The way to keep Bond fresh is not to focus on the inner landscape but by having exciting locations, cars, conflicts, plots and gadgets. Bond's world is an extroverted place and exploring his inner world is a big mistake. He doesn't need to compete with Bourne.
First of all, I am really sick and **** tired of the Bourne comparison crap. Enough already, we all heard it before. James Bond still makes jokes, seduces women, drives fast cars, nitpicks on his food and drink, and gets into larger then life situations. Bourne is straight faced, he hates what the CIA did to him, his situations are grounded more in real life, and he as no time for fun at all. Bond isn't Bourne, he's nothing like Bourne, end of story.
I agree that Bond doesn't need to compete with Bourne but that's exactly what it has started doing to the detriment of the franchise.
And that is because they have gone somewhere they shouldnt - inside Bonds head. Do we see Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan being psychoanalyzed? We do a bit with Brosnan which is where the rot started to set in and now its all gone completely pear shaped.
Why shouldn't they go inside Bond's head? I think it's better we get to see the inner turmoil rather than just cheering on a man who seems indifferent to killing and maiming. I have a keen interest in psychology and I enjoy the analysis.
The reason is because if you bring psychological realism into Bond which has always been escapist fantasy then the escapism disappears. Bond is hard drinking, womanising and kills people for a living - I do not want to know how someone like that really ticks because it will reveal that he is a sad and soulless individual who I cannot like but only pity. Real people who kill for a living are not the slightest bit likeable and there is no pleasure in learning about their suffering. At this rate Bond will end up as a reality TV show! All I want is to be entertained by pure escapism. Thats where the real joy has always been in Bond films. If we are shown his suffering then we are in Bourne territory where the focus is shifted to destroying the source of the suffering (eg the CIA) so that the audience can sympathise. I dont want Bond to be like Bourne. I do want new and interesting villains, gadgets, locations and so on because it works as a formula.
The old formula was starting to get stale, it was being done to death. A shake up is exactly what was needed. In my view the films got steadily worse with each of Brosnan's outings and after DAD it was clear a change was needed.
I agree that the formula was indeed getting stale, but I also felt that QoS was the same stale formula hidden behind poor editing and anemic creativity.
One of my hopes was that Eon would ditch the formula for at least one film to create a 'tin-can' adventure, like Die Hard or Air Force One, where the whole story is Bond trapped in a nuclear plant or vault or something where he matches wits with some villianous organization mano e mano. Such a scenario would be an excellent platform for getting inside Bond's own head. For me, movies like QoS might change the style, but not the substance. IMO every film had it's own 'style' (less so in the Glen/Moore era) so in that regard QoS is just an unimpressive entry in a string of Bond films.
delicious, thesecretagent is right. It's obvious that you can't enjoy Bond at this point. You obviously can't handle adding any sort of depth to the series.
I agree that the formula was indeed getting stale, but I also felt that QoS was the same stale formula hidden behind poor editing and anemic creativity.
QOS was a weak film but it's problem certaintly wasn't being formulaic. It just needed a better secound unit director and interesting scheme.
One of my hopes was that Eon would ditch the formula for at least one film to create a 'tin-can' adventure, like Die Hard or Air Force One, where the whole story is Bond trapped in a nuclear plant or vault or something where he matches wits with some villianous organization mano e mano.
That isn't Bond though. That concept of being trapped under the villian's scheme in a building, airplane, etc. has been repeated so many times in other films that for Bond to do it would be a huge step backwards.
Bond really needs to be in a suspense thriller in the vein of Hitchcock films, we never really had one like that. NORTH BY NORTHWEST had a huge influence on first two Bond films.
I think the perfect plot would be based on 007 in New York, not using that mundane title of course. The girl Bond is to suppose to contact gets kidnapped, that's it. We don't need any huge scheme in every Bond film. A game of cat and mouse with the villian. An excuse to finally get away from the bloated action.
And that is because they have gone somewhere they shouldnt - inside Bonds head. Do we see Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan being psychoanalyzed? We do a bit with Brosnan which is where the rot started to set in and now its all gone completely pear shaped.
The way to keep Bond fresh is not to focus on the inner landscape but by having exciting locations, cars, conflicts, plots and gadgets. Bond's world is an extroverted place and exploring his inner world is a big mistake. He doesn't need to compete with Bourne.
Why shouldn't they go inside Bond's head? I think it's better we get to see the inner turmoil rather than just cheering on a man who seems indifferent to killing and maiming. I have a keen interest in psychology and I enjoy the analysis.
