Guys, guys... remember it's not entirely in their hands. They can try to (and will) change things, but in the end it's EON's call. Though one can (legitimately) critique Babs's and Wilson's choices, they have quite a lot of input. Sadly, the money (and the 50% of the rights) is needed, and that's why we have to wait for MGM, but much worse things than Spyglass could have happened.
Besides, why hasn't anyone commented how appropriate is to have Bond distributed by Spyglass?
I just read an article that claims the next Bond will start filming mid/late next year for release in 2012...I hope they let Daniel Craig finish the Quantum story. Which will probably be his last unless they do two films at once which I doubt.
Eh, why are we having this chat? Craig is still on, but only won't be if maybe the next film takes ages to start up, in which case everyone we're thinking of bar Cavill would be too old.
Hmm....if filming begins late summer or fall 2011, are we looking at the first summer release of a Bond film since LTK? Ever since the box office dissapointment (in the US at least) of LTK EON has stayed away from the summer blockbuster competition. I guess they can always size up the competition and push it into the fall if they wanted to. If it is a summer release, I don't think EON and their partners will repeat the mistake of LTK (which literally snuck into theaters that summer) and the film will be given a huge publicity and marketing campaign. It wouldn't hurt either if Craig's big summer 2011 release "Cowboys and Aliens" is a huge hit.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
I find all this "who should / will be next" talk quite disappointing. Craig is playing a new version of Bond - not the same character originated in the books and that is deliberate. To me its also refreshing. I love all of the actors who have played Bond for playing the character in their own style, but they are variations of a theme, stemming form the novels. - Craig's take on the character has tangible links to the past, but is new. Slightly unhinged and dangerous, but new. QoS was a shambles, but everyone knows that. CR made shed loads of money, and the lead actor had a lot to do with that. Don't get me wrong, the way the Brosnan era ended behind the scenes sucked, to put it politely. - But that the way the industry works.
I am going to wait till the end of October to see how this corporate scuttlebutt pans out. As for Mr Craig, as far as I am concerned, he IS Bond till the day comes that we hear otherwise. Who's to say he could not beat Sir Roger's record?
The Stinger - you are right, there is a nice irony if Spyglass does get ownership!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
not the same character originated in the books and that is deliberate.
Not according the producers. They kept on spouting on how much Craig's Bond reflects Fleming's character and how Casino Royale was the template of the debut film; I fail to see either.
not the same character originated in the books and that is deliberate.
Not according the producers. They kept on spouting on how much Craig's Bond reflects Fleming's character and how Casino Royale was the template of the debut film; I fail to see either.
Personally I think CR is quite loyal to the book. Despite more action scenes and the change from Baccaureat to Texas Hold'em, the film does take quite a lot from the novel. In fact I read the novel for the first time shortly after watching the film and it reminded me of key scenes from the movie. I certainly see the angle the producers were trying to take with the more serious tone. CR is probably one of the most "down to earth" Bond novels.
As for DC reflecting Fleming's character...well sort of. Certainly the idea of him getting hurt physically and emotionally is something the novels explore frequently. I'm not quite so convinced about the recklessness though. Not sure if I can imagine the Fleming Bond shooting dead a suspect before having the chance to interrogate him.
Bond was certainly tough in the novels but he was also a professional. I know CR was an early assignment for the Fleming Bond but I still doubt Fleming would have wanted Bond to do that. Remember when we were introduced to Bond he had already been highly trained and had been a commander in the royal navy. Meh maybe its me.
In general however I think CR is one of the more faithful adaptations when compared to some of the other films (Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever come to mind).
not the same character originated in the books and that is deliberate.
Not according the producers. They kept on spouting on how much Craig's Bond reflects Fleming's character and how Casino Royale was the template of the debut film; I fail to see either.
Personally I think CR is quite loyal to the book. Despite more action scenes and the change from Baccaureat to Texas Hold'em, the film does take quite a lot from the novel. In fact I read the novel for the first time shortly after watching the film and it reminded me of key scenes from the movie. I certainly see the angle the producers were trying to take with the more serious tone. CR is probably one of the most "down to earth" Bond novels.
