Roger Moore entries, these collectively, exponentially have much more in common with Fleming than the degree of Fleming anyone can hope to find in the 3 movies so far from the reboot, in terms of essence, themes, attitudes and just the general feel of the Fleming books...serious/gritty Bond does not automatically equate with Fleming.
1. Bond gets physically hurt. Really hurt. This is important because pain is something that fascinated Fleming and that fascination informed his novels.
2. The endings of two out of three of the last three films are downbeat. Death of Vesper/Death of M. Many of the endings of the books are downbeat. CR (death of Vesper), MR (Bond rejected by Gala Brand), FRWL (Bond poisoned, presumed dead), YOLT (Bond an amnesiac), TMWTGG (Bond shot) Thunderball (Bond in the hospital) and . . . most of all OHMSS.
3. In the books Bond is a drunk, a nicotine addict, an abuser of amphtemines and pain killers. He's also clincally depressed. He doesn't like his job, but he does it out of a sense of duty. Craig's Bond comes much closer to this character than any of predecessors.
4. Craig's Bond makes mistakes. And his mistakes get people killed. Just like in the books.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
I think you may be mixing this up with another thread. I haven't mentioned Cubby Broccoli at all here. Napoleon Plural asked if any of the new villains are better that the classic villains and I responded with 4 "new" villains I think are better than 7 of the poorer "classic" villains.
Well, yes. That is exactly my point in the other thread - the Bond film series has frequently, repeatedly and consistently changed its style and tone in order to remain relevant and appeal to an audience.
My point here was rather more simply that The Spangled Mob are a pretty poor villain. A more apt example of why it's fairly reductive to say the Fleming = good, however, is Francisco Scaramanga. Eon's version is a huge improvement on Fleming's.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I give you credit for the very informed and thoughtful analysis that you always apply when arguing your point of view. But I have take issue with the "Daniel Craig's Bond = Jason Statham" analogy that I believe you have used more than once. Other than the fact that they both kick ass, I really can't see how they are the same. Statham's characters, for the most part, are remorseless, unstoppable mayhem machines with not a lot more to them than that. Craig's Bond, on the other hand, is an intelligent, highly-trained agent who also happens to be a flawed, somewhat conflicted man who struggles to carry out his missions for Queen and country. He gets hurt, both emotionally and physically, and he sometimes has to weigh his duties against his personal desires for revenge, redemption, respite, whatever. Although this comes through stronger in some films (CR and SF) than others (QOS), I think Craig does a great job of portraying the various aspects of Bond's character and personality (something, by the way, that I think Craig has the acting skills to pull off far better than the more limited Statham). Bottom line - the Staham/Bond comparison isn't an apt comparison in my view. But I'm sure there are others who agree with you (you can be very persuasive at times! -{ )
First of all, thank you. In response to your points by the numbers:
1. Bond got hurt in the very first movie at the hands of Dr. No. That’s nothing new and to take it to the next visceral level, Brosnan did that in DAD, but upping the ante so to speak as DC did in CR doesn’t necessarily give him credit for “owning it.” It just makes it intense. Even in the novels, the depiction of pain that Bond endured wasn’t as visceral as CR’s torture scene.
2. Bond’s wife was murdered in OHMSS, in 1969, so the downbeat ending is nothing new and frankly that particular one can never be topped. This particular attribute should not be seen as a merit owed to DC, since it can/cannot happen with the stroke of the screenwriter’s pen, just as Bond’s smoking is determined that way.
3. In the books, it is conveyed that Bond had an average daily consumption of about half a bottle of hard spirits, but save for a few exceptions (the only time I recall was his “bachelor’s party” with a German cab driver in OHMSS), Bond was never depicted as being a drunk or being seriously drunk. He didn’t “abuse” amphetamines and pain killers in the common sense, in which one habitually uses these substances; he used them on occasion as warranted by the situation just as wartime personnel commonly did on missions. Lastly on this point, DC doesn’t smoke, whereas all the other Bonds smoked in one form or another.
4. “ …about mistakes, I’ve made a few” …darn you, now I have Queen playing in my mind. I’m sorry, but what extraordinary mistakes has book Bond or has Craig committed that caused people to die? I’m not trying to be facetious but I just don’t remember. Extraordinary is the operative word here because none of the past Bonds were strangers to committing certain mistakes that were relevant to the plot.
Therefore, let me then say, the sum of those points, even if they’re valid or relevant, do not automatically make Craig as “the closest to Fleming’s Bond.” I would even dare to say that even if his characterization really, really approximated book Bond to the degree of channeling Fleming’s spirit, the vast dissimilarity of physical attributes alone, between his Bond and Fleming’s character would instantly negate those correlations. Bond’s physical attributes are so key to the character as conveyed by Fleming over and over and over again, and to totally jettison that gives you a character that in essence is not Fleming’s Bond.
Let me start my own list of quick hits why DC is not Fleming’s Bond:
1. DC’s angst; even in YOLT and following, you don’t see Bond seething in a sustained manner like you see with DC’s portrayal.
