Exactly Barbel. We pay good money to the cinema because we want a couple of hours away from our lives...we want to be transported If I wanted 'realism' I'd go and start a fight in a pub.
To be honest I LOVE Timothy Dalton as Bond. Have you ever watched the Bond films in order? After Roger Moore watching Dalton is like e4xperiencing Bond in 3D...and Daltons' a good looking...you know the rest. He took Bond too literally though. Moved away from the cinematic Bond to much. I wish he had of brought the swashbuckling nature to his performance that he brought to Flash Gordon...but that was Daltons choice. As it stands I think his performance in The Living Daylights was the best performance by any Bond actor. Yet in terms of whose the best Bond? I would say Sean Connery...he defined the role. Between him and Terence Young they knew what a filmic Bond needed.
SP and SF work for me as action films, but I watched all the Bond films ( including the unofficial ones ) a few weeks ago. TBH Roger Moore knew when he was in a stupid film and acted accordingly. It was still entertaining to watch. Craig did QOS, SF and SP and didn't realise this simple truth, he took it seriously. Dalton took it too seriously too ( and he was capable of so much more, unlike Craig ).
TBH Roger Moore knew it was ridiculous and decided to play to the audience, so did Connery ( and Brosnan to a lesser degree ). Craig doesn't realise this. He's trying to internalise a character that comes from a time from over 60 years ago with out the context of where that characters coming from. I truely believe a real, gritty version of James Bond, that is true toi the source material, must be a period piece. That's who Bond truely is. Thats why Moore and Brosnan had to play him for jokes, because he's a type of man that doesn't exist in the 21st century. He's a man out of time. Craig doesn't realise this, so his performance is adrift, lost to the mechanicsa of bad scriptwriting.
If I was writing it I would make Bond a sexist in a wry way, like it doesn't really matter what Bond's views are. He gets the job done and he gets laid...no justification required. Modernise the character by leaving him the way he is. He's a spy....he can get away with it. The scrptwriters don't need to make excuses for him...just aknowledge what he is...it worked in Goldeneye for a reason.
Craig is a gritty Bond, but not a realistic Bond, but a lot of that is due to the writing and not just his wooden portrayal. Dalton had both grittiness and realism. I wouldn't mind both, but also with a touch of the classic cinematic Bond.
Craigs gritty simply because modern filmmaking makes him bleed matt. To be honest if I was as charmless as Craig I'd never get laid. I know in the older films all Roger Moore had to do was walk into a room and women would be throwing themselves at him...but is Craigs Bond any more realistic? At least Sir Rog tried to be charming...Craigs incapable of that, so what does he have? At least I could believe Moore disarmed women with his charm. Craig doesn't even have that...so what exactly does he have?
Yeah, I'd love a post post modern take on Bond, someone who succeeds in spite of his sexism and misogeny. Bonds an icon, if one wants to comment on whats outdated about him don't change Bond, give a more honest portrayal of how people react to him. Thats why Goldeneye worked like gangbusters IMO.
True. This world building nonsense franchises do nowadays has become so contrived. They've just made both Blofelds' and Bonds' world so much smaller. Then again, there hasn't been a tight, character driven script for Bond since Goldeneye IMO. Sean Beans line about the martinis silencing the screams of all Bonds' kills or whatever it was says more about Bond than all the women leading Bond by the hand in Casino Royale ever said...and don't get me started on Skyfall. Silva was a second rate Joker from The Dark Knight rip off. At least the Jokers plans didn't seem contrived by the script the way Silva's did.
All Craigs' films have demonstrated to me that they weren't written by true adults. Look at the scene that introduces Bond in Dr No. Can anyone point to one scene in any of the recent films that so economically drew character for it's audience? It's a lost art if you ask me ( although nobody asked but how and ever ).
I think the Train scene in CR has something of that quality without slipping into Pastiche. Like most things in the 'Bondiverse ' it has its fair share of admirers and those who don't care for it at all. For me however it got the tone right.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I ain't into video games so I never played Goldeneye the game Matt. I ain't saying Goldeneye was a masterpiece...but it was tightly written and shone a light on Bond's character without altering him.
I agree Brosnan was good in TWINE but some of the writing in that film undermined the character such as shoehorning Denise Richards into it. Her presence lessened the emotional impact of Bond killing Electra. The ending was played for laughs. It became a very shallow film IMO.