As for DC reflecting Fleming's character...well sort of. Certainly the idea of him getting hurt physically and emotionally is something the novels explore frequently. I'm not quite so convinced about the recklessness though. Not sure if I can imagine the Fleming Bond shooting dead a suspect before having the chance to interrogate him.
Bond was certainly tough in the novels but he was also a professional. I know CR was an early assignment for the Fleming Bond but I still doubt Fleming would have wanted Bond to kill a potential lead, particularly if he had no personal reason to do so (true Bond let a guy get eaten in LALD but that was out of anger after what had happened to Felix). Remember when we were introduced to Bond he had already been highly trained and had been a commander in the royal navy. Meh maybe its me.
In general however I think CR is one of the more faithful adaptations when compared to some of the other films (Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever come to mind).
Not according the producers. They kept on spouting on how much Craig's Bond reflects Fleming's character and how Casino Royale was the template of the debut film; I fail to see either.
Personally I think CR is quite loyal to the book. Despite more action scenes and the change from Baccaureat to Texas Hold'em, the film does take quite a lot from the novel. In fact I read the novel for the first time shortly after watching the film and it reminded me of key scenes from the movie. I certainly see the angle the producers were trying to take with the more serious tone. CR is probably one of the most "down to earth" Bond novels.
As for DC reflecting Fleming's character...well sort of. Certainly the idea of him getting hurt physically and emotionally is something the novels explore frequently. I'm not quite so convinced about the recklessness though. Not sure if I can imagine the Fleming Bond shooting dead a suspect before having the chance to interrogate him.
Bond was certainly tough in the novels but he was also a professional. I know CR was an early assignment for the Fleming Bond but I still doubt Fleming would have wanted Bond to kill a potential lead, particularly if he had no personal reason to do so (true Bond let a guy get eaten in LALD but that was out of anger after what had happened to Felix). Remember when we were introduced to Bond he had already been highly trained and had been a commander in the royal navy. Meh maybe its me.
In general however I think CR is one of the more faithful adaptations when compared to some of the other films (Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever come to mind).
Also, as I have mentioned Craig does look very different from the character I pictured when reading the books (i almost imagined a "toff" like figure - albeit one who could handle himself in a fight).
Personally I think CR is quite loyal to the book. Despite more action scenes and the change from Baccaureat to Texas Hold'em, the film does take quite a lot from the novel. In fact I read the novel for the first time shortly after watching the film and it reminded me of key scenes from the movie. I certainly see the angle the producers were trying to take with the more serious tone. CR is probably one of the most "down to earth" Bond novels.
I don't see much really. Almost no key moment stays in tact from the novel, only vague simularities at best. All they adapt is character names really and the basic concept of bankrupting the enemy at the card table. They added a bunch of noise and dumbed down the emotional part of ordeal.
As for DC reflecting Fleming's character...well sort of. Certainly the idea of him getting hurt physically and emotionally is something the novels explore frequently. I'm not quite so convinced about the recklessness though. Not sure if I can imagine the Fleming Bond shooting dead a suspect before having the chance to interrogate him.
Craig looked about as emotionally and physically hurt as much as any standard action film character, it was none too convincing, we saw him the hospital in a few scenes but back on his feet scenes later. Bond in the novel had to clearly go through a painful physical recovery. The emotional hurt is almost near either. Yeah, he's clearly upset when Vesper died but it's nothing compared to the novel. Fleming's Bond could no longer see the world in black and white after the whole Le Chiffre ordeal. Disillusioned, he fell into the arms of a woman and when she died, it was earth shattering. He once again turned to the secret service for comfort, Casino Royale is very much a tragedy. I enjoy Craig and I think if given a good script, he could actually pull off a better Bond.
Bond was certainly tough in the novels but he was also a professional. I know CR was an early assignment for the Fleming Bond but I still doubt Fleming would have wanted Bond to do that. Remember when we were introduced to Bond he had already been highly trained and had been a commander in the royal navy. Meh maybe its me.
You are right, Bond in the novel was a disciplined secret agent. Casino Royale did not depict a rookie.
In general however I think CR is one of the more faithful adaptations when compared to some of the other films (Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever come to mind).
I'd argue it's no closer than those films. Yes Casino Royale took itself seriously unlike DAF or MR but that dosen't make it any more faithful to the source material.
