Is TWINE an influential film?

walther p99

Though TWINE isnt generally regarded as one of the best Bond films ever, its plot and alot of its central ideas have been in recent films. The most obvious being Skyfall, which borrowed alot from TWINE but did it better: Bond injured and his past, attack on MI6, London action scene, as well as scenes in Istanbul and Scotland. Also, the Dark Knight Rises used the female villain hiding behind a facade and using a terrorist as a puppet idea, though im sure its been done before TWINE. Whats your thoughts? and do you think Skyfall used TWINE as a influence?

Gassy Man

There may be some influence, though I think the Bond films recycle a lot of the same elements to begin with.

For some of my classes, I make students watch Bond pre-title sequences and note the required ingredients, to see which ones are basically just another version of the other. This is in prelude to a much more involved analysis paper. So, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds are Forever, and The World is Not Enough fall into the same basic formula: Bond on a mission, a violent fight, a duplicitous woman, outrageous gadgets, and jokey lines. From Russia with Love, The Living Daylights, and Live and Let Die, in contrast, do not use this exact set up, but it is used over and over again throughout the series.

Muston

TWINE has some pretty good stuff in there, though I believe a lot of TWINE has been taken from the Amis Bond novel Colonel Sun (which has an even better torture scene than CR and it has the kidnapping of M as a major plot.) TWINE still stands as my favourite Brosnan film because we see more to Bond's character than in any other Brosnan film.

Golrush007

Interesting idea, walther p99. If TWINE did influence those other films that you mention, it never occured to me.

I think TWINE does tend to be a little underrated as it does have some very good stuff in it, and as Muston said, we do see more of Bond's character in this film. On the negative side, we do have Denise Richards though...

chrisisall

Muston wrote:

TWINE still stands as my favourite Brosnan film because we see more to Bond's character than in any other Brosnan film.

The more I think of it, the more I feel like Brosnan was trying to bring his Bond in TWINE a little closer to Dalton's take. And for the most part, I think he succeeded pretty well. -{

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

Muston wrote:

TWINE still stands as my favourite Brosnan film because we see more to Bond's character than in any other Brosnan film.

The more I think of it, the more I feel like Brosnan was trying to bring his Bond in TWINE a little closer to Dalton's take. And for the most part, I think he succeeded pretty well. -{

I agree.

Dexter Smythe

I simply don't feel there is enough new stuff in TWINE to rate more than passing mention.A bomb to blow up a pipeline? Really? Denise Richards is simply the most horribly miscast character in ANY Bond film(although Jinx is second).The stuff on the sub was kind of neat but mostly it just seems like a re-hash of old action scenes,etc. TND is Brosnan's best Bond by far IMHO.

Higgins

I also find TWINE brosnan's weakest - though not surprised that someone shoehorned Dalton into the topic
The theory to go more Dalton is simply laughable - why should anyone do that?
Dalton stood and still stands for a not very bright episode in Bond.

The more Flemingesque approach was often used for various films and all actors - before and after Dalton - nothing to do with him!

Most disappointing in TWINE are the snow scenes imo - they could have done so much better - just have a look at OHMSS and FYEO.

chrisisall

Dexter Smythe wrote:

TND is Brosnan's best Bond by far IMHO.

Oh yes, I agree there. But I still love the films on either side of it.

AlphaOmegaSin

We will get you to love Daltons Films one day Bondtoys, even if it kills us )

chrisisall

Bondtoys wrote:

Most disappointing in TWINE are the snow scenes imo

Yes, they did seem to resemble Dalton snow scenes...

Thunderpussy

Yes the snow chase in TWINE just looks lack luster and tired.

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

Yes the snow chase in TWINE just looks lack luster and tired.

And a bit misty-eyed...

Asp9mm

Actually, Brozza does have that misty-eye syndrome in TWINE. Thank God Brozza and Dalton didn't do OHMSS, the end scene would have been akin to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XQvUiIfw8c

chrisisall

Asp9mm wrote:

Actually, Brozza does have that misty-eye syndrome in TWINE. Thank God Brozza and Dalton didn't do OHMSS, the end scene would have been akin to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XQvUiIfw8c

Ha ha ha, yeah, Dalts & Broz do share an emo thing, don't they? Bond should be more like Bondtoys, cold, calculating, unflinching, and impervious to women! -{

Thunderpussy

The funny thing is that in the novels, Bond does cry a couple of times and
shows his emotions several times. Hence proving once again how Good
Dalton was. )

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

The funny thing is that in the novels, Bond does cry a couple of times and
shows his emotions several times. Hence proving once again how Good
Dalton was. )

The dude was reading Fleming on set between takes. That's freakin' dedication. -{

Higgins

chrisisall wrote:

Bond should be more like Bondtoys, cold, calculating, unflinching, and impervious to women! -{

I am rather impervious to Dalton fanboys X-(

AlphaOmegaSin

Thunderpussy wrote:

The funny thing is that in the novels, Bond does cry a couple of times and
shows his emotions several times. Hence proving once again how Good
Dalton was. )

1+

CmdrAtticus

What I liked about the film was that the writers were trying to keep a more realistic geopolitical struggle to the plot as Fleming did in his novels. The whole concern about the pipeline seemed like something we would here about in the media, especially anything dealing with Russia. Look at what's happening with Crimea, for example.

Now, blowing it up with a nuclear bomb may have seemed extravagant, but...well...it is a Bond film. What else would they do?

I agree that the ski attack was weak. The parahawks were a nice Bondian touch, but the problem is they were overkill. One or two snipers that they could not see would have had more tension and been a break from the usual ski chases that have already been done and the avalanche bit was thrown in just to show off the latest Q gadget.