I have two objections to this. One, he isn't a psych case. You say that you have a keen interest in psychology, as do I, however this need to psychoanalyse Bond and treat him as a case study infuriates me. Not everyone who kills for a living are psychopathic; not everyone who sleeps with hundreds of women do so because they want to fill a void, and not every fictional character can be summed up in a few fashionable sentences of psycho-gabble (and I say that as someone with a deep admiration for psychology.) My second objection is that the whole 'getting inside Bond's head' is IMO nonsence. It means nothing. Not only is the writing terrible but it doesn't put us (or me) inside Bond's head. Instead, I just want to shoot Haggis and co for writing these dreadful lines and I will never forgive Campbell for the psychoanalysis in GE (such as the "misogynist dinosaur" scene which was wrong on so many levels) and which also led to the scene in M's apartment in CR; IMO one of the worst scenes in the history of Bond.
QOS was a weak film but it's problem certaintly wasn't being formulaic. It just needed a better secound unit director and interesting scheme.
I hated QOS; it's my least favourite Bond film. The editing was terrible, the villain was non-existent, Craig was horrible, Dench annoyed me even more than usual, the screenplay was horrifyingly bad, the direction was unimpressive, Bond came across to me as a violent, soulless brute whom I never cared for nor wanted to spend around 106 minutes with, and I just felt that the film was incredibly colourless and over-long by 106 minutes, or so.
I think the perfect plot would be based on 007 in New York, not using that mundane title of course. The girl Bond is to suppose to contact gets kidnapped, that's it. We don't need any huge scheme in every Bond film. A game of cat and mouse with the villian.
That would be great, and to use the title, perhaps someone could refer to Bond as being in New York.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
delicious, thesecretagent is right. It's obvious that you can't enjoy Bond at this point. You obviously can't handle adding any sort of depth to the series.
Rick, the problem is that I, for one, don't think that CR or QOS added any depth to the series. DN, for example, had IMO more depth in its beautiful pinkie finger than CR and QOS had in their entire bodies. CR and QOS, two of my least favourite films, came across to me as wannabes. They want to come across as intelligent and important, but in reality, I think they were as shallow as DAD. I didn't leave either film knowing Bond nearly as much as I did with many other Bond films. Calling Bond a "blunt instrument" and having that whole wretched scene in M's apartment, having Bond suck Vesper's fingers, having Bond tell her that "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours", having IMO that ridiculous scene on the train and having Vesper kill herself for no good reason does not give CR depth. Similarly, having Bond embark on a killing spree in the name of a woman who died a death that quite frankly I wasn't convinced was necessary (although I'm happy she did it :v) does not give QOS depth.
Rick, I know that alot of people will passionately disagree that CR and QOS lacked depth, so let me just say, that the reason why some of us oppose CR and QOS is not because we dislike adding depth to the series but because we disagree that CR and QOS had any depth to begin with.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Fleming loved to get inside Bond's head, up to and including have him psychoanalyzed. Very appropriate place for a Bond film to be IMO, and one of the things I greatly appreciate about QOS. :007)
"I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours",
was terrible. And not just the line, the entire development, which led to the line did not convince me at all.
I also have to agree, that the conversation in the train was the same league as the entire Miami airport action scenes have been
DS, you are doing a really good job in getting CR from my favourite's list, but I still like it. Thanks Dan!
Opposite with QoS and it does not get any better with repetitive viewings
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The reason is because if you bring psychological realism into Bond which has always been escapist fantasy then the escapism disappears.
But the new films aren't (or don't seem to be ) aiming at escapist fantasy. We have the old films for that. I too could quite easily say I hate the new films because they differ so much from their predecesors. After first watching CR I wasn't impressed, however, instead of letting it irritate me I decided to take it as it was and not what I thought it should be. After reframing my objections to the reboot I found I actually prefered it to the previous films. CR is my favourite Bond film now and QoS is in my top 10.
I appreciate that the reboot may not be to everybody's taste but I do believe if some people let go of their preconceptions about what a Bond film should be then they may enjoy them more. Maybe not everybody, maybe not anybody but it's a thought.
My second objection is that the whole 'getting inside Bond's head' is IMO nonsence. It means nothing. Not only is the writing terrible but it doesn't put us (or me) inside Bond's head. Instead, I just want to shoot Haggis and co for writing these dreadful lines and I will never forgive Campbell for the psychoanalysis in GE (such as the "misogynist dinosaur" scene which was wrong on so many levels) and which also led to the scene in M's apartment in CR; IMO one of the worst scenes in the history of Bond.
I respect your views but I don't agree, I like some of those scenes and think they offer something a bit different. I particularly like the scene in M's office in GE. I do agree about the scene in M's apartment in CR though. Not a huge fan of that one, it seems like a mis-step for the film. The others seem to fit ok imo.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
I respect your views but I don't agree, I like some of those scenes and think they offer something a bit different. I particularly like the scene in M's office in GE.
I do agree about the scene in M's apartment in CR though. Not a huge fan of that one, it seems like a mis-step for the film. The others seem to fit ok imo.