You clearly know your stuff Ricardo and I certainly see your points. The ending of the novel is much more downbeat to the film ending (although the film ending is still "awesone" from a Bond point of view). It clearly reflects how jaded the character has become and how that, in turn, has spurred him on to go after SMERSH ("he will go after the threat behind the spies").
All I meant really was that the idea of Bond vomiting, having bruises on his chest, being knocked unconcious and tortured was something only the novels had gone into detail over. Usually the movie Bond had remained fairly immaculate up until that point. He certainly never went into a hospital.
I'm not saying Craig is the "closest to Fleming" (personally I don't think he is) but CR gave him quite a strong debut. QoS was a dissapointment and relied far too heavily on action - certainly not a Fleming Bond.
You clearly know your stuff Ricardo and I certainly see your points. The ending of the novel is much more downbeat to the film ending (although the film ending is still "awesone" from a Bond point of view). It clearly reflects how jaded the character has become and how that, in turn, has spurred him on to go after SMERSH ("he will go after the threat behind the spies").
The Casino Royale film simplified all that. It just became going after Quantum because Vesper had died. In the novel it was more than the death of Vesper that devistated Bond, it was a matter of how world view was once again was shattered.
I'm not saying Craig is the "closest to Fleming" (personally I don't think he is) but CR gave him quite a strong debut. QoS was a dissapointment and relied far too heavily on action - certainly not a Fleming Bond.
CR was a good action film IMO but not a Bond film.
CR was a good action film IMO but not a Bond film.
More or less my late father's words. CR was the last film he saw. He wasn't a big Bond fan (it was my grandfather who got me into 007) despite taking me to see GF back in the 60s and enjoying it very much (it remained his favourite). He did enjoy CR but "the hero's name didn't have to be James Bond". I of course pointed out how much of the film was taken from Fleming, but to no avail.
CR was a good action film IMO but not a Bond film.
More or less my late father's words. CR was the last film he saw. He wasn't a big Bond fan (it was my grandfather who got me into 007) despite taking me to see GF back in the 60s and enjoying it very much (it remained his favourite). He did enjoy CR but "the hero's name didn't have to be James Bond". I of course pointed out how much of the film was taken from Fleming, but to no avail.
PS He didn't like DC at all!
I really want to see Craig continue in better films. Did you ever see Archangel ? That's the ideal Bond flick and preformance. Archangel not a brilliant film, far fetched would be an understatement to describe the plot, but it's pretty good.
"He did enjoy CR but "the hero's name didn't have to be James Bond"".
I admit that oddly enough I felt the same after I watched CR for the first time. I thought "this is too serious and not "Bondian" enough". I missed the Pierce Brosnan days and went back to watch Goldeneye (it was, and still is, my favourite Bond film and PB remains my favourite Bond). It was only after seeing it a second time and reading the book that I realised that it was actually quite "Bondian" and maintained a lot of the glamour that you associate with the character. I was suprised in a way at how serious the first novel was (more so than some of Fleming's later books).
Unfortunately I felt that element of glamour was kind of lost in QoS. It was very Americanised and there was something rather generic about the film as a whole. In truth, you could have replaced Bond with someone else and the film would not have been that much different.
Personally I don't know if I'm happy with the "grim" tone the films are taking. I think the producers can make them more serious BUT they need to remember that the novels were also - to an extent - suppose to be larger than life and escapist fantasies. I wouldn't say battling a mad scientist with pincers for hands was the ipitamy of realism, neither facing a deranged Nazi loyalist posing as an English millionaire who planned to destroy London with a nuclear rocket.
I would say that, in a lot of ways, CR is quite a unique Bond novel. After that the adventures started becoming more over-the-top (even the more "serious" ones like FRWL). Bond from then on started to battle dastardly, often physically repulisive villains and usually saved the day. There was always something very human about Bond himself though.
In a lot of ways I'd describe the Fleming Bond as a sophisticated but ordinary man in a very extraordinary world (sounds very pretentious I know lol).
Mr. Bain, I am in agreement with you in so many ways. When I first went to see Goldeneye, I was looking forward to Mr Brosnan's portrayal and I came away completely delighted. The more I watch it, the better I like it.
Recently, I sat and watched both of the latest Bonds, trying to be optimistic and open minded about it, thinking I might have been too harsh in my statements.