The train scene in CR was probably the best scene in that film Zaphod, but even then I'm reminded of the old writers rule 'show, don't tell'. The scene I referred to in Dr No wasn't about characters figuring out mini bios for each other. In that scene in Dr No we were shown Bond doing what Bond does, in the train scene in CR we were told who Bond was. Imagine if Die Hard took a break in the middle of the film for characters to tell each other who each other was? It would break the integrity of a tightly written film. We already know who John McClane is because his character was conveyed through his actions just like Bond in Dr No. The closest Die Hard came to explaining who it's hero was was Rickman mocking McClane because he grew up watching John Wayne, but Rickman never went on a ramble about McClanes childhood. What CRs train scene did was babble on but that's why I wasn't impressed with that script. If it had been more tightly written a lot of scenes in CR would become completely unnecessary IMO.
Also IMO the train scene was Craig's chance to really impress as Bond and he failed miserably. He's too uptight and unappealing for my liking.
The train scene in CR was probably the best scene in that film Zaphod, but even then I'm reminded of the old writers rule 'show, don't tell'. The scene I referred to in Dr No wasn't about characters figuring out mini bios for each other. In that scene in Dr No we were shown Bond doing what Bond does, in the train scene in CR we were told who Bond was. Imagine if Die Hard took a break in the middle of the film for characters to tell each other who each other was? It would break the integrity of a tightly written film. We already know who John McClane is because his character was conveyed through his actions just like Bond in Dr No. The closest Die Hard came to explaining who it's hero was was Rickman mocking McClane because he grew up watching John Wayne, but Rickman never went on a ramble about McClanes childhood. What CRs train scene did was babble on but that's why I wasn't impressed with that script. If it had been more tightly written a lot of scenes in CR would become completely unnecessary IMO.
Also IMO the train scene was Craig's chance to really impress as Bond and he failed miserably. He's too uptight and unappealing for my liking.
If you think the train scene is the best scene in CR, you must dislike the film more than I do! It was so poorly written and so poorly acted. I agree with all your criticism about it.
Sorry Matt, I mean't the best dialogue scene...but even at that I find it was poorly written. I also hate the way Mathis explains the rules to Vesper during the poker playing. I understand some people needed it explained but God...did it come across as poker for dummies. Also I forgot about the torture scene, that was good.
My main gripe with CR is that Craig, at 38, was playing a character who was only learning how to behave like a responsible, cultured adult ( learning from women too not from his own experience lol ). Personally I learned how to behave by the time I was 23 so for me Bond's character arc was not only unbelievable, but immature. Craig was too old for that part IMO. Also deconstructing Bond's character by emasculating him flies in the face of who Bond is supposed to be. No wonder they never mentioned Bond was a Commander in Craig's film's. Having life experience before he met Vesper would fly in the face of NuBond's character arc.
In CR06 Bond is a very simplistic character with an unbelievable character arc. If they really wanted to update the character they should have made him an Iraqi war veteran or something IMO. Fleming was a WW2 veteran so he had a good footing in understanding the nuances behind a man like Bond. Purvis and Wade are merely hacks whose only experience of conflict is probably playing soldiers as children. Nothing in their lives has prepared them to understand a character like Bond and IMO this is reflected in their writing of him.
Sorry Matt, I mean't the best dialogue scene...but even at that I find it was poorly written. I also hate the way Mathis explains the rules to Vesper during the poker playing. I understand some people needed it explained but God...did it come across as poker for dummies. Also I forgot about the torture scene, that was good.
My main gripe with CR is that Craig, at 38, was playing a character who was only learning how to behave like a responsible, cultured adult ( learning from women too not from his own experience lol ). Personally I learned how to behave by the time I was 23 so for me Bond's character arc was not only unbelievable, but immature. Craig was too old for that part IMO. Also deconstructing Bond's character by emasculating him flies in the face of who Bond is supposed to be. No wonder they never mentioned Bond was a Commander in Craig's film's. Having life experience before he met Vesper would fly in the face of NuBond's character arc.
In CR06 Bond is a very simplistic character with an unbelievable character arc. If they really wanted to update the character they should have made him an Iraqi war veteran or something IMO. Fleming was a WW2 veteran so he had a good footing in understanding the nuances behind a man like Bond. Purvis and Wade are merely hacks whose only experience of conflict is probably playing soldiers as children. Nothing in their lives has prepared them to understand a character like Bond and IMO this is reflected in their writing of him.