It's funny; discussing this scene makes me kind of miss HH. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Opposite with QoS and it does not get any better with repetitive viewings
I can imagine.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
One of my hopes was that Eon would ditch the formula for at least one film to create a 'tin-can' adventure, like Die Hard or Air Force One, where the whole story is Bond trapped in a nuclear plant or vault or something where he matches wits with some villianous organization mano e mano.
That isn't Bond though.
Actually, it is Bond. Some of Fleming's best additions to the Bond canon were terse, isolated stories like The Living Daylights, For Your Eyes Only, From a View to a Kill, and even The Spy Who Loved Me. To contend that Eon shouldn't do something because it's a popular idea flies into the whole concept of the direction of QoS in the first place. I think a tin-can type story is perfectly suited for an cinematic version aspect of the literary Bond. To say something like 'that isn't Bond' is almost like saying 'That's not in the formula."
Actually, it is Bond. Some of Fleming's best additions to the Bond canon were terse, isolated stories like The Living Daylights, For Your Eyes Only, From a View to a Kill, and even The Spy Who Loved Me. To contend that Eon shouldn't do something because it's a popular idea flies into the whole concept of the direction of QoS in the first place. I think a tin-can type story is perfectly suited for an cinematic version aspect of the literary Bond. To say something like 'that isn't Bond' is almost like saying 'That's not in the formula."
I have read those stories, numerous times actually, and that isn't what you are suggesting at all because you said Die Hard and other films of it's ilk. What you are suggesting is just a run-of-the-mill action films of the 90's did and gives no distinction to the series, that is exactly what happened during the Brosnan era. I think my suggestion of 007 in New York is a perfect example of having that one on one and staying intune with Fleming's Bond.
DN, for example, had IMO more depth in its beautiful pinkie finger than CR and QOS had in their entire bodies.
DN didn't add any particular depth to the series at all but it set the right atmosphere, an atmosphere I wish we could go back to. Casino Royale, overall, is a superior film in terms of character development and story. Really the first time I cared about Bond as a character outside of the novels.
CR and QOS, two of my least favourite films, came across to me as wannabes. They want to come across as intelligent and important, but in reality, I think they were as shallow as DAD. I didn't leave either film knowing Bond nearly as much as I did with many other Bond films. Calling Bond a "blunt instrument" and having that whole wretched scene in M's apartment, having Bond suck Vesper's fingers, having Bond tell her that "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours", having IMO that ridiculous scene on the train and having Vesper kill herself for no good reason does not give CR depth. Similarly, having Bond embark on a killing spree in the name of a woman who died a death that quite frankly I wasn't convinced was necessary (although I'm happy she did it :v) does not give QOS depth.
Then you must hate the same thing in the novel. It wasn't for "no good reason", she killed her self because of the shame she felt. And yes, there was weak dialogue and bloated action but it's the usual hangover syndrome that an era feels. I also honestly don't know how you can so no depth was added that all, sorry I find that a very strange statement. Craig as Bond reacts to what he does, when he murders someone he sometimes has a dry wit but nothing too humorous. It's clear that the killing is getting to him, cited in some of his conversations with M, Vesper, Mathis, and Felix Leiter. Again the dialogue was shaky but the point was clear, the job gets to him. Also to say he was in a "killing spree" in QOS was ridiculous. How many people were gunned down like Rambo during the Brosnan era ? 8-) In QOS it was only a few murders, same goes for CR but it's more intense, that's all. Also being with Camille was an illustration to Bond that vegence for killing was getting him no where, he had to move on. That is why he doesn't kill the Alegerian Boyfriend, he has come full circle in his emotionally development.
What I really want is a traditional Bond film with Clive Owen. Probably will never happen though.
...Die Hard and other films of it's ilk. What you are suggesting is just a run-of-the-mill action films of the 90's did and gives no distinction to the series, that is exactly what happened during the Brosnan era.
I was providing Die Hard as an example of what a 'tin-can' story was for the sake anyone who had never heard the term. I don't think that the Brosnan era brought Bond to new heights of genius. But If we're worried about making a Bond film that is distinguished from 'run-of-the-mill' action movies, then I feel QoS is an excellent example of failure (and even CR) since Eon has made conscious efforts to strip the films of those particular elements that had distinguished Bond movies from other cinematic counterparts. I think I'd enjoy seeing a film that retains the fun, familiar Bond elements but applies them to a different (if not 'new') action concept.
I was providing Die Hard as an example of what a 'tin-can' story was for the sake anyone who had never heard the term.
Then you cited the wrong film if you wanted a good example of what you are talking about.
I don't think that the Brosnan era brought Bond to new heights of genius. But If we're worried about making a Bond film that is distinguished from 'run-of-the-mill' action movies, then I feel QoS is an excellent example of failure (and even CR) since Eon has made conscious efforts to strip the films of those particular elements that had distinguished Bond movies from other cinematic counterparts. I think I'd enjoy seeing a film that retains the fun, familiar Bond elements but applies them to a different (if not 'new') action concept.
