Mostly agree .... However in the past talents such as Joseph Wiseman, Gert Frobe, Telly Salavas, Christopher Lee, Louis Jourdan, Kabir Bedi, Chistopher Walken, Robert Davi, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, Sophie Marceau, etc. have been part of the franchise and have good roles written for them but Bond actors have not been overshadowed much or have held up well against them
Lee was brilliant in TMWTGG but still RM held up nicely. Same goes for Salavas, Walken, Davi, Marceau, etc. vs. Bond actors .... In SF, Bardem just takes over ) .... I guess that one of the reasons could be that DC is a bit monotonous. So he can do some scenes brilliantly but can be found lacking in others
These are all bad guys. It's something else for Bond to be overshadowed by people on his own team. Before Craig, Judi Dench was certainly the best actor to be on Bond's side, but she was never a major character in Bond's films. She had a sizable role in TWINE, but she wasn't given anything to do, so she didn't overshadow Brosnan. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is all over SP.
I am doing an apples to apples comparison where DC gets overshadowed .... So was mainly taking about bad guys and some leading ladies in general which have important roles in all Bond films
There could be other factors as well like you said but I am not specifically talking about those as they may differ from film to film
These are all bad guys. It's something else for Bond to be overshadowed by people on his own team. Before Craig, Judi Dench was certainly the best actor to be on Bond's side, but she was never a major character in Bond's films. She had a sizable role in TWINE, but she wasn't given anything to do, so she didn't overshadow Brosnan. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, is all over SP.
Yes, Judi was used sparingly until SF where the writers wrongly made the film all about her. Of course it was her last film so she needed to have her moment but it was a big mistake to make the film all about her and to overly romanticise the relationship between Bond and M. Clearly they're close as colleague and boss but it was unnecessary to throw in an Oedipal complex. In Brosnan's films and Craig's previous ones, Dench was able to have great moments but Bond was always the central focus.
Fiennes has less importance in that respect (seems to get on with Bond but they're not best buddies/blood brothers/bromancers) although he does have a notable character arc in SF (Bond sort of has one but only really for the sake of the plot; I never got the impression that Bond or anyone else really believed he was over-the-hill) and his character feels faintly plausible. It was a mistake to have M face-off with C and to give him the big cheesy joke; I know C is only a secondary baddie but Bond should be doing the face-offs and putdowns (even though M versus C was very fun and Fiennes is just great in most things). They should have saved C for another film IMO and kept the focus on Bond vs. Blofeld.
GE is currently my least fav Bond film so I try avoid thinking about it as much as possible )
But lovely bad-ass Sean Bean?
In the PTS, in the middle of an operation he found a reason to play a prank on Bond. Hid in shadows, spoke in Russian and then met as his colleague )
He was playing a prank? I thought that was just a sign so Bond would know it's him, and Bond then gave the countersign "I work alone". I thought the sign was in Russian in case he said it to the wrong person.
In the PTS, in the middle of an operation he found a reason to play a prank on Bond. Hid in shadows, spoke in Russian and then met as his colleague )
He was playing a prank? I thought that was just a sign so Bond would know it's him, and Bond then gave the countersign "I work alone". I thought the sign was in Russian in case he said it to the wrong person.
Key word was "Colleagues" .... Signs are for strangers :007)
In the PTS, in the middle of an operation he found a reason to play a prank on Bond. Hid in shadows, spoke in Russian and then met as his colleague )
He was playing a prank? I thought that was just a sign so Bond would know it's him, and Bond then gave the countersign "I work alone". I thought the sign was in Russian in case he said it to the wrong person.
Key word was "Colleagues" .... Signs are for strangers :007)
Bond could have been a decoy. You can never be too careful. They may have known it would be dark and they would need a sign to recognise each other. Whether or not you think a sign would be appropriate, it seemed quite clear to me that it was a sign and not a prank.
He was playing a prank? I thought that was just a sign so Bond would know it's him, and Bond then gave the countersign "I work alone". I thought the sign was in Russian in case he said it to the wrong person.
Key word was "Colleagues" .... Signs are for strangers :007)
Bond could have been a decoy. You can never be too careful. They may have known it would be dark and they would need a sign to recognise each other. Whether or not you think a sign would be appropriate, it seemed quite clear to me that it was a sign and not a prank.
I agree with you that it wasn't supposed to be a prank. What I meant was that whatever the purpose of 006's act was, it was presented in such a way that it appeared like a prank (more appropriate word would be laughable). Only person whose face was in dark was his, not Bond's .... It is like when Blofeld is dressed up as a lady was supposed to be a strategic move but it appeared laughable
Key word was "Colleagues" .... Signs are for strangers :007)
Bond could have been a decoy. You can never be too careful. They may have known it would be dark and they would need a sign to recognise each other. Whether or not you think a sign would be appropriate, it seemed quite clear to me that it was a sign and not a prank.