I think the train scene is one of the worst scenes of the entire Bond series!
I agree that Craig's Bond's character arc is unbelievable and makes little sense for someone in his late 30s. I don't mind the poker explanation so much, but I mind that they changed the game to poker to follow the poker boom of the time. The explanation of baccarat in the 1954 Casino Royale was good (and necessary for the audience), but it's also a much simpler game to explain and understand.
Why do you think it's the worst scene when there's thing's like Tarzan yells and CGI surfing in the franchise Matt?
I'm glad someone agrees with me. I get tired of people saying Craig's the best Bond ever and CR06 is the best Bond film. I know when a film's BSing me and CR06 is full of it IMO.
I would prefer if it was Baccarat too, it just feels much more classy than Texas Holdem to me ( I also don't like Texas Holdem personally, I prefer straight poker. I also think wearing sunglasses while your playing is cheating because the other player's can't intuitively read you. I refuse to play with anyone who wear's sunglasses ). As rubbish as CR67 is I thought Peter Sellers came across as more engaged than Craig opposite LeChiffre and he wasn't even on set at the same time as Orson Welles.
When it come's to screenwrting Hollywood's in an awful state IMO.
Why do you think it's the worst scene when there's thing's like Tarzan yells and CGI surfing in the franchise Matt?
I'm glad someone agrees with me. I get tired of people saying Craig's the best Bond ever and CR06 is the best Bond film. I know when a film's BSing me and CR06 is full of it IMO.
I would prefer if it was Baccarat too, it just feels much more classy than Texas Holdem to me ( I also don't like Texas Holdem personally, I prefer straight poker. I also think wearing sunglasses while your playing is cheating because the other player's can't intuitively read you. I refuse to play with anyone who wear's sunglasses ). As rubbish as CR67 is I thought Peter Sellers came across as more engaged than Craig opposite LeChiffre and he wasn't even on set at the same time as Orson Welles.
When it come's to screenwrting Hollywood's in an awful state IMO.
The Tarzan yell is a short moment. The rest of the scene is at least entertaining. The CGI surfing is up there as one of the worst along with the train scene. The film makers of both thought they were doing something really special, and both turned out to be rubbish.
Peter Sellers was a far more talented actor than Craig ever has been or will be.
I was disgusted after watching Spectre. These people who made this film live comfortably and are well paid yet don't know how to write good drama...so what are they earning money from it for?
Personal connections doesn't equal depth of character and higher stakes narrative thrust.
Seriously...what do you people think Ian Fleming would make of what they did to both Bond and Blofeld? It's lazy, amateurish writing. The fact that Austin Powers did it first ( which I always took to be Myers parody of the plot twist in The Empire Strikes Back ) only adds to how badly written Spectre was.
I'm surprised more Bond fans aren't up in arms about this. Giving Bond and Blofeld even loose familial connections ruins the integrity of both characters. Oh it's personal so the stakes are higher...give me a break. I'm a relatively intelligent adult, I expect more from my entertainments.
I guess 21st century Latte drinking hacks taking a character created in the 1950's and trying to add depth is asking too much. They obviously don't understand who Bond is. He's a professional but the writers obviously aren't.
Most Bond fans hate this about Spectre.
I don't think the writers realise that the personal connection actually makes the stakes so much lower. It's no longer about Bond saving the world, only about him saving himself.
I Second Matt's statement, don't think I know anyone who didn't think that was a laughably stupid idea.
Why do you think it's the worst scene when there's thing's like Tarzan yells and CGI surfing in the franchise Matt?
I'm glad someone agrees with me. I get tired of people saying Craig's the best Bond ever and CR06 is the best Bond film. I know when a film's BSing me and CR06 is full of it IMO.
I would prefer if it was Baccarat too, it just feels much more classy than Texas Holdem to me ( I also don't like Texas Holdem personally, I prefer straight poker. I also think wearing sunglasses while your playing is cheating because the other player's can't intuitively read you. I refuse to play with anyone who wear's sunglasses ). As rubbish as CR67 is I thought Peter Sellers came across as more engaged than Craig opposite LeChiffre and he wasn't even on set at the same time as Orson Welles.
When it come's to screenwrting Hollywood's in an awful state IMO.
The Tarzan yell is a short moment. The rest of the scene is at least entertaining. The CGI surfing is up there as one of the worst along with the train scene. The film makers of both thought they were doing something really special, and both turned out to be rubbish.