Again I have to disagree that EON did anything to strip Bond of any distinction of what it is. I am not going repeat myself again but I already stated that the large then life plots were still there and rich atmosphere.
delicious, thesecretagent is right. It's obvious that you can't enjoy Bond at this point. You obviously can't handle adding any sort of depth to the series.
No what Im say is that depth wont work with Bond. I love depth in other films and genres (eg Bourne...) but we cant go there with Bond and still have the escapism.
No what Im say is that depth wont work with Bond. I love depth in other films and genres (eg Bourne...) but we cant go there with Bond and still have the escapism.
You're stating this as fact, when in reality it's just your opinion. Have you read the books? Bond has depth (in my opinion...)
You know what they say about opinions!-{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited August 2009
All I'll say at this point is that Sir James Molony might disagree that Bond shouldn't be psychoanalyzed
IMHO, QoS gave us couple of very nice---if fleeting!---moments of reflection that define the character of James Bond, as written by Ian Fleming. Some who've read Fleming will surely disagree---as will those haven't, and have no interest in doing so ?:) ) Fleming was very judicious in how he let the reader be a part of Bond's inner workings,* and it's good that Eon has been equally spare...but after 47 years and 22 films, I personally think it's appropriate to thicken the weave of the tapestry a bit.
*Fleming always described James Bond as a blunt instrument who was carried along by the action of the novel...but after a few adventures, we began to see more and more---in the OHMSS novel, and of course the riveting follow-up, YOLT---and IMNO it's pretty cool that the film franchise (after shuffling the order of the stories, turning some of them into dinner theatre-style slapstick and offering sometimes wildly uneven pastiches of past incarnations), has found itself at the same point that Fleming did: It's time to tell the fans a little bit more about who James Bond is. It worked in the novels...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No what Im say is that depth wont work with Bond. I love depth in other films and genres (eg Bourne...) but we cant go there with Bond and still have the escapism.
You're stating this as fact, when in reality it's just your opinion. Have you read the books? Bond has depth (in my opinion...)
You know what they say about opinions!-{
Im not talking about the literary Bond but the cinematic one. They are two very different and distinct creatures. EON created the cinematic Bond (Connery) and he is quite different to the one in the novels. In DN we are totally focussed on the external and Connery is not a blunt instrument but a very suave one. He is like a school boy who has never really grown up - someone who learned early on that he was a bully and found a useful way of using this talent in the service of his country with a few perks on the side. Thats all we need o know about him. The interest in the film is the mystery of Dr No and his organisation and the plot which moves Bond ever closer to a final confrontation with him. The "inside" of the film if you like is Dr No's lair, not Bond's head.
I find Fleming's writing style turgid and middle-of-the-road and yes I have read most of the books although it was a real struggle at times. Fleming comes across as a second-rate Raymond Chandler, a writer who who can write well.
Bond is better on film than in the books - lighter, freer and able to create moments of pure joy. I take the submarine car as my typical example but there are many others - Dalton waking up in Sanchez's lair in a bedroom decorated with apalling 80s kitsch and being accepted by Sanchez as a new hitman.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree. Conservatives would like a mo(o)re traditional formula bound Bond. And renaissance crowd would like a Flemings Bond.
IMHO you just can't compare QoS to Bourne more than you can compare The Formula to Austin Powers. The thing is that while they have some of the same elements, the feel is completely different. Bond is the hunter, Bourne is the hunted.
Now that gives me an idea "007 In New York" - Bond goes after Bourne )
Anyways while some folk claim that Bond was on a killing spree on QoS I see no evidence of this, he did engage in a lot of violent activity, but mostly it was in selfdefence, there is only the killing of the Bolivian chief of police, that is a clear murder.
What I did like in QoS is that what H2H there was, it was short and brutal, like that in DN or FRWL or indeed the novels. Now comparing to Bourne where the violence is allways portrayed in a way that is long, acrobatic and overly complicated, very much highlighting Bourne's supremacy in the arts of killing. You did not see that in QoS and it was not because of editing .
Summa summarum; I do not feel that QoS was a very good movie, it has its faults, but it was better Bond movie than anything made in the Dalton, Brosnan or Moore eras. Craig is not my favourite Bond, Connery was way better, Lazenby was better and Dalton suffered unfairly from plain bad writing and directing. I do wellcome this change and am eagerly waiting for the next one.
What I would love to see is Bond that is even more that of the novels, both in character and in story.
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion: but I'm glad I don't share it. My enjoyment of the books has been ongoing since I was 12 (I'm 40). The movies? Metso-metso...
I'm still waiting for a film noir version of Live and Let Die filmed in period in black and white, strictly by the book.
Something tells me I'll have to make it myself. )
DN, for example, had IMO more depth in its beautiful pinkie finger than CR and QOS had in their entire bodies.