It's the problem the producers faced with the series prior to Craig (and are still dealing with). The audience expects big action set pieces that have a certain quirk unique to the series, but the longer the series goes on, the more it repeats itself and there are only so many ways you can have boat/ski/car, etc. chases without them beginning to look like just another chase. It also doesn't help with the fact there are a ton of other action films doing the same thing.

That's why the parkour chase was thrilling - it was different and really looked dangerous. It's why the attack on Skyfall was different - Bond is being attacked by the enemy with lots of firepower inside a building and he has little to fight back with except his wits. Even the Aston's machine guns only temporarily afforded him some time (and he had to sacrifice the whole bloody car for even that). That's how the writer's need to keep the plots and set pieces fresh and pertinent to modern audiences. Ground them in realistic, geopolitical machinations, keep in the set pieces (but nothing too over the top and keep them extremely tense) - but not too many, and make sure Bond survives more because of his abilities than because of anything cooked up in Q's lab.

Blackleiter

CmdrAtticus wrote:

What I liked about the film was that the writers were trying to keep a more realistic geopolitical struggle to the plot as Fleming did in his novels. The whole concern about the pipeline seemed like something we would here about in the media, especially anything dealing with Russia. Look at what's happening with Crimea, for example.

Now, blowing it up with a nuclear bomb may have seemed extravagant, but...well...it is a Bond film. What else would they do?

I agree that the ski attack was weak. The parahawks were a nice Bondian touch, but the problem is they were overkill. One or two snipers that they could not see would have had more tension and been a break from the usual ski chases that have already been done and the avalanche bit was thrown in just to show off the latest Q gadget.

It's the problem the producers faced with the series prior to Craig (and are still dealing with). The audience expects big action set pieces that have a certain quirk unique to the series, but the longer the series goes on, the more it repeats itself and there are only so many ways you can have boat/ski/car, etc. chases without them beginning to look like just another chase. It also doesn't help with the fact there are a ton of other action films doing the same thing.

That's why the parkour chase was thrilling - it was different and really looked dangerous. It's why the attack on Skyfall was different - Bond is being attacked by the enemy with lots of firepower inside a building and he has little to fight back with except his wits. Even the Aston's machine guns only temporarily afforded him some time (and he had to sacrifice the whole bloody car for even that). That's how the writer's need to keep the plots and set pieces fresh and pertinent to modern audiences. Ground them in realistic, geopolitical machinations, keep in the set pieces (but nothing too over the top and keep them extremely tense) - but not too many, and make sure Bond survives more because of his abilities than because of anything cooked up in Q's lab.

Very astute, as usual. -{

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

The audience expects big action set pieces that have a certain quirk unique to the series, but the longer the series goes on, the more it repeats itself and there are only so many ways you can have boat/ski/car, etc. chases without them beginning to look like just another chase.

As lacking in areas as QOS was, one of the reasons I continue to enjoy it is that it wasn't like every other Bond film. -{

CmdrAtticus

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

The audience expects big action set pieces that have a certain quirk unique to the series, but the longer the series goes on, the more it repeats itself and there are only so many ways you can have boat/ski/car, etc. chases without them beginning to look like just another chase.

As lacking in areas as QOS was, one of the reasons I continue to enjoy it is that it wasn't like every other Bond film. -{

True. It suffers from different things, but if just the editing and action scenes had been handled as they were in the better films, it would have - in my mind - made the film a lot easier to warm to.

chrisisall

Here's one:

SF is to TWINE as NSNA is to TB.

:v

Charmed & Dangerous

chrisisall wrote:

Here's one: SF is to TWINE as NSNA is to TB. :v

Sorry chrisisall, I completely disagree.

Much as I like TWINE, Bond's character in The film is nowhere nearly as well explored as in Skyfall. There's far more tension in the latter film, a sense of realism that's missing from most of he preceding films, and IMO Javier Bardem and Berenice Marlohe are presented with a better script from which to bring excellent performances than Robert Carlisle, Sophie Marceau and Denise Richards.

Thunderpussy

+1 -{ Skyfall is the better film.

chrisisall

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

Much as I like TWINE, Bond's character in The film is nowhere nearly as well explored as in Skyfall.

And I disagree as well. In TWINE Bond had ups & downs, betrayal & discovery, revenge & some plain fun.
In SF Bond was basically the shut-down hero. Then he came back. A much simpler emotional palate.

Blackleiter

Thunderpussy wrote:

+1 -{ Skyfall is the better film.

As much as I like TWINE, I'd have to agree that SF overall is a better film.

Charmed & Dangerous

Yep I'd agree with you there, chrisisall, that Bond goes through a roller-caster in TWINE... Though I still think SF is the better film -{

chrisisall

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

Yep I'd agree with you there, chrisisall, that Bond goes through a roller-caster in TWINE... Though I still think SF is the better film -{

SF is a better MADE film, whether it's a better FILM is arguable IMO.

Dexter Smythe

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Here's one: SF is to TWINE as NSNA is to TB. :v

Sorry chrisisall, I completely disagree.

Much as I like TWINE, Bond's character in The film is nowhere nearly as well explored as in Skyfall. There's far more tension in the latter film, a sense of realism that's missing from most of he preceding films, and IMO Javier Bardem and Berenice Marlohe are presented with a better script from which to bring excellent performances than Robert Carlisle, Sophie Marceau and Denise Richards.

I agree.SF is a much better film although it stretches credulity at times,too.It just seemed TWINE wasn't original in hardly any category except possibly having Judi Dench out in the field with 007.