I appreciate the healing intent of Thunderpussy's initial post.
Wish I could take some comfort in it.
As a dedicated scholar of Ian Fleming and of the Bond films for 43 years (since 1970), and as a professional dramatist who works with writers and actors, I find the reboot unsettling, to say the least. Understand that there is a vast chasm between production people and film buffs. The two camps think in different terms and speak different languages. My wife reminded me of this fact this evening when I showed her this forum. "Your wasting your time in these chat rooms" she says, "they won't know what you're talking about." I'm used to discussing motivation and subtext in a disciplined way with writers and actors before the script goes before the camera. The intent of CASINO ROYALE, which is plain enough to anyone who knows their business, was quite a hot topic for discussion among production people when the film came out. Everyone was surprised -- some were shocked -- by its audacity and surprised that audiences accepted it. No serious analysis was offered by critics, like the analysis professionals make when we sit 'round the table for script discovery. Script discovery is the first step in rehearsal. You break the story and characters down and reassemble them bit by bit, sometimes with the writer at the head of the table, and always with the director. You get to know the meaning of each scene so that you know how to play it, if you're an actor, or how to direct it, if you're a director. You talk openly about the character's feelings and state of mind. You apply your discipline as an actor / writer / director to the session. This is how Richard Maibaum, Terence Young and Sean Connery collaborated in 1962 when they created this film franchise in the first place. Just doing their job.
The underlying meaning of the scenes in CASINO ROYALE is not a matter of opinion; it is what it is, and what it is has been put there consciously and deliberately. To arrive at the story being told takes conscious and deliberate effort. It is no accident.
After seven years CASINO ROYALE still disturbs me. It is crass, souring, ugly, distasteful, shrill, perverse, and deeply offensive. I can't accept this deconstruction of all the good things that have made James Bond films something special.
Watching the last three films makes me feel as if I just witnessed a priest molesting a child in full view of a parish who ignored the screams and simply looked the other way.
I'm not angry about it. I was angry in 2006 and 2007, but I'm past that now. Now I'm just disgusted.
What perturbs me even more than the film itself is 1) the acceptance it has received, 2) the continuing deconstruction in Bond 22 and Bond 23, and 3) the acceptance the continuing deconstruction receives. I don't understand that, and sometimes I comb these forums looking for the reasons why.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
Richard, I hope you take my feeble writings on face value. I'm not some smartass, or trying to
belittle anyone Ideas or thoughts, ( I neither have the intelect of writting skill ). I'm a average guy
got in to the Bond novels as a kid and then the Movies. ( Loved Both).
By your posts you are much more knowledgeable on the series than I'll ever Be. Infact in many
ways I can agree on the many faults in QOS, but I can see what the Producers have tried to do.
Look at the competition in the cinema for action/thriller adventure films, The Bond series has to stay
current, and given the huge success of the modern films, It would seem the general public love the
new invention of the character.
Mabey not to the taste of the "Old school" Bond fans but you can't make a big budget Movie for
mabey a few thousand people. In my Honest opinion ( for what that's worth) They have kept the
essence of the Bond character.
His back story know for years by the fans is probably a revelation to the general cinema goer. He's
still gone to Eaton etc, and his basic core is still there.
With Skyfall they have put back some of the "Fun" missing from the first two, and I think more
emphasis is being put in to characterisation and story, which should be a good thing.
D Craig would never of been my Choice as Bond ( I wanted Jason Isaacs ) Although I'm liking him
more as he goes on.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, I know where your coming from and for a long Time I was there.
But the Genie is out of the Bottle and It's not going back. I know how personal our love for the character
can be. As I've said I grew up with Bond. He was for years a large part of my family christmas, I have
so many good memories from those times,It's almost as if Bond was an Uncle.
The idea of my Original post was to give an example of how I'd come to terms with the reboot, and to
hopefully use my "fanship" as an example of how members could accept the new films. Because as time
goes on there is the chance that some people could become almost a Don Quixote character, forever
charging at windmills as the world moves on.
So here endith my Rant. Please forgive any spelling mistakes as I tried to get my thoughs out quickly.
and it is from one fan to another in Friendsip ( I hope ) I accept you might never love the new films but I
think you'll be missing out to dismiss them.
Now off to read your thoughs on The scripts of Richard Maibaum thread.
"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: 27,754Chief of Staff
I appreciate the healing intent of Thunderpussy's initial post.
Wish I could take some comfort in it.
