Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Superman Through the Ages! => The Clubhouse! => Topic started by: davidelliott on November 09, 2006, 05:27:24 AM



Title: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on November 09, 2006, 05:27:24 AM
Gotta do this.... Casino Royale opens this month and it's the first 007 movie in 21 years I'm not gonna see.  Anyone else turned off?

I've been waiting YEARS for Casino Royale and now that they're making the film (made it) it's a mistake.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Permanus on November 09, 2006, 07:30:01 AM
I haven't actually  seen a Bond film in about ten years, but the latest effort interests me even less than the others... Am I the only person around whose favourite Bond is Timothy Dalton?


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 09, 2006, 10:26:09 AM
I feel the opposite way.  I walked out of "Die Another Day" vowing that I'd finally had enough.  If they did one more movie that remotely resembled that one or "The World Is Not Enough," EON would be missing out on my business for the first time since 1977.  And you're talking to a guy who put his blood, sweat and tears into a Bond fan site for 10 years (Archived articles still available at www.ianfleming.org ....end of plug! ;) )

I think the producers are gutsy to try and reinvent the franchise when it would have been all too easy to keep cranking out by-the-numbers Bond films into eternity and keep making money no matter how bad the product.  I'm also very intrigued by the possibility that we might finally see on the screen an approximation of James Bond as Ian Fleming actually wrote him.  But I have to confess I miss the days when Bond's image was that of the suave, sophisticated adventurer and not the brutish thug Craig looks like (and Fleming wrote about).  If this film succeeds, it will be by designing a whole new "Bond formula" to replace the old one, and that's a pretty tall order.  Are they up to it?  Well, we'll find out soon enough.

So I guess the answer to your quesion is, no I'm not turned off.  I'm probably more interested in this film than I have been in any Bond since The Living Daylights.  But whereas my excitement used to come from the anticipation of getting something I'd been waiting for (like a favorite meal, I already knew how a Bond film would "taste" before it was served), now the excitement lies in the mystery of the thing; will it work, will it not?  Sort of like watching a high-wire act; part of the excitement comes from the very real possibility the performer will crash to the earth.

It's about time they took some chances.



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on November 09, 2006, 02:02:39 PM
Timothy Dalton was awesome...

I wrote that late last night... here's why I'm turned off...

I've read the Fleming novels several times, as well as the Gardner and Bensons (and the Amis one, too).  From what I have read about this movie, this is not Fleming's Bond.  Not in looks, not in actions, not in anything.  I admit Brosnan was not my favorite 007, but I wish he was in this one.  The could have CGI'ed Connery (first Bond and all that)

Craig, as mentioned, looks NOTHING like James Bond... yeah, I know, blonde hair is obviously wrong, but are we supposed to believe that this is the same character that was played by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan?  All with their very good looks (007 in the novels looked a bit like Hoagy Carmichael and Fleming also saw men like Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant playing Bond... all ordinary and hansome men)... Craig doesn't come close.  I saw the commercial for the movie the other night on TV and I kept thinking that he was the bad guy, till someone called him "Mr Bond"...

Daniel Craig also has said that he has no regard or respect for the source material and no respect for fans.  He's foul mouthed and crude... THAT'S a big turn off for me...

And this is supposed to show how Bond became a Double-Oh... set in the present??  Judi Densch is M?  She replaced Miles Messervy in GoldenEye, so if this were an "origin story", Sir Miles should be M, shouldn't he? Felix Leiter, who was described as a tall lanky Texan with a mop of hair like straw and always seemed upbeat and likeable now looks like Geoffrey the butler from Fresh Prince with a dour look on his face, from the pics I have seen of him from the film.

Of course, this could be a reboot.  A new Bond series from the old.  Yeah, that means that THIS Bond never went into space in Moonraker and didn't blow up Karamanga in LALD and other absurdities "didn't happen" to this 007, but then again, he was never married, never went up against Goldfinger, SMERSH, SPECTRE (okay... Blofeld), Dr No and others.

I know most folks go to a Bond film looking for the girls, car chases and Bond to say his name or order a vodka martini, but there are folks like me (and Nightwing) who are BOND fans.  I, however, like chances that "fit".  Living Daylights, Eyes Only, OHMSS and a couple of others were AWESOME movies in which Cubby Broccoli took chances... but he did it respecting the fans and the franchise.  His heirs are taking the chance of CR by DITCHING the fans and franchise.

In a nutshell... not gonna see it.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 09, 2006, 03:59:18 PM
Quote
I've read the Fleming novels several times, as well as the Gardner and Bensons (and the Amis one, too).  From what I have read about this movie, this is not Fleming's Bond.