Peter Sellers was a far more talented actor than Craig ever has been or will be.
It's at times like these when I forget on what kind of topic I'm on ) .
Yeah Matt. I actually like Octopussy overall. I don't personally think the train scene is that bad. I just find it obvious and too explicit in what its saying. It's not subtle at all really.
What would you say is the best written film in the franchise?
That's true...Seller's could be great. I've yet to see Craig do anything great though. I don't think he's capable of it myself.
Yeah Matt. I actually like Octopussy overall. I don't personally think the train scene is that bad. I just find it obvious and too explicit in what its saying. It's not subtle at all really.
What would you say is the best written film in the franchise?
That's true...Seller's could be great. I've yet to see Craig do anything great though. I don't think he's capable of it myself.
I think From Russia with Love is the best-written Bond film.
I had a couple comments about the foster brother thing, but see that hasn't been the topic for two pages now, but since I'm thinking them I might as well post:
the first Tim Burton Batman film was an early offender in this sort of plotting ... in the comics, Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by a random thug named Joe Chill, but Burton made a pre-freak-accident Joker the murderer, so that in the final scene the two antagonists could face each other and say "you made me" "no you made me" ... I never knew why they did that, but Burton did it again in the next film where both Catwoman and Penguin are related to Christopher Walken's character, who is Bruce Wayne's business rival
this is now typical of almost all comic book films, I think all of Spiderman's villains were somehow related to Peter Parker; in the 1st Iron Man film, evil Jeff Bridges in Tony Starks business partner; in Captain America the Red Skull becomes another supersoldier formula test subject
for some reason the hero's origin always starts a chain of repercussions leading to the creation of antagonists who would not otherwise exist, as if a random universe in which evil pre-exists would be so difficult for an audience to comprehend
so now James Bond follows this plot structure too ... maybe next film they should reveal the Soviet Union only existed because of something Bond did as a child?
I agree Caractacus but at least when Batman89 was released such connections hadn't become jaded by then.
I LOVE The Dark Knight screenplay and one of the reason's it work's is because the Joker just show's up with no backstory, which is probably one reason why Ledger's Joker is considered so iconic. The only explanation we need is Alfred describing what kind of man he is ( which says as much about what Bruce doesn't know about his foe, great writing ). It's also probably one of the reason's Bond became so iconic in the 60's...he just show's up fully formed...no justifications needed. This naval gazing in modern cinema is just time wasting in my opinion. I believe storytelling in action cinema should be about economy, such as how Bond was conveyed in Dr No.
It's mindboggling to me that the Broccoli's don't realise that their painting the Bond franchise into a corner, I could see where it was heading in 2006 when I saw CR. I have to admit though, I never thought it would get as idiotic as it got in Skyfall and especially Spectre. I hadn't seen Spectre until last week because I lost interest in Bond because of the contrived, nonsensical writing. I only watched it because I picked up the DVD on the cheap. I felt my intelligence had been insulted so badly I was compelled to reply to the topic here.
I know it happen's in many film's nowaday's and it's just as small minded, short sighted and contrived as it is in Bond. That's what really annoy's me about modern Hollywood. Those people are garnering awards and becoming millionaires for it yet they don't know how to write a decent script. World building it's called, so why does it all feel so small? I could go into a long detailed post about how these last four Bond film's are systematically ruining the character of Bond but it's actually getting worse now. By connecting everything like that they are also ruining the world he inhabits. I wouldn't mind but it's not even consistent from film to film. Seeing Bond looking at all the pictures of the previous films characters I was thinking 'Am I supposed to be involved in this film? Am I supposed to care?' I mean it got ridiculous. It felt like cynical manipulation at it's worst, so I disengaged from the film ( which I was getting bored with anyway ). Bond films in the past might not have been 'gritty' and 'realistic' but at least most of them had internal logic so I felt involved in the story. Look at Skyfall. Bond figure's out the BG was a sex slave which obviously was traumatic for that character. The film made me care about her...so what does Bond do? He shows up unannounced in her shower. Then he make's a daring escape from Silva just after Silva kills her ( and Bond says a bad joke while as usual Craig delivers the line without making an acting choice to convey to me what Bond is thinking ), not before. You tell me...why should I care about Bond? It's no wonder I gave up on these films.