As a dedicated scholar of Ian Fleming and of the Bond films for 43 years (since 1970), and as a professional dramatist who works with writers and actors, I find the reboot unsettling, to say the least. Understand that there is a vast chasm between production people and film buffs. The two camps think in different terms and speak different languages. My wife reminded me of this fact this evening when I showed her this forum. "Your wasting your time in these chat rooms" she says, "they won't know what you're talking about." I'm used to discussing motivation and subtext in a disciplined way with writers and actors before the script goes before the camera. The intent of CASINO ROYALE, which is plain enough to anyone who knows their business, was quite a hot topic for discussion among production people when the film came out. Everyone was surprised -- some were shocked -- by its audacity and surprised that audiences accepted it. No serious analysis was offered by critics, like the analysis professionals make when we sit 'round the table for script discovery. Script discovery is the first step in rehearsal. You break the story and characters down and reassemble them bit by bit, sometimes with the writer at the head of the table, and always with the director. You get to know the meaning of each scene so that you know how to play it, if you're an actor, or how to direct it, if you're a director. You talk openly about the character's feelings and state of mind. You apply your discipline as an actor / writer / director to the session. This is how Richard Maibaum, Terence Young and Sean Connery collaborated in 1962 when they created this film franchise in the first place. Just doing their job.
The underlying meaning of the scenes in CASINO ROYALE is not a matter of opinion; it is what it is, and what it is has been put there consciously and deliberately. To arrive at the story being told takes conscious and deliberate effort. It is no accident.
After seven years CASINO ROYALE still disturbs me. It is crass, souring, ugly, distasteful, shrill, perverse, and deeply offensive. I can't accept this deconstruction of all the good things that have made James Bond films something special.
Watching the last three films makes me feel as if I just witnessed a priest molesting a child in full view of a parish who ignored the screams and simply looked the other way.
I'm not angry about it. I was angry in 2006 and 2007, but I'm past that now. Now I'm just disgusted.
What perturbs me even more than the film itself is 1) the acceptance it has received, 2) the continuing deconstruction in Bond 22 and Bond 23, and 3) the acceptance the continuing deconstruction receives. I don't understand that, and sometimes I comb these forums looking for the reasons why.
Richard
Yeah that's right....we are all ignorant scum not fit to breathe the same air as yourself...how can we possibly understand or begin to comprehend what drivel is served up before us as entertainment, as we are mere plebs and do not have the intelligence to understand the wisdom that you impart 8-)
I think what they are doing is interesting if not very enjoyable imo. I mean, how do you dignify a man who shags around and kills, and is not going to settle down? In the 60s and 70s you fetishise it, you make a joke of it, but as with all things, there's a danger the public enjoy it too much and revere what they are meant to mock, as with Harry Enfield's Loadsamoney character and arguably Alf Garnett, the 1960s racist bigot who unfortunately was given all the best lines.
With Craig they are sort of saying, this bloke isn't charismatic. He's a thug, an automatum who has been badly damaged, orphaned and then exploited by MI6. His dead eyes resemble those of Frankenstein, a created being who then goes on the rampage. This is a valid approach, and disgusts those like Richard W (and myself) who enjoyed the humanity, suaveness and charisma of the old Bond. Thing is, should we have done? This is a bloke who kills for a living. There was imo a kind of narcissism about the old Bond; it doesn't matter he's a bad guy cos he's looks handsome and makes us laugh.
Dalton was one actor who in the words of Empire when TLD came out, 'put the laziness of the writers on the spot by refusing to play Bond as a heartless tailor's dummy'... but that approach didn't quite gel, and Brosnan put the idea on the backburner until it could be utilised more successfully.
What galls for me is that the charmless thuggery of Craig's Bond seems to go over folks' heads, who instead prefer to tap into Bond's iconography in order to get by. It doesn't matter he's a bad guy; he's a family or cultural tradition and every new release is accompanied by a glut of books and other merchandise harking back to happier days.
I think what they are doing is interesting if not very enjoyable imo. I mean, how do you dignify a man who shags around and kills, and is not going to settle down?
With Craig they are sort of saying, this bloke isn't charismatic. He's a thug, an automatum who has been badly damaged, orphaned and then exploited by MI6. .
But isnt that keeping in line with the real Fleming character? Unlike say Roger Moores portrayal
To some extent, yes. We do come back to whether Fleming's man really should be that admirable, despite the fact that he knew his handluggage, his suits, his drinks and how to get the girls. Originally he was a selective taste, but of course Bond is stratospheric now (and indeed was in Fleming's time) and like Christmas in terms of accepted universal appeal, so there's a bad taste vibe, a collission of interests here.
