Lois Maxwell knew how to do it properly. Samantha Bond sometimes seems like she genuinely doesn't like Bond from the way she speaks to him. I was surprised to see what she did with the virtual reality in DAD because I actually thought she had no interest in Bond.
Hmmm, don't like where this is going. Then again, I didn't much like where they've just been i.e. Skyfall so this looks like more of the same, only more so.
I guess as the makers don't think Bond has much of a future they have to dig up his past but it's like a phoney treasure hunt game devised by your parents where they've put coins in the sand themselves beforehand. Faulk and Boyd went back to Bond's past by setting their books in the 60s, and Deaver kept his Bond in the present but devised some nonsense about Bond's parents that didn't really come to anything, and may have been another Deaver red herring.
So here we get something found that was uncovered in the remains of Skyfall, I mean ffs! The place was burnt out to a shell. It just seems quite contrived. Reminds me of the belated sequel to Frankenstein, where it turns out in the opening scene that the Monster wasn't dead after all but lurking in the ditch beneath the house. Yeah, right.
I prefer Bond when it was set in the present, not looking backwards, esp when it's rewriting the past.
I'm willing to see what they are going to do story wise with spectre, but I too
am wary of this whole " Fostered" idea ,along with this rumour of relatives ?
( I do hope this is a fan rumour and not true )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Not sure about Harris yet. A bit too annoying so far.
Annoying? How so???
Although very pleasing on the eye she hasn't yet developed in the role. Maybe I'm being unfair but I couldn't buy into her character fully, she just seemed a bit out of place. Especially when she revealed herself at the end of SF. That was so contrived that her credibility bombed a little there.
I'm hoping that we see her become stronger in Spectre. My vision for her would be to be a bit more protective of Bond, rather than trying to be his equal. We saw this with Caroline Bliss in TLD when she and Bond formulate his travel plans via Bratislava. I think we've had a hint of this in the trailer when she (Harris) hands Bond the box and talks about his secret.
But in SF, she looked like she was just delivering the lines. And that was annoying.
I think that they solved the Moneypenny and Q problems brilliantly, myself. Slightly different dynamics to their relationship to Bond, but still carrying enough of the spirit of the characters to keep essentially true to the originals.
I think that they solved the Moneypenny and Q problems brilliantly, myself. Slightly different dynamics to their relationship to Bond, but still carrying enough of the spirit of the characters to keep essentially true to the originals.
The original Q would be pretty irrelevant today. But it's unrealistic that MI6 would hire a kid to be in charge of Q-Branch. He does everything a kid would expect to do. He's like Wesley Crusher; a capable but still an immature kid who makes mistakes. For such an important position they should have hired someone with a little experience and management skills, who is up with the times. They're treating Q-Branch like a start-up. And why do all the good guys have to make so many mistakes now?
I'm very happy with the casting and the characterisation of both Moneypenny and Q. I like the chemistry with Bond and the development/re-direction of the characters. I'm very happy so far.
Not sure about Harris yet. A bit too annoying so far.
Annoying? How so???
The only one I find annoying is Samantha Bond. She goes too far in playing hard-to-get with Bond, and that really bothers me when women do that.
She's too busy competing with him and seems pretty smarmy. Moneypenny is supposed to be more like the girl next door/girl Friday type -- sweet, loyal, easygoing. Samantha Bond played her like the president of the local chapter of NOW. Some women can get away with being prickly for one reason or another -- she was not one of them.
On the other hand, Lois Maxwell was perfect in the role, and while Naomie Harris has a bit of Samantha Bond's disdain, she is shaping up nicely, mostly because there is humor in her face rather than, too often in Ms. Bond's case, haughtiness.
Hmmm, don't like where this is going. Then again, I didn't much like where they've just been i.e. Skyfall so this looks like more of the same, only more so.
I guess as the makers don't think Bond has much of a future they have to dig up his past but it's like a phoney treasure hunt game devised by your parents where they've put coins in the sand themselves beforehand. Faulk and Boyd went back to Bond's past by setting their books in the 60s, and Deaver kept his Bond in the present but devised some nonsense about Bond's parents that didn't really come to anything, and may have been another Deaver red herring.
So here we get something found that was uncovered in the remains of Skyfall, I mean ffs! The place was burnt out to a shell. It just seems quite contrived. Reminds me of the belated sequel to Frankenstein, where it turns out in the opening scene that the Monster wasn't dead after all but lurking in the ditch beneath the house. Yeah, right.