There was something missing from them both. First off, there was a lag somewhere in Casino Royale. That lag was ended when I was reminded near the end, when Bond put in his resignation to M. He signed the e-mail "James Bond". I remembered then that when I first saw the movie, I thought to myself: "Oh Yeah! This is supposed to be a James Bond Movie!"
And it had much more violence in it than I had ever seen before.
QoS missed the mark for me completely. The only time I had ever heard a character even referred to was when it was mentioned that he was widowed. There was ONE scene where Bond seduced his associate. It was over in a moment.
The rest was fists flying, men being thrown through windows, falling off of scaffolds, chases, shooting, etc, etc.
It could have been a little more to the point if it had been a Sam Peckenpaw movie.
One of the things that Q mentioned before his removal from the series was "Never let them see you bleed"
It seems that is all I have seen Mr. Craig do, In BOTH the movies. Even shows a lot of bruising as well.
The other thing he said was "Always have an escape plan"
Violence is not what James Bond is about. That seems to be where the franchise is headed, and I hope that someone higher up sees this and corrects it. That would be the only escape I could see right now.
For those of you who like DC as JB, I respect your views, and I feel everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
I just don't agree with it, but I am willing to discuss it.
D.
I have no problem with anyone's opinion re Craig and his suitability as James Bond.....but I was under the impression that this was a Bond 23 thread and as it stands Craig will be Bond once again in 23. Taking all that into consideration, being that DC will be returning as Bond, that it's not the 50's, 60's, etc (and Bond 23 is not going to be a period piece) moving forward what would folks like to see in Bond 23 bearing in mind again that the film will be set in the present. I for one would like to see the Gun Barrel back in place before the pre-title sequence, a theme song at least co-written by David Arnold that is decent enough to be incorporated into the score, and the James Bond theme also back in the score (but not overused like in the Brosnan films). Moneypenney may be a little tricky to reintroduce without it looking forced, but I don't see why there can't be a "Q" sequence (maybe reinvent "Q" as a geeky, boy-wonder, genious type as opposed to old and cranky).
Mr. Bain, I am in agreement with you in so many ways. When I first went to see Goldeneye, I was looking forward to Mr Brosnan's portrayal and I came away completely delighted. The more I watch it, the better I like it.
Recently, I sat and watched both of the latest Bonds, trying to be optimistic and open minded about it, thinking I might have been too harsh in my statements.
There was something missing from them both. First off, there was a lag somewhere in Casino Royale. That lag was ended when I was reminded near the end, when Bond put in his resignation to M. He signed the e-mail "James Bond". I remembered then that when I first saw the movie, I thought to myself: "Oh Yeah! This is supposed to be a James Bond Movie!"
And it had much more violence in it than I had ever seen before.
QoS missed the mark for me completely. The only time I had ever heard a character even referred to was when it was mentioned that he was widowed. There was ONE scene where Bond seduced his associate. It was over in a moment.
The rest was fists flying, men being thrown through windows, falling off of scaffolds, chases, shooting, etc, etc.
It could have been a little more to the point if it had been a Sam Peckenpaw movie.
One of the things that Q mentioned before his removal from the series was "Never let them see you bleed"
It seems that is all I have seen Mr. Craig do, In BOTH the movies. Even shows a lot of bruising as well.
The other thing he said was "Always have an escape plan"
Violence is not what James Bond is about. That seems to be where the franchise is headed, and I hope that someone higher up sees this and corrects it. That would be the only escape I could see right now.
For those of you who like DC as JB, I respect your views, and I feel everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
I just don't agree with it, but I am willing to discuss it.
D.
Really interesting views Danlopez. I have been won over by Casino Royale since the first time I watched it. Yes, it had a much grittier, more violent tone but I think it kept (for the most part) the essentials of a Bond film.
-the glamour
-the intrigue
-the exotic locations on full display
-a little bit of humour
-sassy ladies and truely nasty villains
-some exciting, well staged action scenes
Additionally, it was also directed by Martin Campbell who did Goldeneye. He clearly knows how to direct a Bond film.