DN didn't add any particular depth to the series at all but it set the right atmosphere, an atmosphere I wish we could go back to.
I think it did add depth. I learned more about Bond during the scene in which he was introduced as well as during the conversation scene with Dr No than I learned from CR/QOS put together. I learned about Bond's passion for the finer things in life, his willingness to take risks, his insecurites about being compared to ordinary law enforcement, his curiosity, his willingness or tendency to annoy and anger those in authority and his eye for detail.
Casino Royale, overall, is a superior film in terms of character development and story. Really the first time I cared about Bond as a character outside of the novels.
According to you. I don't consider CR to be a superior film to DN in any aspect, let alone character developement and especially story.
What if I did? :v I actually can't comment on this. I'm currently reading the novel, but I'm yet to reach the end. However, I doubt I would hate the novel for the same reason, as during the film, it was as much due to the writing as anything else that I didn't get why she killed herself.
It wasn't for "no good reason", she killed her self because of the shame she felt.
NP said it best; "Forgive Vespar. She gave her life for you. Um, not ultimately. She topped herself in a fit of shame and mortification that Bond has found her out. Left some daft clues behind. I mean, it's not great. Quantum walk away with the cash, she's killed, Bond nearly killed. Nice old building bites the dust." I agree with him.
I also honestly don't know how you can so no depth was added that all, sorry I find that a very strange statement.
It's because CR to me is like Haggis's Crash; a self-important film which wants to be taken seriously but which IMO has nothing of substance. I mentioned all of the dialogue which I disliked; I didn't walk away thinking that I really understood Bond's character, as the film IMO was so obvious, simplistic and artificial.
My favourite Bond film is GF. In it my favourite scene was the conversation scene between Bond and Goldfinger in which Goldfinger revealed his plan. It's a wonderful scene in which we learn about Goldfinger's vanity, as well as Bond's admiration for those who master their craft. I learned more watching Bond's and Goldfinger's facial expression during this scene than I learned during the whole of CR and QOS.
It's clear that the killing is getting to him, cited in some of his conversations with M, Vesper, Mathis, and Felix Leiter. Again the dialogue was shaky but the point was clear, the job gets to him.
Also to say he was in a "killing spree" in QOS was ridiculous. How many people were gunned down like Rambo during the Brosnan era ? 8-) In QOS it was only a few murders, same goes for CR but it's more intense, that's all.
It's not ridiculous. The films occupy different realities, and quite frankly, I found Craig's Bond in QOS (a film which is meant to be more realistic than TND) to be ugly and overly violent. I didn't emphasise with him at all.
Also being with Camille was an illustration to Bond that vegence for killing was getting him no where, he had to move on. That is why he doesn't kill the Alegerian Boyfriend, he has come full circle in his emotionally development.
I'm sorry, but I didn't like the relationship with Camille at all. Not only did I not buy that revenge angle (plus, it's a little annoying having everyone out for revenge) but I also found her to be rather unmemorable and I wasn't given any indication that being with her 'was an illustration to Bond that vegence for killing was getting him no where.' That leaves the final scene. Now, I admitt that I don't remember it full detail since it's been a while since I saw the film. However I do remember that both CR and QOS made a huge leap from 'Vesper tries to help boyfriend' to 'boyfriend is this huge villain...' 8-) Regardless, I do remember watching the film, and thinking that Bond incongruously fell in love with Vesper, suddenly turned into a kind of killing machine, and then suddenly 'comes full circle in his emotionally development?' Please. 8-)
What I really want is a traditional Bond film with Clive Owen. Probably will never happen though.
Yes, thank god.
This shows why we disagree on CR/QOS, as we clearly want differerent things from Bond.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
However I do remember that both CR and QOS made a huge leap from 'Vesper tries to help boyfriend' to 'boyfriend is this huge villain...
What are you talking about ? Watch the film again. Bond found out he was a fraud and he takes advantage of women in the way he did for Vesper, Quantum was the bad guy and that never changed. That is why he wasn't killed until the very end of the film.
I wasn't given any indication that being with her 'was an illustration to Bond that vegence for killing was getting him no where.'
Because all she had to look foward to was killing one man, she was consumed with just vengence and had nothing to look foward to.
What if I did? I actually can't comment on this. I'm currently reading the novel, but I'm yet to reach the end. However, I doubt I would hate the novel for the same reason, as during the film, it was as much due to the writing as anything else that I didn't get why she killed herself.
It's really obvious, I don't understand how it couldn't be anymore clear cut. She felt shame after betraying Bond and being unable to face him, she commited suicide. She did the same thing in the novel.
"Forgive Vespar. She gave her life for you. Um, not ultimately. She topped herself in a fit of shame and mortification that Bond has found her out. Left some daft clues behind. I mean, it's not great. Quantum walk away with the cash, she's killed, Bond nearly killed. Nice old building bites the dust."