I prefer Bond when it was set in the present, not looking backwards, esp when it's rewriting the past.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
Hmmm, don't like where this is going. Then again, I didn't much like where they've just been i.e. Skyfall so this looks like more of the same, only more so.
I guess as the makers don't think Bond has much of a future they have to dig up his past but it's like a phoney treasure hunt game devised by your parents where they've put coins in the sand themselves beforehand. Faulk and Boyd went back to Bond's past by setting their books in the 60s, and Deaver kept his Bond in the present but devised some nonsense about Bond's parents that didn't really come to anything, and may have been another Deaver red herring.
So here we get something found that was uncovered in the remains of Skyfall, I mean ffs! The place was burnt out to a shell. It just seems quite contrived. Reminds me of the belated sequel to Frankenstein, where it turns out in the opening scene that the Monster wasn't dead after all but lurking in the ditch beneath the house. Yeah, right.
I prefer Bond when it was set in the present, not looking backwards, esp when it's rewriting the past.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
He is probably going to stay the way he is. People don't usually change that much after their 20s.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
I think he's already "become" James Bond. Delving into his past doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't fully formed yet. But if you read the books I think it's clear that Bond has always been a man with personal history issues (but I haven't read the books in quite a while so I could just be projecting Craig's Bond onto Fleming). I do think there are some valid points being made here that Mendes may be focusing a little too much on Bond's past instead of letting him living in the present, but he's also making a valiant effort to really tap into Fleming in order to get to the heart of Bond's character, which is what makes the whole franchise tic IMO.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
I think he's already "become" James Bond. Delving into his past doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't fully formed yet. But if you read the books I think it's clear that Bond has always been a man with personal history issues (but I haven't read the books in quite a while so I could just be projecting Craig's Bond onto Fleming). I do think there are some valid points being made here that Mendes may be focusing a little too much on Bond's past instead of letting him living in the present, but he's also making a valiant effort to really tap into Fleming in order to get to the heart of Bond's character, which is what makes the whole franchise tic IMO.
The Casino Royale film made a point to tell the story of how Bond becomes Bond, and by the end he is supposedly the fully-formed character. But the following two films are still about Bond becoming himself. I'm not sure if Craig's Bond will ever mature. He's always finding himself, which is something that characters in modern films do. I don't see that in Fleming's novels.
Hmmm, don't like where this is going. Then again, I didn't much like where they've just been i.e. Skyfall so this looks like more of the same, only more so.
I guess as the makers don't think Bond has much of a future they have to dig up his past but it's like a phoney treasure hunt game devised by your parents where they've put coins in the sand themselves beforehand. Faulk and Boyd went back to Bond's past by setting their books in the 60s, and Deaver kept his Bond in the present but devised some nonsense about Bond's parents that didn't really come to anything, and may have been another Deaver red herring.
So here we get something found that was uncovered in the remains of Skyfall, I mean ffs! The place was burnt out to a shell. It just seems quite contrived. Reminds me of the belated sequel to Frankenstein, where it turns out in the opening scene that the Monster wasn't dead after all but lurking in the ditch beneath the house. Yeah, right.
I prefer Bond when it was set in the present, not looking backwards, esp when it's rewriting the past.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
He is probably going to stay the way he is. People don't usually change that much after their 20s.
Haha, well, maybe some people don't. I'm a few months older than Craig, and while I can say my basic values haven't changed much, my expectations, reactions, and assumptions about things are quite different.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
I think he's already "become" James Bond. Delving into his past doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't fully formed yet. But if you read the books I think it's clear that Bond has always been a man with personal history issues (but I haven't read the books in quite a while so I could just be projecting Craig's Bond onto Fleming). I do think there are some valid points being made here that Mendes may be focusing a little too much on Bond's past instead of letting him living in the present, but he's also making a valiant effort to really tap into Fleming in order to get to the heart of Bond's character, which is what makes the whole franchise tic IMO.
I have and actually have a stack of vintage paperbacks sitting next to my bed even as we speak. Fleming doesn't spend nearly as much time on Bond's childhood or personal history -- much of it comes to light only in the last few novels. Instead, Bond tends to live in the moment. If he starts to get nostalgic or depressed about the past, he often pushes the thoughts out of his mind to instead focus on the mission.