Personally I'd argue that Flemings writing and journalistic appeal in showing you new worlds compensated a lot, but I don't hold that Craig's films really lift the lid on a new way of life at all, it all seems to hark back to previous films a bit, just changing the tone instead. When you have Craig's Bond stepping how with Her Maj, it's clear we are meant to hero worship the guy a bit. He's like a Bulldog who protects England. But it's like the thuggish footballer when we don't care if he gets in a brawl or cheats on his wife, just so long as the England team is doing well of course!
Yeah that's right....we are all ignorant scum not fit to breathe the same air as yourself...how can we possibly understand or begin to comprehend what drivel is served up before us as entertainment, as we are mere plebs and do not have the intelligence to understand the wisdom that you impart 8-)
Not entirely sure if that was Richard--W's 'intention', however his post really did come across like that to me as well & the less said about the incredibly crass child molestation quip the better IMO.
Its a no win situation really in my opinion, people want Bond to be more Fleming whilst others want it to be more like the Moore / Brosnan kinda Bond
I for my part am in both camps!
I never fail to enjoy some good Roger Bond, but also appreciate Craigs Flemingesque interpretation - particularly in CR!
Im also in both camps, the series would never have survived if they went with the same Bond characterisation, tones and realism etc. Each Bond is different and has its place otherwise it would have got boring a long time ago!
To me that's one of the strengths of the Bond series, there are so many
Bonds. Light adventure, science fiction , gritty and realistic. Happily I
love them all. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I don't have a problem with the differing tones. That's why I like Dr No as much as MR as much as DAF as much as FRWL, all top movies for me. It's the execution I don't care for, and okay, a bit of the tone of CR as I don't really empathise with Bond in that much, it's Bond as Jeremy Kyle.
I just can't believe or find credible the plots and things that occur in Craig's films, in view of the supposed more realistic approach. IMO it's as bad as watching a Roger Moore film that doesn't push the boat out in terms of stunts and spectacle i.e. TMWTGG, as it fails in its raison d'être.
I don't have a problem with the differing tones. That's why I like Dr No as much as MR as much as DAF as much as FRWL, all top movies for me. It's the execution I don't care for, and okay, a bit of the tone of CR as I don't really empathise with Bond in that much, it's Bond as Jeremy Kyle.
I just can't believe or find credible the plots and things that occur in Craig's films, in view of the supposed more realistic approach. IMO it's as bad as watching a Roger Moore film that doesn't push the boat out in terms of stunts and spectacle i.e. TMWTGG, as it fails in its raison d'être.
While I don't share your view of Craig's portrayal of Bond, I do understand that you have your own preferences and reasons for why his films don't work for you. At least you are not suggesting that those of us who hold a different opinion are uninformed dolts who only enjoy the latest incarnation of Bond because we don't know any better. Our friend Richard W. on the other hand, continues to lecture and talk down to us uneducated, unwashed minions. Sure, we might not be "scholars" in the areas of acting, scriptwriting, directing, etc., but does that really mean that we are misguided for enjoying CR and the other recent Bond films? Richard W doesn't hesitate to point out that he has been viewing and studying Bond films since 1970 - I've been enjoying them since 1963. Does that make my opinion of the films more valid than his? I haven't read all of the Fleming novels, but I have read several of them, as many other ABJ members have, so I think I have a pretty good idea of the character as envisioned by his creator. And guess what? I enjoy Craig's interpretation (just as I enjoyed Connery's, Dalton's and, to some extent, Brosnan's). Forgive me for being long-winded, but my point is this - adopting a "superior" attitude is not the best way to get folks to respect your opinion.
Blackleiter, I'm surprised to hear you haven't read all the Fleming novels. I totally agree with your point about adopting a superior attitude. Every opinion counts as much as the next.
Blackleiter, I'm surprised to hear you haven't read all the Fleming novels. I totally agree with your point about adopting a superior attitude. Every opinion counts as much as the next.
Thanks, Peppermill. I'm still working my way through the novels. So far I've read Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Spy Who Loved Me. I'm planning to tackle Diamonds Are Forever next.
Actually, I finally did that with Casino Royale (as you can see, I haven't been dealing with the novels in order). I'm planning to purchase DAF on audiobook.
I've also been a dedicated scholar of Ian Fleming and
of the Bond films for 43 years. I've also
written, directed, edited and participated in the
production of a number of small films that did the
festival circuit. I've had discussions with many
professionals in the filmmaking business over the years
I've taken many classes and seminars in filmmaking, scriptwriting,
directing, etc., so I understand your statements about
breaking down the script and rehearsing scenes inside
and out to get to their meaning. If the actors and
director don't have a clear idea of what's going
when the shooting starts, it can get...lets say
"difficult"..not to mention timewasting.