Well, yes and no.

First of all, none of the movie Bonds have been in the Fleming mold, in my opinion.  All the actors so far have been handsome, suave, charming and witty, for one thing.  Fleming's Bond was described as looking like Hoagy Carmichael (ick!) only with a scar on his cheek, which wouldn't help much!  He has almost no sense of humor, no appreciation of culture (he likes his brand name clothes and watches, but that's not culture.  Fleming's Bond is not a fan of art, literature or music) and he falls for pretty much every woman he shares a mission with, though on some occasions they reject him (as opposed to movie Bond, who beds whomever he likes and has feelings for almost none of them).

Fleming's Bond is pretty thuggish and indeed sees himself as not much more than a "blunt instrument" to do his country's dirty work.  In that sense, Craig seems to fit. 

On the other hand, based on what I've seen of the film and the "bio" provided at the official site, this is not technically Fleming's Bond because he did not serve in Naval Intelligence and indeed has a very different "backstory" from the one we know.  Plus, as you say, Fleming's Bond was not recruited by a female "M" and so on.

Quote
Craig, as mentioned, looks NOTHING like James Bond... yeah, I know, blonde hair is obviously wrong, but are we supposed to believe that this is the same character that was played by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan?

I pick up mixed signals.  On the one hand, as noted above, Bond's life story has been re-imagined.  On the other hand, why would he drive a 40-year-old Aston Martin DB5 if not for sentimental reasons?  But how could he have fond memories of adventures he hasn't had yet?  That car made a LITTLE sense with Brosnan driving, as a nod to the earlier films (assuming you never stopped to do the math and realize he'd have battled Goldfinger at the tender age of 11) but it makes none in a film where Bond has not yet met any of those adversaries we remember, and probably never will.  I gather there are other little nods to the earlier films, but I hope not many as it'll distract me terribly.

Continuity has never been a strong suit of the Bond films.  Some fit together, some do not.  The first four can go together with some ease (in FRWL, Kronsteen selects Bond as SPECTRE's target because he killed Dr No in the previous film), but as time goes on it gets murkier.  In OHMSS, for example, how does Blofeld not recognize "Sir Hillary Bray" as Bond when the two men met close up just two years earlier in YOLT?  Personally, I find the films work better if you treat each as a separate entity and try not to tie them together at all.  Otherwise when you see, for example, Bond flying over the lake in "Goldeneye", you expect it to go like this:

BOND: The bad guy's hideout is down there, under the lake.
NATALYA: How do you know?
BOND: Because that's where it was in "You Only Live Twice."

Anyway, to answer your question, I think the producers are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.  No, they don't want Craig to be the old Bond.  But they do want fans of the old Bond to come see the movie, so they'll throw in as many traditional-style "Bond" moments as they can manage.

Quote
All with their very good looks (007 in the novels looked a bit like Hoagy Carmichael and Fleming also saw men like Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant playing Bond... all ordinary and hansome men)... Craig doesn't come close.

Well, as I said above, Carmichael was not a handsome guy.  But in fairness, he was a fabulous songwriter who gave us one of the greatest tunes of all time, "Stardust".  As for Jimmy Stewart, it's a long-standing misperception that Fleming wanted him to be Bond; he did not.  At one point, Fleming was asked to list who he thought could work and he included a "James Stewart" on the list, but he was referring to a handsome young British actor who would end up changing his name to pursue a career in Hollywood (James Stewart having been, obviously, "taken" already).  We now know that actor as Stewart Granger.

Cary Grant was a friend of Cubby Broccoli (having been best man at his wedding!) and was even offered the Bond role, but balked at comitting to a three-picture deal.

And yes, Craig is uglier than all of them on their worst day.  But it should be noted that Sean Connery wasn't most people's idea of sexy prior to Dr No, and Fleming rejected him as "that damned lorry driver."

Quote
Daniel Craig also has said that he has no regard or respect for the source material and no respect for fans.  He's foul mouthed and crude... THAT'S a big turn off for me...

Come now, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind saying all THAT.  Certainly I never saw any quotes where he said he didn't respect Fleming or the franchise.  Craig may not be a huge Bond fan, but he did read the books and watch the films to prepare for this role, and reading between the lines I gather he finds Bond a fascinating character.  I don't know about "respect for fans" but considering the reaction he got from a lot of them...often in the form of very personal and petty attacks...I wouldn't blame him if he feels they're a dangerous pack of loonies.