An exception, though, are people, often women, he has met while on missions, and on occasion, people he has killed. Bond as a psychological study is more about the agent than the man that became the agent and about how his choice of vocation, rather than his personal life history, takes a toll on him. His defeats and tragedies tend to be the result of failures in the mission rather than psychological baggage from the past.
In contrast, the Bond we seem to be getting more and more of with the Craig films runs parallel with Bruce Wayne in the Batman films. This Bond's childhood not only shapes his adult years but also apparently keeps intruding on it. Whereas the literary Bond, like many men of the time period, tends to suppress his personal haunts or at least not let them significantly affect his personal and professional lives, Craig's Bond wears these haunts on his sleeve -- a more contemporary trope. His mood 24 hours a day is governed most by what haunts him, with only occasional forays into distractions, including the pleasures of life.
This is almost exactly the opposite of the literary Bond, who seems more interested in living his life to the fullest, including through such distractions as good food and drink, gambling, women, cars, and the thrill of the chase when on a mission. What intrudes from time to time is the psychological cost of killing people for a living and not always being able to save those who deserve it. The easiest way to see the distinction is how joyless Craig's Bond is, whether making love or whatever. If Connery's Bond was, perhaps, too invested in the having fun part of being James Bond, Craig's Bond is too invested in the brooding and suffering.
As I've stated elsewhere, this makes sense for Casino Royale (where, ironically, we've probably seen the most well-rounded version of Bond in the three Craig films so far), and might make sense for one more film after. But by the third film, it feels like Bond is pretty stunted emotionally, his needle stuck in the same groove -- like a comic book character. This makes him more one-dimensional rather than as deep as I think some people are reading him. Instead, one might expect that after a decade in the secret service, he achieve some greater sense of emotional autonomy and dimension.
Mendes seems determined to keep running with the Freudian childhood angle -- again, like Bruce Wayne. Depending on how much Spectre is treated as part one of a two-part story that is Bond 25, Bond may be no further along at the end of this film than the beginning. To me, this is dragging things out too long. If a man by middle age hasn't come to terms with himself, including just how colossal a waste of time living in the past is when there may be fewer years ahead than behind, he is not flawed. He's stupid. And that's not Bond, not in the case of Fleming or any film version so far.
At this point in the films, I agree. Having the first two delve into Bond's early years is fine, but by the third film, they needed to get up to speed. Daniel Craig is nearing 50 -- at what point does he finally become James Bond as opposed to the nascent fellow with so many personal history issues?
I think he's already "become" James Bond. Delving into his past doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't fully formed yet. But if you read the books I think it's clear that Bond has always been a man with personal history issues (but I haven't read the books in quite a while so I could just be projecting Craig's Bond onto Fleming). I do think there are some valid points being made here that Mendes may be focusing a little too much on Bond's past instead of letting him living in the present, but he's also making a valiant effort to really tap into Fleming in order to get to the heart of Bond's character, which is what makes the whole franchise tic IMO.
The Casino Royale film made a point to tell the story of how Bond becomes Bond, and by the end he is supposedly the fully-formed character. But the following two films are still about Bond becoming himself. I'm not sure if Craig's Bond will ever mature. He's always finding himself, which is something that characters in modern films do. I don't see that in Fleming's novels.
The Craig films do seem to be more or less trapped in that situation.
Gassy Man, that's a very well written, thoughtful and insightful piece. -{ I would agree with everything except that Daniel Craig's Bond is not joyless. Although he takes a lot of what happens to heart, he also takes pleasure from aspects if his missions (particularly women); perhaps like Fleming's Bond, he's of an age that doesn't display it quite as much as some, though.
Just to name a few scenes where he's far from joyless:
His scenes with Agent Fields - he is clearly enjoying the banter and his intimacy with her
The scene with Vesper on the train - he's clearly relishing the dialogue
His recovery at the health clinic with Vesper, not to mention the scene with M. Mendel
The scenes in the hotel room and subsequently the Floating Casino with Moneypenny
Btw - Naomi Harris as Moneypenny is superb. She's an excellent actress and I've loved her since the Pirates of the Caribbean films. -{
The Casino Royale film made a point to tell the story of how Bond becomes Bond, and by the end he is supposedly the fully-formed character. But the following two films are still about Bond becoming himself.
I agree with this, and I think it was unnecessary.