I don't think it's really about screenwriters thinking that the audience needs to understand where evil comes from, I just think Hollywood writers these days just don't know how to write character. They think connecting and explaining everything is the same as depth of character. It's very shallow time's we live in.
Yeah they should do that with Russia. Film heroes nowadays have a hand in creating the evil they fight. Afterall, who doesn't want their screen heroes to come across as less heroic? Like I said...those people are ruining Bond.
I don't mean any offence, but it's a little difficult to read your posts with your frequent misuse of apostrophes. They are only used for possessives and contractions, just about never for plurals unless it's a letter like "There are two S's in Messervy". "film's" is a possessive, not a plural:
"The film's script was horrible." vs "There are 24 official Bond films."
Also "it's" and "its". The first is a contraction and the second is a possessive:
Thats cool Matt. I'm just trying to get my opinions across. Obviously I have the same script editor as the Bond screenwriters! )
I certainly enjoy hearing your opinions!
Me too -{
It's great to hear other's opinions and even though I do enjoy and love the Craig films quite a lot, I totally understand where you're coming from jim 78
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Actually Austin Powers parodied character backstory years before Spectre, except Doctor Evils backstory was more involving than 'Daddy gave you too much attention'.
I think it was a good idea to change the game from Baccarat to Poker. Where baccarat is purely a game of chance, poker is not and, although poorly executed, fits nicely in the movie.
What I don’t understand is why they had to make this Bond’s first assignment as a 00 agent. Nowhere in the novel was it mentioned that Bond had just became a 00. From the way I read the novel, Bond is an experienced agent in Casino Royale and they could have easily kept it that way in the movie. Wasn’t it Cubby himself who said that the audience didn’t want to see Bond as a blundering rookie?
they finally get the rights to Casino Royale after decades of it being owned by a rival, and the story already having been filmed twice
they make an adaptation that treats the source material with almost Masterpiece Theatre style reverence
obviously they know how indebted they are to Fleming
they finally get the rights to McClory's intellectual properties, basically Thunderball, which has already been filmed twice
and they throw out everything except the meeting scene and instead adapt a well-known James Bond parody into the official James Bond canon
its almost like they did that deliberately as a big F.U. to McClory, as in "we'd rather adapt a Mike Myers plot than whatever you've claimed to have written"
all that Dr Evil & Mr Bigglesworth stuff was mocking the elements McClory claimed copywrite to, so instead of treating it with reverence like Fleming's ideas, they drew attention to how parody-worthy these precious concepts really were
Comments
To be honest I LOVE Timothy Dalton as Bond. Have you ever watched the Bond films in order? After Roger Moore watching Dalton is like e4xperiencing Bond in 3D...and Daltons' a good looking...you know the rest. He took Bond too literally though. Moved away from the cinematic Bond to much. I wish he had of brought the swashbuckling nature to his performance that he brought to Flash Gordon...but that was Daltons choice. As it stands I think his performance in The Living Daylights was the best performance by any Bond actor. Yet in terms of whose the best Bond? I would say Sean Connery...he defined the role. Between him and Terence Young they knew what a filmic Bond needed.
SP and SF work for me as action films, but I watched all the Bond films ( including the unofficial ones ) a few weeks ago. TBH Roger Moore knew when he was in a stupid film and acted accordingly. It was still entertaining to watch. Craig did QOS, SF and SP and didn't realise this simple truth, he took it seriously. Dalton took it too seriously too ( and he was capable of so much more, unlike Craig ).
TBH Roger Moore knew it was ridiculous and decided to play to the audience, so did Connery ( and Brosnan to a lesser degree ). Craig doesn't realise this. He's trying to internalise a character that comes from a time from over 60 years ago with out the context of where that characters coming from. I truely believe a real, gritty version of James Bond, that is true toi the source material, must be a period piece. That's who Bond truely is. Thats why Moore and Brosnan had to play him for jokes, because he's a type of man that doesn't exist in the 21st century. He's a man out of time. Craig doesn't realise this, so his performance is adrift, lost to the mechanicsa of bad scriptwriting.
If I was writing it I would make Bond a sexist in a wry way, like it doesn't really matter what Bond's views are. He gets the job done and he gets laid...no justification required. Modernise the character by leaving him the way he is. He's a spy....he can get away with it. The scrptwriters don't need to make excuses for him...just aknowledge what he is...it worked in Goldeneye for a reason.