QoS just had something missing. The above list was kind of there but it all felt rather half hearted: the plot wasn't wasn't particularly interesting, the other characters were rather bland and forgettable, the locations were more like extras than characters in themselves and the action went into overload. Craig wasn't bad as Bond but he was never really given enough time to explore the more indulgent aspects of the character.
Incidently I have seen an interview with Campbell in Time Out mag. In it he talks briefly about Bond 23 and its potential director Sam Mendes:
What do you think of Sam Mendes directing the next Bond movie?
‘Sam will do a splendid job. I felt “Quantum of Solace” completely lost its way. We were lucky on “Casino Royale”, it was the origin story of Bond. Bond had the one and only affair that meant anything to him, and affected him throughout the rest of the series. I had sympathy for the writers after that because clearly the guy can’t have another meaningful relationship, he’s been fucked over by the last one. But you’ve got to do something with the character, he’s got to go somewhere. I’m sure Sam and Peter Morgan will come up with something. The secret to Bond is to remember it’s Bond. It’s been successful for 22 incarnations. There are a lot of elements that work, so don’t **** with them.’
Whilst I'm a little unsure about Mendes as director (he doesn't seem to have much action experience and COULD fall into the same trap as Marc Foster) I think MC's comments have a lot of truth to them.
We were lucky on “Casino Royale”, it was the origin story of Bond. Bond had the one and only affair that meant anything to him, and affected him throughout the rest of the series.
I know I am sounding picky but thats technically not true. What about Tracy?
(maybe reinvent "Q" as a geeky, boy-wonder, genious type as opposed to old and cranky).
Young and geeky ? Nah. Sounds like something for a Disney channel movie.
If Q does come back, I'd like to see him as an independent agent who creates small arms and gadgets.
Personally I think it would be good for him to still be present but have a more low key role, much like Major Boothroyd in the novels. He would come in, demonstrate the latest weaponary and go out again. It would be brief but he would have an impact on the rest of the film and also be a recurring character. I can't help but feel that if they tried to make another Desmond Llewelyn type figure, comparisons to him will be drawn and the character will be weakened.
Definately need "Q" back, but he can't be a retread of Q's past (I'm including John Cleese's horrible comic take). I wouldn't have a problem with what mrbain007 said re a quiet turn like in Dr. No. However EON has a very capable writer (Morgan) and director (Mendes) so I don't see why they couldn't conjour up a decent characterization of "Q".
(maybe reinvent "Q" as a geeky, boy-wonder, genious type as opposed to old and cranky).
Young and geeky ? Nah. Sounds like something for a Disney channel movie.
If Q does come back, I'd like to see him as an independent agent who creates small arms and gadgets.
Personally I think it would be good for him to still be present but have a more low key role, much like Major Boothroyd in the novels. He would come in, demonstrate the latest weaponary and go out again. It would be brief but he would have an impact on the rest of the film and also be a recurring character. I can't help but feel that if they tried to make another Desmond Llewelyn type figure, comparisons to him will be drawn and the character will be weakened.
Well it would seem like simply going back to a lesser character and not improving anything. I really don't care about Q but if they would bring him back, try something different. I like the idea of him being an independent agent because along the way Bond might find that he also supplies the opposition.
Young and geeky ? Nah. Sounds like something for a Disney channel movie.
If Q does come back, I'd like to see him as an independent agent who creates small arms and gadgets.
Personally I think it would be good for him to still be present but have a more low key role, much like Major Boothroyd in the novels. He would come in, demonstrate the latest weaponary and go out again. It would be brief but he would have an impact on the rest of the film and also be a recurring character. I can't help but feel that if they tried to make another Desmond Llewelyn type figure, comparisons to him will be drawn and the character will be weakened.
Well it would seem like simply going back to a lesser character and not improving anything. I really don't care about Q but if they would bring him back, try something different. I like the idea of him being an independent agent because along the way Bond might find that he also supplies the opposition.
Fair point, the independent agent idea sounds pretty good actually. I'm just not sure whether the old school banter between Q and Bond would work in this tougher style. Also people will be comparing it to DL. I think if they decide on a Boothroyd type figure he should be played by a well known English face so he stays in the audience's mind for longer. Someone like Charles Dance comes into mind (maybe he's a little old??).
Lets face it, DL will always be Q with Bond fans so IMO it would be wrong to try and copy his character completely.