He should have "been Bond" and allowed to fully "be Bond" after the excellent final scene of Casino Royale.
The "becoming Bond" has gone on far too long (right to the end of Skyfall). I feel some of Craig's tenure has been wasted by this decision. Which is a shame.
Only my opinion, but CR and QOS were the same story told over two films, so
Bond was evolving into an experienced agent. In SF Bond was shown as an
Experienced agent, due to his injuries he was underperforming, but as soon as
He removed the bullet fragments, he was back to his old self.
In SF, I think DC played Bond, as the other actors. He was suave and funny with
a few great one-liners, walked with a swagger and seemed to be having fun.
So I think Craig's Bond is fully formed, of course he'll have new experiences and
Adventures. Which I'm certain will show Bond as human, less superman, dealing
With his Demons., as although he's fully formed, it doesn't mean he can't learn
anything.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Only my opinion, but CR and QOS were the same story told over two films, so
Bond was evolving into an experienced agent. In SF Bond was shown as an
Experienced agent, due to his injuries he was underperforming, but as soon as
He removed the bullet fragments, he was back to his old self.
In SF, I think DC played Bond, as the other actors. He was suave and funny with
a few great one-liners, walked with a swagger and seemed to be having fun.ok what have you done with the real TP ) )
So I think Craig's Bond is fully formed, of course he'll have new experiences and
Adventures. Which I'm certain will show Bond as human, less superman, dealing
With his Demons., as although he's fully formed, it doesn't mean he can't learn
anything.
ok what have you done with the real TP, this is far to sensible a post ) )
Comments
Annoying? How so???
The only one I find annoying is Samantha Bond. She goes too far in playing hard-to-get with Bond, and that really bothers me when women do that.
Lois Maxwell knew how to do it properly. Samantha Bond sometimes seems like she genuinely doesn't like Bond from the way she speaks to him. I was surprised to see what she did with the virtual reality in DAD because I actually thought she had no interest in Bond.
I guess as the makers don't think Bond has much of a future they have to dig up his past but it's like a phoney treasure hunt game devised by your parents where they've put coins in the sand themselves beforehand. Faulk and Boyd went back to Bond's past by setting their books in the 60s, and Deaver kept his Bond in the present but devised some nonsense about Bond's parents that didn't really come to anything, and may have been another Deaver red herring.
So here we get something found that was uncovered in the remains of Skyfall, I mean ffs! The place was burnt out to a shell. It just seems quite contrived. Reminds me of the belated sequel to Frankenstein, where it turns out in the opening scene that the Monster wasn't dead after all but lurking in the ditch beneath the house. Yeah, right.
I prefer Bond when it was set in the present, not looking backwards, esp when it's rewriting the past.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
am wary of this whole " Fostered" idea ,along with this rumour of relatives ?
( I do hope this is a fan rumour and not true )
Although very pleasing on the eye she hasn't yet developed in the role. Maybe I'm being unfair but I couldn't buy into her character fully, she just seemed a bit out of place. Especially when she revealed herself at the end of SF. That was so contrived that her credibility bombed a little there.
I'm hoping that we see her become stronger in Spectre. My vision for her would be to be a bit more protective of Bond, rather than trying to be his equal. We saw this with Caroline Bliss in TLD when she and Bond formulate his travel plans via Bratislava. I think we've had a hint of this in the trailer when she (Harris) hands Bond the box and talks about his secret.
But in SF, she looked like she was just delivering the lines. And that was annoying.
She seemed fine to me and I'm looking forward to seeing more of her in Spectre.
Of banter they had, I thought was very funny and natural. -{
She could be a brilliant Moneypenny.
The original Q would be pretty irrelevant today. But it's unrealistic that MI6 would hire a kid to be in charge of Q-Branch. He does everything a kid would expect to do. He's like Wesley Crusher; a capable but still an immature kid who makes mistakes. For such an important position they should have hired someone with a little experience and management skills, who is up with the times. They're treating Q-Branch like a start-up. And why do all the good guys have to make so many mistakes now?
There's a couple of funny moments in Spectre involving Q and the Aston Martin. I will say no more B-)
On the other hand, Lois Maxwell was perfect in the role, and while Naomie Harris has a bit of Samantha Bond's disdain, she is shaping up nicely, mostly because there is humor in her face rather than, too often in Ms. Bond's case, haughtiness.
He is probably going to stay the way he is. People don't usually change that much after their 20s.