Just wanted to get all that out front to show where I stand.
I agree that Maibaum was the best writer for the series
and understood the character. It's a shame so many
other writers came in to muck up his work.
On the other hand, he was not Ian Fleming. He may
have understood the character and the stories, but
understanding these and creating new ones out of
whole cloth is another animal. Only Fleming himself
could really create the proper stories for his character
as it was his creation. It's fortunate Maibaum started at
the beginning and had most of Fleming's own writing to
work with. Anyone else that have attempted to
perpetuate Bond's adventures pale in comparison in
my opinion, and screenwriters in particular are even
more handicapped given the constrictions of reducing
a novel to basically a short story and sometimes even
down to what appears to be just a script outline.
Now being a Fleming fan and preferring the films that
followed his character and the plots closest to what he
wrote, I was actually thrilled when it was announced
they were going to do a serious version of CR.
I was, as were many, not thrilled by the casting of Craig
as he did not
physically match Bond's appearance perfectly. I still
wished he had dyed his hair at least. I don't
understand the deal people have with his height. It
doesn't bother me - as he seems to pass for the literary
Bond's height on the screen when I'm watching the
films.
However, getting back to CR, you said that it (and the
other two films) still disturbs you because they are
"crass, souring, ugly, distasteful, shrill, perverse, and
deeply offensive" and that you "can't accept this
deconstruction of all the good things that have made
James Bond films something special.".
I'm trying to understand your POV. You seem to prefer
Maibaum's scripts to the last three films and are
comparing them, because you feel he really
understood Fleming's character and the stories and
perhaps would not ever have written the films in the
rebooted manner if he had been still been writing for
EON (or in fact would have not wanted a reboot at all).
This could be true - I don't know. However, I'm going to
come at you with the following - so indulge me:
When it comes to film series characters and their stories
based on novels or comics, etc (Sherlock Holmes,
Tarzan, Phillip Marlowe, Superman, etc.), I've always
maintained that the character 's core identity -
emotionally, physically and mentally - had to remain
original to how their author created them, and that the
screenplays had to maintain at least the style and spirit
of the literary works, no matter how many decades
pass.
Again, coming from my years of reading Fleming and
watching the different treatments of his material and
character in the films, I was actually thrilled with CR, let
down by QOS, then thrilled again with SF.
Here's why:
As much as I enjoyed Maibaum's treatments with the
originals and
the finished films themselves, I realized from Dr. NO on
that the producers were going to just skim past the
character of Bond himself and just show him as sort of
smug superhero who never gets hurt and who is never
personally affected by his adventures. It's why I really
enjoyed the ending of OHMSS. I really thought they
weren't going to do it. I wanted to see Bond as a real
spy involved in real Fleming style adventures, not the
two dimensional comic book type character he had
become on screen. As much as I enjoy Goldfinger, it's
obviously the script that finally buried Bond's literary soul
in exchange for spectacle.
That's when I finally accepted the fact that from then
on this would be the Bond of the cinema and not
Fleming's Bond. Sure they've tried to sneak him back in
with the more series entries (FYEO, TLD, etc), but
audiences didn't seem to want the page bound hero
on the screen. They wanted the style that had been
created by the filmmakers and Maibaum..and that's
fine.
Now comes Craig and CR. Now I admit, the parts of
the script they created to update Fleming's story may
not sit well with some, but I had no problem with it, nor
the fact they used it to reinvigorate - not reinvent the
character and the series, because I came to accept
that the series would need to be updated eventually,
and I for one was thankful that they did it by going
back to creating realistic plots and treating the
character as Fleming did - as a real spy and not a
superhero. Using CR and starting from the beginning to
me was actually calming. I realized they would no
longer be anchored by the older films and the other
actors and would be free to keep Bond and his
universe current with the times . As for Craig's Bond, I
finally feel I'm watching the real Bond Fleming created
- a flesh and blood and bleeding, drinking spy who
may get to wear great suits and drive in an Aston, but
has to deal with real emotions and pain and loss and
question his own abilities at times. Thank God.
As far as how close to reality Craig's films are compared to
those of the past, they seem closer to most to me and
closer to how Fleming would have written them. If
someone doesn't think these plots could not take place
in real life, then they might as well not even read Fleming.