Making a dumb summary of something can take away any merit of any film.
Comments
I agree that Bond doesn't need to compete with Bourne but that's exactly what it has started doing to the detriment of the franchise.
The reason is because if you bring psychological realism into Bond which has always been escapist fantasy then the escapism disappears. Bond is hard drinking, womanising and kills people for a living - I do not want to know how someone like that really ticks because it will reveal that he is a sad and soulless individual who I cannot like but only pity. Real people who kill for a living are not the slightest bit likeable and there is no pleasure in learning about their suffering. At this rate Bond will end up as a reality TV show! All I want is to be entertained by pure escapism. Thats where the real joy has always been in Bond films. If we are shown his suffering then we are in Bourne territory where the focus is shifted to destroying the source of the suffering (eg the CIA) so that the audience can sympathise. I dont want Bond to be like Bourne. I do want new and interesting villains, gadgets, locations and so on because it works as a formula.
I agree that the formula was indeed getting stale, but I also felt that QoS was the same stale formula hidden behind poor editing and anemic creativity.
One of my hopes was that Eon would ditch the formula for at least one film to create a 'tin-can' adventure, like Die Hard or Air Force One, where the whole story is Bond trapped in a nuclear plant or vault or something where he matches wits with some villianous organization mano e mano. Such a scenario would be an excellent platform for getting inside Bond's own head. For me, movies like QoS might change the style, but not the substance. IMO every film had it's own 'style' (less so in the Glen/Moore era) so in that regard QoS is just an unimpressive entry in a string of Bond films.
QOS was a weak film but it's problem certaintly wasn't being formulaic. It just needed a better secound unit director and interesting scheme.
That isn't Bond though. That concept of being trapped under the villian's scheme in a building, airplane, etc. has been repeated so many times in other films that for Bond to do it would be a huge step backwards.
Bond really needs to be in a suspense thriller in the vein of Hitchcock films, we never really had one like that. NORTH BY NORTHWEST had a huge influence on first two Bond films.
I think the perfect plot would be based on 007 in New York, not using that mundane title of course. The girl Bond is to suppose to contact gets kidnapped, that's it. We don't need any huge scheme in every Bond film. A game of cat and mouse with the villian. An excuse to finally get away from the bloated action.
I have two objections to this. One, he isn't a psych case. You say that you have a keen interest in psychology, as do I, however this need to psychoanalyse Bond and treat him as a case study infuriates me. Not everyone who kills for a living are psychopathic; not everyone who sleeps with hundreds of women do so because they want to fill a void, and not every fictional character can be summed up in a few fashionable sentences of psycho-gabble (and I say that as someone with a deep admiration for psychology.) My second objection is that the whole 'getting inside Bond's head' is IMO nonsence. It means nothing. Not only is the writing terrible but it doesn't put us (or me) inside Bond's head. Instead, I just want to shoot Haggis and co for writing these dreadful lines and I will never forgive Campbell for the psychoanalysis in GE (such as the "misogynist dinosaur" scene which was wrong on so many levels) and which also led to the scene in M's apartment in CR; IMO one of the worst scenes in the history of Bond.
I hated QOS; it's my least favourite Bond film. The editing was terrible, the villain was non-existent, Craig was horrible, Dench annoyed me even more than usual, the screenplay was horrifyingly bad, the direction was unimpressive, Bond came across to me as a violent, soulless brute whom I never cared for nor wanted to spend around 106 minutes with, and I just felt that the film was incredibly colourless and over-long by 106 minutes, or so.
As someone who loved GE and TWINE, please bring back the Brosnan years.
What I really want is a traditional Bond film with Clive Owen. Probably will never happen though.
That would be great,
Rick, I know that alot of people will passionately disagree that CR and QOS lacked depth, so let me just say, that the reason why some of us oppose CR and QOS is not because we dislike adding depth to the series but because we disagree that CR and QOS had any depth to begin with.
was terrible. And not just the line, the entire development, which led to the line did not convince me at all.
I also have to agree, that the conversation in the train was the same league as the entire Miami airport action scenes have been
DS, you are doing a really good job in getting CR from my favourite's list, but I still like it. Thanks Dan!
Opposite with QoS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But the new films aren't (or don't seem to be
I appreciate that the reboot may not be to everybody's taste but I do believe if some people let go of their preconceptions about what a Bond film should be then they may enjoy them more. Maybe not everybody, maybe not anybody but it's a thought.
I respect your views but I don't agree, I like some of those scenes and think they offer something a bit different. I particularly like the scene in M's office in GE. I do agree about the scene in M's apartment in CR though. Not a huge fan of that one, it seems like a mis-step for the film. The others seem to fit ok imo.
It's funny; discussing this scene makes me kind of miss HH.