Yeah, I'd love a post post modern take on Bond, someone who succeeds in spite of his sexism and misogeny. Bonds an icon, if one wants to comment on whats outdated about him don't change Bond, give a more honest portrayal of how people react to him. Thats why Goldeneye worked like gangbusters IMO.
Yes, but not for some years now.
I think the Train scene in CR has something of that quality without slipping into Pastiche. Like most things in the 'Bondiverse ' it has its fair share of admirers and those who don't care for it at all. For me however it got the tone right.
I agree Brosnan was good in TWINE but some of the writing in that film undermined the character such as shoehorning Denise Richards into it. Her presence lessened the emotional impact of Bond killing Electra. The ending was played for laughs. It became a very shallow film IMO.
Also IMO the train scene was Craig's chance to really impress as Bond and he failed miserably. He's too uptight and unappealing for my liking.
If you think the train scene is the best scene in CR, you must dislike the film more than I do! It was so poorly written and so poorly acted. I agree with all your criticism about it.
My main gripe with CR is that Craig, at 38, was playing a character who was only learning how to behave like a responsible, cultured adult ( learning from women too not from his own experience lol ). Personally I learned how to behave by the time I was 23 so for me Bond's character arc was not only unbelievable, but immature. Craig was too old for that part IMO. Also deconstructing Bond's character by emasculating him flies in the face of who Bond is supposed to be. No wonder they never mentioned Bond was a Commander in Craig's film's. Having life experience before he met Vesper would fly in the face of NuBond's character arc.
In CR06 Bond is a very simplistic character with an unbelievable character arc. If they really wanted to update the character they should have made him an Iraqi war veteran or something IMO. Fleming was a WW2 veteran so he had a good footing in understanding the nuances behind a man like Bond. Purvis and Wade are merely hacks whose only experience of conflict is probably playing soldiers as children. Nothing in their lives has prepared them to understand a character like Bond and IMO this is reflected in their writing of him.
I think the train scene is one of the worst scenes of the entire Bond series!
I agree that Craig's Bond's character arc is unbelievable and makes little sense for someone in his late 30s. I don't mind the poker explanation so much, but I mind that they changed the game to poker to follow the poker boom of the time. The explanation of baccarat in the 1954 Casino Royale was good (and necessary for the audience), but it's also a much simpler game to explain and understand.
I'm glad someone agrees with me. I get tired of people saying Craig's the best Bond ever and CR06 is the best Bond film. I know when a film's BSing me and CR06 is full of it IMO.
I would prefer if it was Baccarat too, it just feels much more classy than Texas Holdem to me ( I also don't like Texas Holdem personally, I prefer straight poker. I also think wearing sunglasses while your playing is cheating because the other player's can't intuitively read you. I refuse to play with anyone who wear's sunglasses ). As rubbish as CR67 is I thought Peter Sellers came across as more engaged than Craig opposite LeChiffre and he wasn't even on set at the same time as Orson Welles.
When it come's to screenwrting Hollywood's in an awful state IMO.
The Tarzan yell is a short moment. The rest of the scene is at least entertaining. The CGI surfing is up there as one of the worst along with the train scene. The film makers of both thought they were doing something really special, and both turned out to be rubbish.
Peter Sellers was a far more talented actor than Craig ever has been or will be.
What would you say is the best written film in the franchise?
That's true...Seller's could be great. I've yet to see Craig do anything great though. I don't think he's capable of it myself.
I think From Russia with Love is the best-written Bond film.
the first Tim Burton Batman film was an early offender in this sort of plotting ... in the comics, Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by a random thug named Joe Chill, but Burton made a pre-freak-accident Joker the murderer, so that in the final scene the two antagonists could face each other and say "you made me" "no you made me" ... I never knew why they did that, but Burton did it again in the next film where both Catwoman and Penguin are related to Christopher Walken's character, who is Bruce Wayne's business rival
this is now typical of almost all comic book films, I think all of Spiderman's villains were somehow related to Peter Parker; in the 1st Iron Man film, evil Jeff Bridges in Tony Starks business partner; in Captain America the Red Skull becomes another supersoldier formula test subject
for some reason the hero's origin always starts a chain of repercussions leading to the creation of antagonists who would not otherwise exist, as if a random universe in which evil pre-exists would be so difficult for an audience to comprehend
so now James Bond follows this plot structure too ... maybe next film they should reveal the Soviet Union only existed because of something Bond did as a child?