There is actually another thread about this exact subject. Interesting ideas.
IMO whilst it would be interesting to see what can be done with these characters, I don't think thats the top priority. The absence of Q and Monneypenny wasn't really an issue in CR - or even QoS. I think the issue is to balance the serious with the fantasy effectively and remain consistant.
Personally I think it would be good for him to still be present but have a more low key role, much like Major Boothroyd in the novels. He would come in, demonstrate the latest weaponary and go out again. It would be brief but he would have an impact on the rest of the film and also be a recurring character. I can't help but feel that if they tried to make another Desmond Llewelyn type figure, comparisons to him will be drawn and the character will be weakened.
Well it would seem like simply going back to a lesser character and not improving anything. I really don't care about Q but if they would bring him back, try something different. I like the idea of him being an independent agent because along the way Bond might find that he also supplies the opposition.
Fair point, the independent agent idea sounds pretty good actually. I'm just not sure whether the old school banter between Q and Bond would work in this tougher style. Also people will be comparing it to DL. I think if they decide on a Boothroyd type figure he should be played by a well known English face so he stays in the audience's mind for longer. Someone like Charles Dance comes into mind (maybe he's a little old??).
Lets face it, DL will always be Q with Bond fans so IMO it would be wrong to try and copy his character completely.
I imagine this Q would be an underground supplier of necessities for anyone who can afford it; He would make everything ranging from phony IDs to deadly weapons. Over the course of the films he and Bond develop a friendship because this Q is a hermit of sorts. Eventually, Q becomes compromised because though he's making supplies for Bond he more than likely has aided his enemies as well. As a result, Q decides he would solicit his services exclusively to the 00-section at MI6.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
edited September 2010
I think its safe to say the producers will prob be considering all options. Villiers was fine in CR - they may consider another male assistant for M, or even bring him back, and have a female Q. - That would really change the dynamics!
Back on topic, - roll on Oct 29th when we find out what the next stage is on the corporate / number cruncher front. For me its having an impact on Stargate as well as Bond. I also hope if Bond gears up again sooner rather than later, that may have a positive feedback on other potential film franchises for the UK industry. Esp with Potter wrapping up.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Comments
Besides, why hasn't anyone commented how appropriate is to have Bond distributed by Spyglass?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I am going to wait till the end of October to see how this corporate scuttlebutt pans out. As for Mr Craig, as far as I am concerned, he IS Bond till the day comes that we hear otherwise. Who's to say he could not beat Sir Roger's record?
The Stinger - you are right, there is a nice irony if Spyglass does get ownership!
Not according the producers. They kept on spouting on how much Craig's Bond reflects Fleming's character and how Casino Royale was the template of the debut film; I fail to see either.
Personally I think CR is quite loyal to the book. Despite more action scenes and the change from Baccaureat to Texas Hold'em, the film does take quite a lot from the novel. In fact I read the novel for the first time shortly after watching the film and it reminded me of key scenes from the movie. I certainly see the angle the producers were trying to take with the more serious tone. CR is probably one of the most "down to earth" Bond novels.
As for DC reflecting Fleming's character...well sort of. Certainly the idea of him getting hurt physically and emotionally is something the novels explore frequently. I'm not quite so convinced about the recklessness though. Not sure if I can imagine the Fleming Bond shooting dead a suspect before having the chance to interrogate him.
Bond was certainly tough in the novels but he was also a professional. I know CR was an early assignment for the Fleming Bond but I still doubt Fleming would have wanted Bond to do that. Remember when we were introduced to Bond he had already been highly trained and had been a commander in the royal navy. Meh maybe its me.
In general however I think CR is one of the more faithful adaptations when compared to some of the other films (Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever come to mind).
Also, as I have mentioned Craig does look very different from the character I pictured when reading the books (i almost imagined a "toff" like figure - albeit one who could handle himself in a fight).
I don't see much really. Almost no key moment stays in tact from the novel, only vague simularities at best. All they adapt is character names really and the basic concept of bankrupting the enemy at the card table. They added a bunch of noise and dumbed down the emotional part of ordeal.