I can imagine.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Actually, it is Bond. Some of Fleming's best additions to the Bond canon were terse, isolated stories like The Living Daylights, For Your Eyes Only, From a View to a Kill, and even The Spy Who Loved Me. To contend that Eon shouldn't do something because it's a popular idea flies into the whole concept of the direction of QoS in the first place. I think a tin-can type story is perfectly suited for an cinematic version aspect of the literary Bond. To say something like 'that isn't Bond' is almost like saying 'That's not in the formula."
I have read those stories, numerous times actually, and that isn't what you are suggesting at all because you said Die Hard and other films of it's ilk. What you are suggesting is just a run-of-the-mill action films of the 90's did and gives no distinction to the series, that is exactly what happened during the Brosnan era. I think my suggestion of 007 in New York is a perfect example of having that one on one and staying intune with Fleming's Bond.
DN didn't add any particular depth to the series at all but it set the right atmosphere, an atmosphere I wish we could go back to. Casino Royale, overall, is a superior film in terms of character development and story. Really the first time I cared about Bond as a character outside of the novels.
Then you must hate the same thing in the novel. It wasn't for "no good reason", she killed her self because of the shame she felt. And yes, there was weak dialogue and bloated action but it's the usual hangover syndrome that an era feels. I also honestly don't know how you can so no depth was added that all, sorry I find that a very strange statement. Craig as Bond reacts to what he does, when he murders someone he sometimes has a dry wit but nothing too humorous. It's clear that the killing is getting to him, cited in some of his conversations with M, Vesper, Mathis, and Felix Leiter. Again the dialogue was shaky but the point was clear, the job gets to him. Also to say he was in a "killing spree" in QOS was ridiculous. How many people were gunned down like Rambo during the Brosnan era ? 8-) In QOS it was only a few murders, same goes for CR but it's more intense, that's all. Also being with Camille was an illustration to Bond that vegence for killing was getting him no where, he had to move on. That is why he doesn't kill the Alegerian Boyfriend, he has come full circle in his emotionally development.
Yes, thank god.
I was providing Die Hard as an example of what a 'tin-can' story was for the sake anyone who had never heard the term. I don't think that the Brosnan era brought Bond to new heights of genius. But If we're worried about making a Bond film that is distinguished from 'run-of-the-mill' action movies, then I feel QoS is an excellent example of failure (and even CR) since Eon has made conscious efforts to strip the films of those particular elements that had distinguished Bond movies from other cinematic counterparts. I think I'd enjoy seeing a film that retains the fun, familiar Bond elements but applies them to a different (if not 'new') action concept.
Then you cited the wrong film if you wanted a good example of what you are talking about.
Again I have to disagree that EON did anything to strip Bond of any distinction of what it is. I am not going repeat myself again but I already stated that the large then life plots were still there and rich atmosphere.
Yes. Of course. I don't know what I was thinking. 8-)
No what Im say is that depth wont work with Bond. I love depth in other films and genres (eg Bourne...) but we cant go there with Bond and still have the escapism.
You're stating this as fact, when in reality it's just your opinion. Have you read the books? Bond has depth (in my opinion...)
You know what they say about opinions!-{
IMHO, QoS gave us couple of very nice---if fleeting!---moments of reflection that define the character of James Bond, as written by Ian Fleming. Some who've read Fleming will surely disagree---as will those haven't, and have no interest in doing so ?:)
*Fleming always described James Bond as a blunt instrument who was carried along by the action of the novel...but after a few adventures, we began to see more and more---in the OHMSS novel, and of course the riveting follow-up, YOLT---and IMNO it's pretty cool that the film franchise (after shuffling the order of the stories, turning some of them into dinner theatre-style slapstick and offering sometimes wildly uneven pastiches of past incarnations), has found itself at the same point that Fleming did: It's time to tell the fans a little bit more about who James Bond is. It worked in the novels...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Im not talking about the literary Bond but the cinematic one. They are two very different and distinct creatures. EON created the cinematic Bond (Connery) and he is quite different to the one in the novels. In DN we are totally focussed on the external and Connery is not a blunt instrument but a very suave one. He is like a school boy who has never really grown up - someone who learned early on that he was a bully and found a useful way of using this talent in the service of his country with a few perks on the side. Thats all we need o know about him. The interest in the film is the mystery of Dr No and his organisation and the plot which moves Bond ever closer to a final confrontation with him. The "inside" of the film if you like is Dr No's lair, not Bond's head.
I find Fleming's writing style turgid and middle-of-the-road and yes I have read most of the books although it was a real struggle at times. Fleming comes across as a second-rate Raymond Chandler, a writer who who can write well.
Bond is better on film than in the books - lighter, freer and able to create moments of pure joy. I take the submarine car as my typical example but there are many others - Dalton waking up in Sanchez's lair in a bedroom decorated with apalling 80s kitsch and being accepted by Sanchez as a new hitman.
That's all I need to say to that.