I LOVE The Dark Knight screenplay and one of the reason's it work's is because the Joker just show's up with no backstory, which is probably one reason why Ledger's Joker is considered so iconic. The only explanation we need is Alfred describing what kind of man he is ( which says as much about what Bruce doesn't know about his foe, great writing ). It's also probably one of the reason's Bond became so iconic in the 60's...he just show's up fully formed...no justifications needed. This naval gazing in modern cinema is just time wasting in my opinion. I believe storytelling in action cinema should be about economy, such as how Bond was conveyed in Dr No.
It's mindboggling to me that the Broccoli's don't realise that their painting the Bond franchise into a corner, I could see where it was heading in 2006 when I saw CR. I have to admit though, I never thought it would get as idiotic as it got in Skyfall and especially Spectre. I hadn't seen Spectre until last week because I lost interest in Bond because of the contrived, nonsensical writing. I only watched it because I picked up the DVD on the cheap. I felt my intelligence had been insulted so badly I was compelled to reply to the topic here.
I know it happen's in many film's nowaday's and it's just as small minded, short sighted and contrived as it is in Bond. That's what really annoy's me about modern Hollywood. Those people are garnering awards and becoming millionaires for it yet they don't know how to write a decent script. World building it's called, so why does it all feel so small? I could go into a long detailed post about how these last four Bond film's are systematically ruining the character of Bond but it's actually getting worse now. By connecting everything like that they are also ruining the world he inhabits. I wouldn't mind but it's not even consistent from film to film. Seeing Bond looking at all the pictures of the previous films characters I was thinking 'Am I supposed to be involved in this film? Am I supposed to care?' I mean it got ridiculous. It felt like cynical manipulation at it's worst, so I disengaged from the film ( which I was getting bored with anyway ). Bond films in the past might not have been 'gritty' and 'realistic' but at least most of them had internal logic so I felt involved in the story. Look at Skyfall. Bond figure's out the BG was a sex slave which obviously was traumatic for that character. The film made me care about her...so what does Bond do? He shows up unannounced in her shower. Then he make's a daring escape from Silva just after Silva kills her ( and Bond says a bad joke while as usual Craig delivers the line without making an acting choice to convey to me what Bond is thinking ), not before. You tell me...why should I care about Bond? It's no wonder I gave up on these films.
I don't think it's really about screenwriters thinking that the audience needs to understand where evil comes from, I just think Hollywood writers these days just don't know how to write character. They think connecting and explaining everything is the same as depth of character. It's very shallow time's we live in.
Yeah they should do that with Russia. Film heroes nowadays have a hand in creating the evil they fight. Afterall, who doesn't want their screen heroes to come across as less heroic? Like I said...those people are ruining Bond.
I don't mean any offence, but it's a little difficult to read your posts with your frequent misuse of apostrophes. They are only used for possessives and contractions, just about never for plurals unless it's a letter like "There are two S's in Messervy". "film's" is a possessive, not a plural:
"The film's script was horrible." vs "There are 24 official Bond films."
Also "it's" and "its". The first is a contraction and the second is a possessive:
"It's the worst film because of its script."
I certainly enjoy hearing your opinions!
Me too -{
It's great to hear other's opinions and even though I do enjoy and love the Craig films quite a lot, I totally understand where you're coming from jim 78
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk
What I don’t understand is why they had to make this Bond’s first assignment as a 00 agent. Nowhere in the novel was it mentioned that Bond had just became a 00. From the way I read the novel, Bond is an experienced agent in Casino Royale and they could have easily kept it that way in the movie. Wasn’t it Cubby himself who said that the audience didn’t want to see Bond as a blundering rookie?
they finally get the rights to Casino Royale after decades of it being owned by a rival, and the story already having been filmed twice
they make an adaptation that treats the source material with almost Masterpiece Theatre style reverence
obviously they know how indebted they are to Fleming
they finally get the rights to McClory's intellectual properties, basically Thunderball, which has already been filmed twice
and they throw out everything except the meeting scene and instead adapt a well-known James Bond parody into the official James Bond canon
its almost like they did that deliberately as a big F.U. to McClory, as in "we'd rather adapt a Mike Myers plot than whatever you've claimed to have written"
all that Dr Evil & Mr Bigglesworth stuff was mocking the elements McClory claimed copywrite to, so instead of treating it with reverence like Fleming's ideas, they drew attention to how parody-worthy these precious concepts really were