Craig looked about as emotionally and physically hurt as much as any standard action film character, it was none too convincing, we saw him the hospital in a few scenes but back on his feet scenes later. Bond in the novel had to clearly go through a painful physical recovery. The emotional hurt is almost near either. Yeah, he's clearly upset when Vesper died but it's nothing compared to the novel. Fleming's Bond could no longer see the world in black and white after the whole Le Chiffre ordeal. Disillusioned, he fell into the arms of a woman and when she died, it was earth shattering. He once again turned to the secret service for comfort, Casino Royale is very much a tragedy. I enjoy Craig and I think if given a good script, he could actually pull off a better Bond.
You are right, Bond in the novel was a disciplined secret agent. Casino Royale did not depict a rookie.
I'd argue it's no closer than those films. Yes Casino Royale took itself seriously unlike DAF or MR but that dosen't make it any more faithful to the source material.
All I meant really was that the idea of Bond vomiting, having bruises on his chest, being knocked unconcious and tortured was something only the novels had gone into detail over. Usually the movie Bond had remained fairly immaculate up until that point. He certainly never went into a hospital.
I'm not saying Craig is the "closest to Fleming" (personally I don't think he is) but CR gave him quite a strong debut. QoS was a dissapointment and relied far too heavily on action - certainly not a Fleming Bond.
The Casino Royale film simplified all that. It just became going after Quantum because Vesper had died. In the novel it was more than the death of Vesper that devistated Bond, it was a matter of how world view was once again was shattered.
CR was a good action film IMO but not a Bond film.
More or less my late father's words. CR was the last film he saw. He wasn't a big Bond fan (it was my grandfather who got me into 007) despite taking me to see GF back in the 60s and enjoying it very much (it remained his favourite). He did enjoy CR but "the hero's name didn't have to be James Bond". I of course pointed out how much of the film was taken from Fleming, but to no avail.
PS He didn't like DC at all!
I really want to see Craig continue in better films. Did you ever see Archangel ? That's the ideal Bond flick and preformance. Archangel not a brilliant film, far fetched would be an understatement to describe the plot, but it's pretty good.
I admit that oddly enough I felt the same after I watched CR for the first time. I thought "this is too serious and not "Bondian" enough". I missed the Pierce Brosnan days and went back to watch Goldeneye (it was, and still is, my favourite Bond film and PB remains my favourite Bond). It was only after seeing it a second time and reading the book that I realised that it was actually quite "Bondian" and maintained a lot of the glamour that you associate with the character. I was suprised in a way at how serious the first novel was (more so than some of Fleming's later books).
Unfortunately I felt that element of glamour was kind of lost in QoS. It was very Americanised and there was something rather generic about the film as a whole. In truth, you could have replaced Bond with someone else and the film would not have been that much different.
Personally I don't know if I'm happy with the "grim" tone the films are taking. I think the producers can make them more serious BUT they need to remember that the novels were also - to an extent - suppose to be larger than life and escapist fantasies. I wouldn't say battling a mad scientist with pincers for hands was the ipitamy of realism, neither facing a deranged Nazi loyalist posing as an English millionaire who planned to destroy London with a nuclear rocket.
In a lot of ways I'd describe the Fleming Bond as a sophisticated but ordinary man in a very extraordinary world (sounds very pretentious I know lol).
Recently, I sat and watched both of the latest Bonds, trying to be optimistic and open minded about it, thinking I might have been too harsh in my statements.
There was something missing from them both. First off, there was a lag somewhere in Casino Royale. That lag was ended when I was reminded near the end, when Bond put in his resignation to M. He signed the e-mail "James Bond". I remembered then that when I first saw the movie, I thought to myself: "Oh Yeah! This is supposed to be a James Bond Movie!"
And it had much more violence in it than I had ever seen before.
QoS missed the mark for me completely. The only time I had ever heard a character even referred to was when it was mentioned that he was widowed. There was ONE scene where Bond seduced his associate. It was over in a moment.
The rest was fists flying, men being thrown through windows, falling off of scaffolds, chases, shooting, etc, etc.
It could have been a little more to the point if it had been a Sam Peckenpaw movie.
One of the things that Q mentioned before his removal from the series was "Never let them see you bleed"
It seems that is all I have seen Mr. Craig do, In BOTH the movies. Even shows a lot of bruising as well.