This gets two
Your post has been a great laugh delicious, especially after I watched Casino Royale tonight.
IMHO you just can't compare QoS to Bourne more than you can compare The Formula to Austin Powers. The thing is that while they have some of the same elements, the feel is completely different. Bond is the hunter, Bourne is the hunted.
Now that gives me an idea "007 In New York" - Bond goes after Bourne
Anyways while some folk claim that Bond was on a killing spree on QoS I see no evidence of this, he did engage in a lot of violent activity, but mostly it was in selfdefence, there is only the killing of the Bolivian chief of police, that is a clear murder.
What I did like in QoS is that what H2H there was, it was short and brutal, like that in DN or FRWL or indeed the novels. Now comparing to Bourne where the violence is allways portrayed in a way that is long, acrobatic and overly complicated, very much highlighting Bourne's supremacy in the arts of killing. You did not see that in QoS and it was not because of editing
Summa summarum; I do not feel that QoS was a very good movie, it has its faults, but it was better Bond movie than anything made in the Dalton, Brosnan or Moore eras. Craig is not my favourite Bond, Connery was way better, Lazenby was better and Dalton suffered unfairly from plain bad writing and directing. I do wellcome this change and am eagerly waiting for the next one.
What I would love to see is Bond that is even more that of the novels, both in character and in story.
-Mr Arlington Beech
I take it from the sarcasm of the above that I've won the argument. I can live with that.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion: but I'm glad I don't share it. My enjoyment of the books has been ongoing since I was 12 (I'm 40). The movies? Metso-metso...
I'm still waiting for a film noir version of Live and Let Die filmed in period in black and white, strictly by the book.
Something tells me I'll have to make it myself.
Oy god, that isn't sarcasm. I really was laughing at your ridiculous post that is not even worth addressing.
According to you. I don't consider CR to be a superior film to DN in any aspect, let alone character developement and especially story.
What if I did? :v I actually can't comment on this. I'm currently reading the novel, but I'm yet to reach the end. However, I doubt I would hate the novel for the same reason, as during the film, it was as much due to the writing as anything else that I didn't get why she killed herself.
NP said it best; "Forgive Vespar. She gave her life for you. Um, not ultimately. She topped herself in a fit of shame and mortification that Bond has found her out. Left some daft clues behind. I mean, it's not great. Quantum walk away with the cash, she's killed, Bond nearly killed. Nice old building bites the dust." I agree with him.
So I should blame DAD for the bad dialogue in CR? Sorry, don't buy that. Plus, what about QOS? Do I then blame CR for the horrendous dialogue in QOS?
It's because CR to me is like Haggis's Crash; a self-important film which wants to be taken seriously but which IMO has nothing of substance. I mentioned all of the dialogue which I disliked; I didn't walk away thinking that I really understood Bond's character, as the film IMO was so obvious, simplistic and artificial.
My favourite Bond film is GF. In it my favourite scene was the conversation scene between Bond and Goldfinger in which Goldfinger revealed his plan. It's a wonderful scene in which we learn about Goldfinger's vanity, as well as Bond's admiration for those who master their craft. I learned more watching Bond's and Goldfinger's facial expression during this scene than I learned during the whole of CR and QOS.
True, and it comes down to whether one appreciates more humour. I do.
It wasn't clear to me. I didn't see it at all.
It's not ridiculous. The films occupy different realities, and quite frankly, I found Craig's Bond in QOS (a film which is meant to be more realistic than TND) to be ugly and overly violent. I didn't emphasise with him at all.
I'm sorry, but I didn't like the relationship with Camille at all. Not only did I not buy that revenge angle (plus, it's a little annoying having everyone out for revenge) but I also found her to be rather unmemorable and I wasn't given any indication that being with her 'was an illustration to Bond that vegence for killing was getting him no where.' That leaves the final scene. Now, I admitt that I don't remember it full detail since it's been a while since I saw the film. However I do remember that both CR and QOS made a huge leap from 'Vesper tries to help boyfriend' to 'boyfriend is this huge villain...' 8-) Regardless, I do remember watching the film, and thinking that Bond incongruously fell in love with Vesper, suddenly turned into a kind of killing machine, and then suddenly 'comes full circle in his emotionally development?' Please. 8-)
This shows why we disagree on CR/QOS, as we clearly want differerent things from Bond.
What are you talking about ? Watch the film again. Bond found out he was a fraud and he takes advantage of women in the way he did for Vesper, Quantum was the bad guy and that never changed. That is why he wasn't killed until the very end of the film.
Because all she had to look foward to was killing one man, she was consumed with just vengence and had nothing to look foward to.
It's really obvious, I don't understand how it couldn't be anymore clear cut. She felt shame after betraying Bond and being unable to face him, she commited suicide. She did the same thing in the novel.
Making a dumb summary of something can take away any merit of any film.