All of his novels were exaggerated tales of what a real
spy might get involved in - especially the villains. In QOS,
outside of the QUANTUM clone of SPECTRE, I did not find the
plot unrealistic. Also, QUANTUM and SPECTRE may be pure
fiction, but they have less exaggerated cousins in the real
world - crime syndicates, drug lords, arms smugglers and
terrorists. Then there's SF. Though there was no Fleming
plots that had former agents with a personal vendetta, it
doesn't mean Fleming would not have eventually written
one had he lived. To me it also borrowed from Bond's
near death and resurrection at the end of FRWL/DR.NO and
YOLT/TMWTGG and there were many instances in the novels
where Fleming had him privately debating his career and
the morality of it and his physical abilities and how it took
a tole on him. As far as reality, I thought it did a credible
job (exaggerated of course) as to how vulnerable the world
is now to cyberterrorism and the argument of digital spying
versus flesh and blood spying. I suppose the thing I really
enjoy the direction the films have taken is that they have
turned Bond (and even the villains)from the one dimensional
comic book like characters of the past series into more three
dimensional, realistic people.
Now comes Craig and CR. Now I admit, the parts of
the script they created to update Fleming's story may
not sit well with some, but I had no problem with it, nor
the fact they used it to reinvigorate - not reinvent the
character and the series, because I came to accept
that the series would need to be updated eventually,
and I for one was thankful that they did it by going
back to creating realistic plots and treating the
character as Fleming did - as a real spy and not a
superhero. Using CR and starting from the beginning to
me was actually calming. I realized they would no
longer be anchored by the older films and the other
actors and would be free to keep Bond and his
universe current with the times . As for Craig's Bond, I
finally feel I'm watching the real Bond Fleming created
- a flesh and blood and bleeding, drinking spy who
may get to wear great suits and drive in an Aston, but
has to deal with real emotions and pain and loss and
question his own abilities at times. Thank God.
Absolutely terrific post. I wish I could have said it as well. -{
Sorry, I may be ignorant and such but am I the only one who applauds for not entirely sticking with Flemings Bond in the movies?
Fleming was a great writer but some weird sadism together with some healthy nationalism, prejudices and so on from his novels just seem not to be right to put on the big screen.
I am happy, that they went closer to the novels with CR - infact very close but CR is Flemings best novel imo next to OHMSS.
And for the record, I really enjoyed TSWLM novel because it's so different {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
I apologize, Goldfinger. It's an inspired deal! They get what they want, economic chaos in the West. And the value of your gold increases many times.
Wish I could take some comfort in it.
As a dedicated scholar of Ian Fleming and of the Bond films for 43 years (since 1970), and as a professional dramatist who works with writers and actors, I find the reboot unsettling, to say the least. Understand that there is a vast chasm between production people and film buffs. The two camps think in different terms and speak different languages. My wife reminded me of this fact this evening when I showed her this forum. "Your wasting your time in these chat rooms" she says, "they won't know what you're talking about." I'm used to discussing motivation and subtext in a disciplined way with writers and actors before the script goes before the camera. The intent of CASINO ROYALE, which is plain enough to anyone who knows their business, was quite a hot topic for discussion among production people when the film came out. Everyone was surprised -- some were shocked -- by its audacity and surprised that audiences accepted it. No serious analysis was offered by critics, like the analysis professionals make when we sit 'round the table for script discovery. Script discovery is the first step in rehearsal. You break the story and characters down and reassemble them bit by bit, sometimes with the writer at the head of the table, and always with the director. You get to know the meaning of each scene so that you know how to play it, if you're an actor, or how to direct it, if you're a director. You talk openly about the character's feelings and state of mind. You apply your discipline as an actor / writer / director to the session. This is how Richard Maibaum, Terence Young and Sean Connery collaborated in 1962 when they created this film franchise in the first place. Just doing their job.
The underlying meaning of the scenes in CASINO ROYALE is not a matter of opinion; it is what it is, and what it is has been put there consciously and deliberately. To arrive at the story being told takes conscious and deliberate effort. It is no accident.
After seven years CASINO ROYALE still disturbs me. It is crass, souring, ugly, distasteful, shrill, perverse, and deeply offensive. I can't accept this deconstruction of all the good things that have made James Bond films something special.
Watching the last three films makes me feel as if I just witnessed a priest molesting a child in full view of a parish who ignored the screams and simply looked the other way.
I'm not angry about it. I was angry in 2006 and 2007, but I'm past that now. Now I'm just disgusted.
What perturbs me even more than the film itself is 1) the acceptance it has received, 2) the continuing deconstruction in Bond 22 and Bond 23, and 3) the acceptance the continuing deconstruction receives. I don't understand that, and sometimes I comb these forums looking for the reasons why.