The other thing he said was "Always have an escape plan"
Violence is not what James Bond is about. That seems to be where the franchise is headed, and I hope that someone higher up sees this and corrects it. That would be the only escape I could see right now.
For those of you who like DC as JB, I respect your views, and I feel everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
I just don't agree with it, but I am willing to discuss it.
D.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iPNMWmcjFzF0TOrQ18loceoEbP6A
Young and geeky ? Nah. Sounds like something for a Disney channel movie.
If Q does come back, I'd like to see him as an independent agent who creates small arms and gadgets.
Really interesting views Danlopez. I have been won over by Casino Royale since the first time I watched it. Yes, it had a much grittier, more violent tone but I think it kept (for the most part) the essentials of a Bond film.
-the glamour
-the intrigue
-the exotic locations on full display
-a little bit of humour
-sassy ladies and truely nasty villains
-some exciting, well staged action scenes
Additionally, it was also directed by Martin Campbell who did Goldeneye. He clearly knows how to direct a Bond film.
QoS just had something missing. The above list was kind of there but it all felt rather half hearted: the plot wasn't wasn't particularly interesting, the other characters were rather bland and forgettable, the locations were more like extras than characters in themselves and the action went into overload. Craig wasn't bad as Bond but he was never really given enough time to explore the more indulgent aspects of the character.
Incidently I have seen an interview with Campbell in Time Out mag. In it he talks briefly about Bond 23 and its potential director Sam Mendes:
What do you think of Sam Mendes directing the next Bond movie?
‘Sam will do a splendid job. I felt “Quantum of Solace” completely lost its way. We were lucky on “Casino Royale”, it was the origin story of Bond. Bond had the one and only affair that meant anything to him, and affected him throughout the rest of the series. I had sympathy for the writers after that because clearly the guy can’t have another meaningful relationship, he’s been fucked over by the last one. But you’ve got to do something with the character, he’s got to go somewhere. I’m sure Sam and Peter Morgan will come up with something. The secret to Bond is to remember it’s Bond. It’s been successful for 22 incarnations. There are a lot of elements that work, so don’t **** with them.’
Whilst I'm a little unsure about Mendes as director (he doesn't seem to have much action experience and COULD fall into the same trap as Marc Foster) I think MC's comments have a lot of truth to them.
I know I am sounding picky but thats technically not true. What about Tracy?
Personally I think it would be good for him to still be present but have a more low key role, much like Major Boothroyd in the novels. He would come in, demonstrate the latest weaponary and go out again. It would be brief but he would have an impact on the rest of the film and also be a recurring character. I can't help but feel that if they tried to make another Desmond Llewelyn type figure, comparisons to him will be drawn and the character will be weakened.
Well it would seem like simply going back to a lesser character and not improving anything. I really don't care about Q but if they would bring him back, try something different. I like the idea of him being an independent agent because along the way Bond might find that he also supplies the opposition.
Fair point, the independent agent idea sounds pretty good actually. I'm just not sure whether the old school banter between Q and Bond would work in this tougher style. Also people will be comparing it to DL. I think if they decide on a Boothroyd type figure he should be played by a well known English face so he stays in the audience's mind for longer. Someone like Charles Dance comes into mind (maybe he's a little old??).
Lets face it, DL will always be Q with Bond fans so IMO it would be wrong to try and copy his character completely.
IMO whilst it would be interesting to see what can be done with these characters, I don't think thats the top priority. The absence of Q and Monneypenny wasn't really an issue in CR - or even QoS. I think the issue is to balance the serious with the fantasy effectively and remain consistant.
I imagine this Q would be an underground supplier of necessities for anyone who can afford it; He would make everything ranging from phony IDs to deadly weapons. Over the course of the films he and Bond develop a friendship because this Q is a hermit of sorts. Eventually, Q becomes compromised because though he's making supplies for Bond he more than likely has aided his enemies as well. As a result, Q decides he would solicit his services exclusively to the 00-section at MI6.
Back on topic, - roll on Oct 29th when we find out what the next stage is on the corporate / number cruncher front. For me its having an impact on Stargate as well as Bond. I also hope if Bond gears up again sooner rather than later, that may have a positive feedback on other potential film franchises for the UK industry. Esp with Potter wrapping up.