I think he's already "become" James Bond. Delving into his past doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't fully formed yet. But if you read the books I think it's clear that Bond has always been a man with personal history issues (but I haven't read the books in quite a while so I could just be projecting Craig's Bond onto Fleming). I do think there are some valid points being made here that Mendes may be focusing a little too much on Bond's past instead of letting him living in the present, but he's also making a valiant effort to really tap into Fleming in order to get to the heart of Bond's character, which is what makes the whole franchise tic IMO.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
The Casino Royale film made a point to tell the story of how Bond becomes Bond, and by the end he is supposedly the fully-formed character. But the following two films are still about Bond becoming himself. I'm not sure if Craig's Bond will ever mature. He's always finding himself, which is something that characters in modern films do. I don't see that in Fleming's novels.
An exception, though, are people, often women, he has met while on missions, and on occasion, people he has killed. Bond as a psychological study is more about the agent than the man that became the agent and about how his choice of vocation, rather than his personal life history, takes a toll on him. His defeats and tragedies tend to be the result of failures in the mission rather than psychological baggage from the past.
In contrast, the Bond we seem to be getting more and more of with the Craig films runs parallel with Bruce Wayne in the Batman films. This Bond's childhood not only shapes his adult years but also apparently keeps intruding on it. Whereas the literary Bond, like many men of the time period, tends to suppress his personal haunts or at least not let them significantly affect his personal and professional lives, Craig's Bond wears these haunts on his sleeve -- a more contemporary trope. His mood 24 hours a day is governed most by what haunts him, with only occasional forays into distractions, including the pleasures of life.
This is almost exactly the opposite of the literary Bond, who seems more interested in living his life to the fullest, including through such distractions as good food and drink, gambling, women, cars, and the thrill of the chase when on a mission. What intrudes from time to time is the psychological cost of killing people for a living and not always being able to save those who deserve it. The easiest way to see the distinction is how joyless Craig's Bond is, whether making love or whatever. If Connery's Bond was, perhaps, too invested in the having fun part of being James Bond, Craig's Bond is too invested in the brooding and suffering.
As I've stated elsewhere, this makes sense for Casino Royale (where, ironically, we've probably seen the most well-rounded version of Bond in the three Craig films so far), and might make sense for one more film after. But by the third film, it feels like Bond is pretty stunted emotionally, his needle stuck in the same groove -- like a comic book character. This makes him more one-dimensional rather than as deep as I think some people are reading him. Instead, one might expect that after a decade in the secret service, he achieve some greater sense of emotional autonomy and dimension.
Mendes seems determined to keep running with the Freudian childhood angle -- again, like Bruce Wayne. Depending on how much Spectre is treated as part one of a two-part story that is Bond 25, Bond may be no further along at the end of this film than the beginning. To me, this is dragging things out too long. If a man by middle age hasn't come to terms with himself, including just how colossal a waste of time living in the past is when there may be fewer years ahead than behind, he is not flawed. He's stupid. And that's not Bond, not in the case of Fleming or any film version so far.
Just to name a few scenes where he's far from joyless:
His scenes with Agent Fields - he is clearly enjoying the banter and his intimacy with her
The scene with Vesper on the train - he's clearly relishing the dialogue
His recovery at the health clinic with Vesper, not to mention the scene with M. Mendel
The scenes in the hotel room and subsequently the Floating Casino with Moneypenny
Btw - Naomi Harris as Moneypenny is superb. She's an excellent actress and I've loved her since the Pirates of the Caribbean films. -{
I agree with this, and I think it was unnecessary.
He should have "been Bond" and allowed to fully "be Bond" after the excellent final scene of Casino Royale.
The "becoming Bond" has gone on far too long (right to the end of Skyfall). I feel some of Craig's tenure has been wasted by this decision. Which is a shame.
Bond was evolving into an experienced agent. In SF Bond was shown as an
Experienced agent, due to his injuries he was underperforming, but as soon as
He removed the bullet fragments, he was back to his old self.
In SF, I think DC played Bond, as the other actors. He was suave and funny with
a few great one-liners, walked with a swagger and seemed to be having fun.
So I think Craig's Bond is fully formed, of course he'll have new experiences and
Adventures. Which I'm certain will show Bond as human, less superman, dealing
With his Demons., as although he's fully formed, it doesn't mean he can't learn
anything.