Richard
belittle anyone Ideas or thoughts, ( I neither have the intelect of writting skill ). I'm a average guy
got in to the Bond novels as a kid and then the Movies. ( Loved Both).
By your posts you are much more knowledgeable on the series than I'll ever Be. Infact in many
ways I can agree on the many faults in QOS, but I can see what the Producers have tried to do.
Look at the competition in the cinema for action/thriller adventure films, The Bond series has to stay
current, and given the huge success of the modern films, It would seem the general public love the
new invention of the character.
Mabey not to the taste of the "Old school" Bond fans but you can't make a big budget Movie for
mabey a few thousand people. In my Honest opinion ( for what that's worth) They have kept the
essence of the Bond character.
His back story know for years by the fans is probably a revelation to the general cinema goer. He's
still gone to Eaton etc, and his basic core is still there.
With Skyfall they have put back some of the "Fun" missing from the first two, and I think more
emphasis is being put in to characterisation and story, which should be a good thing.
D Craig would never of been my Choice as Bond ( I wanted Jason Isaacs ) Although I'm liking him
more as he goes on.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, I know where your coming from and for a long Time I was there.
But the Genie is out of the Bottle and It's not going back. I know how personal our love for the character
can be. As I've said I grew up with Bond. He was for years a large part of my family christmas, I have
so many good memories from those times,It's almost as if Bond was an Uncle.
The idea of my Original post was to give an example of how I'd come to terms with the reboot, and to
hopefully use my "fanship" as an example of how members could accept the new films. Because as time
goes on there is the chance that some people could become almost a Don Quixote character, forever
charging at windmills as the world moves on.
So here endith my Rant. Please forgive any spelling mistakes as I tried to get my thoughs out quickly.
and it is from one fan to another in Friendsip ( I hope ) I accept you might never love the new films but I
think you'll be missing out to dismiss them.
Now off to read your thoughs on The scripts of Richard Maibaum thread.
Yeah that's right....we are all ignorant scum not fit to breathe the same air as yourself...how can we possibly understand or begin to comprehend what drivel is served up before us as entertainment, as we are mere plebs and do not have the intelligence to understand the wisdom that you impart 8-)
I think its time you jogged on.
I think more explanation is required as your post does not really explain at all why you are so disgusted especially since:
1) Such hatred and venom in your post
2) Its probably the most critically acclaimed film in the series and I makes the top 5 of most fans
Personally I believe it saved the series
That's what people said of Fleming's books when they were released too. Excellent.
I think what they are doing is interesting if not very enjoyable imo. I mean, how do you dignify a man who shags around and kills, and is not going to settle down? In the 60s and 70s you fetishise it, you make a joke of it, but as with all things, there's a danger the public enjoy it too much and revere what they are meant to mock, as with Harry Enfield's Loadsamoney character and arguably Alf Garnett, the 1960s racist bigot who unfortunately was given all the best lines.
With Craig they are sort of saying, this bloke isn't charismatic. He's a thug, an automatum who has been badly damaged, orphaned and then exploited by MI6. His dead eyes resemble those of Frankenstein, a created being who then goes on the rampage. This is a valid approach, and disgusts those like Richard W (and myself) who enjoyed the humanity, suaveness and charisma of the old Bond. Thing is, should we have done? This is a bloke who kills for a living. There was imo a kind of narcissism about the old Bond; it doesn't matter he's a bad guy cos he's looks handsome and makes us laugh.
Dalton was one actor who in the words of Empire when TLD came out, 'put the laziness of the writers on the spot by refusing to play Bond as a heartless tailor's dummy'... but that approach didn't quite gel, and Brosnan put the idea on the backburner until it could be utilised more successfully.
What galls for me is that the charmless thuggery of Craig's Bond seems to go over folks' heads, who instead prefer to tap into Bond's iconography in order to get by. It doesn't matter he's a bad guy; he's a family or cultural tradition and every new release is accompanied by a glut of books and other merchandise harking back to happier days.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But isnt that keeping in line with the real Fleming character? Unlike say Roger Moores portrayal
Exactly
Its a no win situation really in my opinion, people want Bond to be more Fleming whilst others want it to be more like the Moore / Brosnan kinda Bond
Personally I'd argue that Flemings writing and journalistic appeal in showing you new worlds compensated a lot, but I don't hold that Craig's films really lift the lid on a new way of life at all, it all seems to hark back to previous films a bit, just changing the tone instead. When you have Craig's Bond stepping how with Her Maj, it's clear we are meant to hero worship the guy a bit. He's like a Bulldog who protects England. But it's like the thuggish footballer when we don't care if he gets in a brawl or cheats on his wife, just so long as the England team is doing well of course!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You & me both!!