I agree with you that it wasn't supposed to be a prank. What I meant was that whatever the purpose of 006's act was, it was presented in such a way that it appeared like a prank (more appropriate word would be laughable). Only person whose face was in dark was his, not Bond's .... It is like when Blofeld is dressed up as a lady was supposed to be a strategic move but it appeared laughable
Bond is in the dark too, just not complete darkness. I never found that part laughable, and I don't think it's anything at all like Blofeld in drag, which didn't seem to have any true purpose.
Bond is in the dark too, just not complete darkness. I never found that part laughable, and I don't think it's anything at all like Blofeld in drag, which didn't seem to have any true purpose.
You may have not found it to be laughable but others may have.
I don't know what you mean when you say Bond was in partial darkness too. He is standing right in front of him with his face lit. It is 006 who is in complete darknesses. And who knows if Bond was not thinking clearly, he could have killed 006 thinking him to be an attacker )
If you want to suggest that Bond understood Russian and also recognized 006's voice even though he was in darkness. But then it would not change that 006 would have recognized Bond too .... That sequence would ONLY have made sense if both were meeting for the first time. Otherwise it would be as laughable as Moneypenny speaking in Chinese to Bond and waiting of a code to be given to her by Bond and then both of them meet as old colleagues )
Now you may want to say that but how would 006 (or Monneypenny) know that Bond is really Bond. Who knows he could be someone with Bond's mask on or even better done a plastic surgery to appear like Bond for the mission 8-)
To that I would say that only MI6 would have known about the mission
And then you can say but what if there was a mole in MI6
I would say what would the mole gain by impersonating as Bond (and take the trouble of getting a plastic surgery done at a short notice) and then go to Russia to sabotage the mission? If he is a mole working for Russia, he would just inform the relevant party of MI6's plans
It's hardly the smallest problem with the GE PTS, though. The geography of the installation plus the whole Ouromov shooting 006 scenario (Was it a set up? If not, when did they concoct the plan? etc) makes the earlier 006/007 scene moot.
It's hardly the smallest problem with the GE PTS, though. The geography of the installation plus the whole Ouromov shooting 006 scenario (Was it a set up? If not, when did they concoct the plan? etc) makes the earlier 006/007 scene moot.
I don't recall where 006 was shot. They did not show that iirc .... I would assume that on his chest with 006 wearing a bullet proof armour .... Hopefully not on his head as it would appear as Ouromov shot one of the guys who was trying to shoot Bond who was behind those chemicals so the bullets in his gun were real
Anyways, there can always be a funny explanation like the first bullet in Ouromov's gun was fake. Others were real. And Ouromov was a genius to figure out the exact moment he would use the fake bullet )
As for the geography, I would take it as cinematic convenience .... As for 006-Ouromov's tie up, may be we can assume that 006 already had a plan in motion and decided to use this mission to fake his death (but then what would be the reason to fake his death. Next events in GE take place 10 years later. Did he want to join KGB?)
It's hardly the smallest problem with the GE PTS, though. The geography of the installation
Cinematic impressionism. :v
plus the whole Ouromov shooting 006 scenario (Was it a set up? If not, when did they concoct the plan? etc)
OO6 set it up the prior evening with Ouromov, and the bullet was fired past his head, giving him the burn scar we see later. Bond could not see the miss as it was too far from him.
OO6 set it up the prior evening with Ouromov, and the bullet was fired past his head, giving him the burn scar we see later. Bond could not see the miss as it was too far from him.
Per 006, iirc, the scar was due to the 3 mins (vs 6 mins) timer set by 007. Dead 006 could not escape
"GoldenEye was edited in order to be guaranteed a PG-13 rating from the MPAA and a 12 rating from the BBFC. The cuts included the visible bullet impact to Trevelyan's head when he is shot in the prologue"
So Trevelyan was shot with a real bullet (unless Ouromov had the first one fake) in the head )
Comments
I am doing an apples to apples comparison where DC gets overshadowed .... So was mainly taking about bad guys and some leading ladies in general which have important roles in all Bond films
There could be other factors as well like you said but I am not specifically talking about those as they may differ from film to film
Yes, Judi was used sparingly until SF where the writers wrongly made the film all about her. Of course it was her last film so she needed to have her moment but it was a big mistake to make the film all about her and to overly romanticise the relationship between Bond and M. Clearly they're close as colleague and boss but it was unnecessary to throw in an Oedipal complex. In Brosnan's films and Craig's previous ones, Dench was able to have great moments but Bond was always the central focus.