2. His overt disrespect for authority figures, particularly toward M; yes, Bond occasionally had inner contempt, but even in his thoughts he experienced more affection toward M than the net amount of affection of what DC has shown on screen.
3. DC’s smugness. Again, was Bond visibly that arrogant in the books? Even in his inner thoughts, he was not that cocky, especially toward women with whom he treated with restrained respect at worst, in both action and in thought.
4. DC's brutality, which seems to accentuate his personal brand as Bond. The book Bond had a cruel look on his face and was brutal at times when it was needed, but was he that brutal, to the level of being thug-like? Brosnan for example was appropriately brutal in times when it was needed, just like in the books, but you can't really say that brutality identified him in the same way it did for DC.
5. Book Bond's class, tastes, bearing, etc. Can these things be easily identifiable in DC's portrayal? Some would say, "yes," but I don't think so.
That’s just a start and I can keep on going…
Sorry for the too quick response, BL, and thank you BTW, but I need to run in a few minutes and wanted to post while my thoughts are still fresh. In short what I'd like to say is that the list of attributes you provided for DC and JS, IMO, can be interchangeable, with some a stretch, sure. I think people need to acknowledge that today's Bond is different not only fundamentally, but in keeping with the prevailing tastes in action movies and DC's Bond seems to borrow from so many influences though the JS suggestion of mine may have to do that they're both Brits, but again, they pretty much do the same things, even more so than what Bourne or Ethan Hunt would do.
I'm sure you will agree that our respective thoughts and input on related matters should be consistent and therefore carry over across threads if they are pertinent.
This gentlemen is a fascinating well thought out exchange of Polar opposite views conducted with elegance, flair and respect on both sides. The washy-washy liberal in me agrees with both of you to some extent. I too have used the term ' Statham Bond' in some of my posts but I can see a difference between DC's Bond and Statham, but at times the gap is not as wide as I would like, and the distinction is not as sharp as it should be to my mind. I also see Statham Bond as a dark potential of what might happen as the series continues. Daniel to my mind is a fine actor I cannot think of many who could have handled the torture scene in CR with such élan. Or held the screen by looking in the Mirror, visibly shaken (note both scenes are in CR) The main shortfall for me comes under the headings of 'class and bearing' for me DC has not exhibited this yet which tends to make his performance a bit of a one note affair. So for me he is neither quite as good as one of you believes, or as off base as the other feels.
This is going to require more heavy lifting that I'm accustomed to on a Saturday.
1. Angst and Bond go hand in hand. It's there in CR (that's the first book). He doesn't like his job and to say he's obviously anguished over the death of Vesper.
2. Well, I think Craig's Bond has tremendous respect for M. If he didn't the ending of Skyfall wouldn't have been so moving.
3. Yes, Bond was always very arrogant. And Craig's Bond is nowhere near as arrogant as Connery's (which wasn't a bad thing).
4. In CR (once again, the first book) Bond is described as a "harsh, cold man." The cruelest thing Craig's Bond has ever said is "The bitch is dead" (referring to Vesper) and that's straight from the book.
5. Whatever pain Bond endures in DN the movie isn't in the same universe with what he goes through in the book. It's not even comparable. At all. In the least. Whatsoever.
6. Yeah, Tracy's killed in the movie OHMSS, but what choice did the producers have? Anything else would've been ridiculed as a cop-out. The downbeat ending was blamed for the relatively poor box office and it would be almost forty years before we got another. I would suggest that QOS is pretty downbeat as well, so now we have three in a row.
7. Bond's not an alcoholic? He downs 317 alcoholic drinks in the books. That's one every seven pages.
8. The literary Bond didn't make mistakes? In YOLT he botches several assignments at the beginning of the book, which causes M to take away his double 0 number and reassign him to the diplomatic corps. In the Craig movies, his decisions directly or indirectly have lead to the deaths of Solange, Fields, Mathis, and, arguably, M.
Oh, another downbeat ending from the books: In DAF, Tiffany Case rejects Bond at the end in favor of an American soldier.
Craig's Bond is different than the others in that he is human. He struggles, he makes mistakes, he hurts, he fails, he succeeds, you know, like the rest of us. This makes him interesting.
But like I said, increasing the intensity of a literary element doesn't make automatically equate to becoming the "most" of whatever that may be, just as DC's excellent acting will never make him physically morph into the key character trait of being "terribly handsome." Likewise, increasing the intensity of those qualities you listed, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, does not make him any more literary Bond-like, just as microwaving a chicken pot pie at twice the recommended time will not make it taste twice as delicious...in fact what you'll get is an exploded mess in your microwave. 8-)
Within the very examples you provided are exagerations of selected literary traits; the tremendous respect for M, that goes hand in hand with sharp and public insubordination? ...the mistakes that led to people's deaths? Again, where are they in the novels?
I would suggest an intentional use of more objectivity because when you have a favorite that borders on fanaticism (not necessarily you), it definitely colors how you see things.
Roger Moore 1927-2017