Not entirely sure if that was Richard--W's 'intention', however his post really did come across like that to me as well & the less said about the incredibly crass child molestation quip the better IMO.
...and are still saying about them -{
I guess, that they wanted CR to be exactly that way
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I for my part am in both camps!
I never fail to enjoy some good Roger Bond, but also appreciate Craigs Flemingesque interpretation - particularly in CR!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Im also in both camps, the series would never have survived if they went with the same Bond characterisation, tones and realism etc. Each Bond is different and has its place otherwise it would have got boring a long time ago!
Bonds. Light adventure, science fiction , gritty and realistic. Happily I
love them all.
I just can't believe or find credible the plots and things that occur in Craig's films, in view of the supposed more realistic approach. IMO it's as bad as watching a Roger Moore film that doesn't push the boat out in terms of stunts and spectacle i.e. TMWTGG, as it fails in its raison d'être.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While I don't share your view of Craig's portrayal of Bond, I do understand that you have your own preferences and reasons for why his films don't work for you. At least you are not suggesting that those of us who hold a different opinion are uninformed dolts who only enjoy the latest incarnation of Bond because we don't know any better. Our friend Richard W. on the other hand, continues to lecture and talk down to us uneducated, unwashed minions. Sure, we might not be "scholars" in the areas of acting, scriptwriting, directing, etc., but does that really mean that we are misguided for enjoying CR and the other recent Bond films? Richard W doesn't hesitate to point out that he has been viewing and studying Bond films since 1970 - I've been enjoying them since 1963. Does that make my opinion of the films more valid than his? I haven't read all of the Fleming novels, but I have read several of them, as many other ABJ members have, so I think I have a pretty good idea of the character as envisioned by his creator. And guess what? I enjoy Craig's interpretation (just as I enjoyed Connery's, Dalton's and, to some extent, Brosnan's). Forgive me for being long-winded, but my point is this - adopting a "superior" attitude is not the best way to get folks to respect your opinion.
Thanks, Peppermill. I'm still working my way through the novels. So far I've read Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Spy Who Loved Me. I'm planning to tackle Diamonds Are Forever next.
Actually, I finally did that with Casino Royale (as you can see, I haven't been dealing with the novels in order). I'm planning to purchase DAF on audiobook.
( and it's hard with crayons, but that's all we're allowed )
I've decided to become "superior" and I'm typing this while wearing a Monocle.
I haven't read a Fleming Bond in years, but I am hoping to soon start reading them again
only this time in order.
Errr......the monocle goes over your eye, TP. Please take it out of your nose!
"So that's what I've been doing wrong for all these years?"
of the Bond films for 43 years. I've also
written, directed, edited and participated in the
production of a number of small films that did the
festival circuit. I've had discussions with many
professionals in the filmmaking business over the years
I've taken many classes and seminars in filmmaking, scriptwriting,
directing, etc., so I understand your statements about
breaking down the script and rehearsing scenes inside
and out to get to their meaning. If the actors and
director don't have a clear idea of what's going
when the shooting starts, it can get...lets say
"difficult"..not to mention time wasting.
Just wanted to get all that out front to show where I stand.
I agree that Maibaum was the best writer for the series
and understood the character. It's a shame so many
other writers came in to muck up his work.
On the other hand, he was not Ian Fleming. He may
have understood the character and the stories, but
understanding these and creating new ones out of
whole cloth is another animal. Only Fleming himself
could really create the proper stories for his character
as it was his creation. It's fortunate Maibaum started at
the beginning and had most of Fleming's own writing to
work with. Anyone else that have attempted to
perpetuate Bond's adventures pale in comparison in
my opinion, and screenwriters in particular are even
more handicapped given the constrictions of reducing
a novel to basically a short story and sometimes even
down to what appears to be just a script outline.
Now being a Fleming fan and preferring the films that
followed his character and the plots closest to what he
wrote, I was actually thrilled when it was announced
they were going to do a serious version of CR.
I was, as were many, not thrilled by the casting of Craig
as he did not
physically match Bond's appearance perfectly. I still
wished he had dyed his hair at least. I don't
understand the deal people have with his height. It
doesn't bother me - as he seems to pass for the literary
Bond's height on the screen when I'm watching the
films.