Fiennes has less importance in that respect (seems to get on with Bond but they're not best buddies/blood brothers/bromancers) although he does have a notable character arc in SF (Bond sort of has one but only really for the sake of the plot; I never got the impression that Bond or anyone else really believed he was over-the-hill) and his character feels faintly plausible. It was a mistake to have M face-off with C and to give him the big cheesy joke; I know C is only a secondary baddie but Bond should be doing the face-offs and putdowns (even though M versus C was very fun and Fiennes is just great in most things). They should have saved C for another film IMO and kept the focus on Bond vs. Blofeld.
But lovely bad-ass Sean Bean?
In the PTS, in the middle of an operation he found a reason to play a prank on Bond. Hid in shadows, spoke in Russian and then met as his colleague
He was playing a prank? I thought that was just a sign so Bond would know it's him, and Bond then gave the countersign "I work alone". I thought the sign was in Russian in case he said it to the wrong person.
Key word was "Colleagues" .... Signs are for strangers :007)
Bond could have been a decoy. You can never be too careful. They may have known it would be dark and they would need a sign to recognise each other. Whether or not you think a sign would be appropriate, it seemed quite clear to me that it was a sign and not a prank.
I agree with you that it wasn't supposed to be a prank. What I meant was that whatever the purpose of 006's act was, it was presented in such a way that it appeared like a prank (more appropriate word would be laughable). Only person whose face was in dark was his, not Bond's .... It is like when Blofeld is dressed up as a lady was supposed to be a strategic move but it appeared laughable
https://youtu.be/xUhWf87-ODg?t=3m27s
^ GE, at times I just love to laugh at it
Bond is in the dark too, just not complete darkness. I never found that part laughable, and I don't think it's anything at all like Blofeld in drag, which didn't seem to have any true purpose.
You may have not found it to be laughable but others may have.
I don't know what you mean when you say Bond was in partial darkness too. He is standing right in front of him with his face lit. It is 006 who is in complete darknesses. And who knows if Bond was not thinking clearly, he could have killed 006 thinking him to be an attacker
If you want to suggest that Bond understood Russian and also recognized 006's voice even though he was in darkness. But then it would not change that 006 would have recognized Bond too .... That sequence would ONLY have made sense if both were meeting for the first time. Otherwise it would be as laughable as Moneypenny speaking in Chinese to Bond and waiting of a code to be given to her by Bond and then both of them meet as old colleagues
Now you may want to say that but how would 006 (or Monneypenny) know that Bond is really Bond. Who knows he could be someone with Bond's mask on or even better done a plastic surgery to appear like Bond for the mission 8-)
To that I would say that only MI6 would have known about the mission
And then you can say but what if there was a mole in MI6
I would say what would the mole gain by impersonating as Bond (and take the trouble of getting a plastic surgery done at a short notice) and then go to Russia to sabotage the mission? If he is a mole working for Russia, he would just inform the relevant party of MI6's plans
In short, it is laughable
I don't recall where 006 was shot. They did not show that iirc .... I would assume that on his chest with 006 wearing a bullet proof armour .... Hopefully not on his head as it would appear as Ouromov shot one of the guys who was trying to shoot Bond who was behind those chemicals so the bullets in his gun were real
Anyways, there can always be a funny explanation like the first bullet in Ouromov's gun was fake. Others were real. And Ouromov was a genius to figure out the exact moment he would use the fake bullet
As for the geography, I would take it as cinematic convenience .... As for 006-Ouromov's tie up, may be we can assume that 006 already had a plan in motion and decided to use this mission to fake his death (but then what would be the reason to fake his death. Next events in GE take place 10 years later. Did he want to join KGB?)
Does that work for you?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Per 006, iirc, the scar was due to the 3 mins (vs 6 mins) timer set by 007. Dead 006 could not escape
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Appears as if only the characters knew everything. Majority of the audiences were blank
PS if there is a way, the GE related discussion can be merged with the GE thread
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Mainly because it came after 6 years
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I like all Bond actors so no comments
Sean Bean? He of the hokey dialogue? And didn't we see him on the BBC getting his kecks off in Lady Chatterleys lover that same week?
"GoldenEye was edited in order to be guaranteed a PG-13 rating from the MPAA and a 12 rating from the BBFC. The cuts included the visible bullet impact to Trevelyan's head when he is shot in the prologue"
So Trevelyan was shot with a real bullet (unless Ouromov had the first one fake) in the head
Nope, Lady Chatterley's Lover came out in 1993. His dialogue isn't worse than Brosnan's! He even looked good with the scar.
It came out in 93, but was repeated in 95.
Ah, I would have been too young to watch
I thought so....