However, getting back to CR, you said that it (and the
other two films) still disturbs you because they are
"crass, souring, ugly, distasteful, shrill, perverse, and
deeply offensive" and that you "can't accept this
deconstruction of all the good things that have made
James Bond films something special.".
I'm trying to understand your POV. You seem to prefer
Maibaum's scripts to the last three films and are
comparing them, because you feel he really
understood Fleming's character and the stories and
perhaps would not ever have written the films in the
rebooted manner if he had been still been writing for
EON (or in fact would have not wanted a reboot at all).
This could be true - I don't know. However, I'm going to
come at you with the following - so indulge me:
When it comes to film series characters and their stories
based on novels or comics, etc (Sherlock Holmes,
Tarzan, Phillip Marlowe, Superman, etc.), I've always
maintained that the character 's core identity -
emotionally, physically and mentally - had to remain
original to how their author created them, and that the
screenplays had to maintain at least the style and spirit
of the literary works, no matter how many decades
pass.
Again, coming from my years of reading Fleming and
watching the different treatments of his material and
character in the films, I was actually thrilled with CR, let
down by QOS, then thrilled again with SF.
Here's why:
As much as I enjoyed Maibaum's treatments with the
originals and
the finished films themselves, I realized from Dr. NO on
that the producers were going to just skim past the
character of Bond himself and just show him as sort of
smug superhero who never gets hurt and who is never
personally affected by his adventures. It's why I really
enjoyed the ending of OHMSS. I really thought they
weren't going to do it. I wanted to see Bond as a real
spy involved in real Fleming style adventures, not the
two dimensional comic book type character he had
become on screen. As much as I enjoy Goldfinger, it's
obviously the script that finally buried Bond's literary soul
in exchange for spectacle.
That's when I finally accepted the fact that from then
on this would be the Bond of the cinema and not
Fleming's Bond. Sure they've tried to sneak him back in
with the more series entries (FYEO, TLD, etc), but
audiences didn't seem to want the page bound hero
on the screen. They wanted the style that had been
created by the filmmakers and Maibaum..and that's
fine.
Now comes Craig and CR. Now I admit, the parts of
the script they created to update Fleming's story may
not sit well with some, but I had no problem with it, nor
the fact they used it to reinvigorate - not reinvent the
character and the series, because I came to accept
that the series would need to be updated eventually,
and I for one was thankful that they did it by going
back to creating realistic plots and treating the
character as Fleming did - as a real spy and not a
superhero. Using CR and starting from the beginning to
me was actually calming. I realized they would no
longer be anchored by the older films and the other
actors and would be free to keep Bond and his
universe current with the times . As for Craig's Bond, I
finally feel I'm watching the real Bond Fleming created
- a flesh and blood and bleeding, drinking spy who
may get to wear great suits and drive in an Aston, but
has to deal with real emotions and pain and loss and
question his own abilities at times. Thank God.
As far as how close to reality Craig's films are compared to
those of the past, they seem closer to most to me and
closer to how Fleming would have written them. If
someone doesn't think these plots could not take place
in real life, then they might as well not even read Fleming.
All of his novels were exaggerated tales of what a real
spy might get involved in - especially the villains. In QOS,
outside of the QUANTUM clone of SPECTRE, I did not find the
plot unrealistic. Also, QUANTUM and SPECTRE may be pure
fiction, but they have less exaggerated cousins in the real
world - crime syndicates, drug lords, arms smugglers and
terrorists. Then there's SF. Though there was no Fleming
plots that had former agents with a personal vendetta, it
doesn't mean Fleming would not have eventually written
one had he lived. To me it also borrowed from Bond's
near death and resurrection at the end of FRWL/DR.NO and
YOLT/TMWTGG and there were many instances in the novels
where Fleming had him privately debating his career and
the morality of it and his physical abilities and how it took
a tole on him. As far as reality, I thought it did a credible
job (exaggerated of course) as to how vulnerable the world
is now to cyberterrorism and the argument of digital spying
versus flesh and blood spying. I suppose the thing I really
enjoy the direction the films have taken is that they have
turned Bond (and even the villains)from the one dimensional
comic book like characters of the past series into more three
dimensional, realistic people.
Absolutely terrific post. I wish I could have said it as well. -{
Fleming was a great writer but some weird sadism together with some healthy nationalism, prejudices and so on from his novels just seem not to be right to put on the big screen.
I am happy, that they went closer to the novels with CR - infact very close but CR is Flemings best novel imo next to OHMSS.
And for the record, I really enjoyed TSWLM novel because it's so different {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As opposed to normal sadism?