As for his language, well I can't defend that. He does swear like a drunken sailor, which doesn't jibe with my image of Bond, either.  As a lifelong Roger Moore fan, I miss the days of actors who comported themselves with grace and elan off-camera as well as on.  It's hard to take Brad Pitt as "sexy" when he walks the streets looking like a homeless deviant, it's hard to take Tom Cruise as a genius superspy when he acts like a moron in interviews, and it's hard to take any "Bond" as urbane and polished when he spouts profanity at every turn.

Quote
Of course, this could be a reboot.  A new Bond series from the old.  Yeah, that means that THIS Bond never went into space in Moonraker and didn't blow up Karamanga in LALD and other absurdities "didn't happen" to this 007, but then again, he was never married, never went up against Goldfinger, SMERSH, SPECTRE (okay... Blofeld), Dr No and others.

Well, here's what gives me pause.  Every time anyone wants to make Bond "closer to Fleming," they ramp up the gritty violence.  We got it with "License to Kill" and now we're getting it again. But Fleming is about more than violence...if that's all you want, stick with Mickey Spillane.  Fleming also worked in the macabre, the fantastic and the surreal.  There was Dr No, described as a human slug, slithering along the floor and clacking his metal hands on railings.  A guy, mind you, with a giant squid for a pet.  There was Dr Shatterhand's Suicide Garden (and a castle from which Bond escapes via balloon...like Curious George!). There was Oddjob, and so on.  The films didn't invent the fairy-tale like weirdness of Bond's world,though they did take it to new extremes.  For me, at least, this sort of over-the-top, nightmare imagery is one of the appeals of the formula and my worry is that in trying to make Bond more "down to earth" and "gritty" they'll lose all that and turn him into just another action hero.

I'm not going to try and talk you into seeing it, of course.  That's your call.  But I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.  I figure if I can enjoy Fleming's books and Roger Moore's films almost equally...the two being about as far apart as you can get...then there's always room for one more interpretation.  And if I hate it, I've always got my DVDs.




Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: TELLE on November 10, 2006, 02:50:17 AM
I've liked Daniel Craig in the movies I've seen him in so I'm probably more attracted to this movie than anything from the past 20 years.  Which is to say, not much.  The first and last Bond film I saw in a theatre was Octopussy.  Previous to that I was enamored of the Moore films I saw on Tv but after discovering Connery I became a convert and am one of those Johnny-come-lately "Connery is the only Bond" types.  Even my better-half likes those movies!

I think of Connery as quite thuggish (more than any of the others at least) but also funny and charming.  I'm a fan of the books and agree that no-one really looks like Fleming's description.  Who cares what color the character's hair is?  At this point the movies are just action movies with the advantage of a brand name.

As to continuity, whenever I've thought of it, I imagine that new 007's are given not only the code name, but the identity of James Bond.  Heck, M may have several reserve James Bonds at any given time.

That being said, I probably won't see the movie.  The new ones I've seen on Tv are always slightly bloated and slow moving, with none of the surprise or excitement the best modern action films seem to have.  I saw MIII at a theatre this summer (the first of that franchise I've seen) and enjoyed it as a fun piece of fluff to enjoy with air conditioning.  And I don't really like Tom Cruise (then why did I also enjoy War of the Worlds? :))  Are any of the recent Bond films half as entertaining?



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 10, 2006, 10:50:28 AM
Quote
Are any of the recent Bond films half as entertaining?

Well, I'm not likely to see "War of the Worlds", though I may get around to MI:III as a JJ Abrams fan (sort of), but I'm betting no, the recent Bonds are NOT half as entertaining as those were.

The recent Bonds have been coasting on inertia, pretty much.  They've borrowed heavily from earlier, better Bond films, which is admittedly not a new tactic for the series, but something's gone out of them and "fun" is as good a word as any to describe that something.

The Connery Bonds were innovative and daring not only in subject matter but also in terms of radical new editing techniques, sound effects, stunt work, scores, etc.  The Moore films weren't nearly as ground-breaking, but they did have a no-holds barred approach, with spectacular locations, gigantic action sequences and, it appeared, a commitment to delivering the most entertainment possible in two hours.  (I read a book recently about Buffalo Bill's Wild West show, which travelled to small towns and cities across America with gigantic, open-air recreations of the Indian Wars and other signal events in Western history.  I like to imagine the young boys of that era had the same feeling at Buffalo Bill's shows as I did watching those 70s Bond films).

Somehow today's Bonds hit all the marks required by the formula without ever managing to be fun at all (and 40 years in, "innovative" is a bit much to ask).  I think the problem is that they want to be taken seriously, which is ridiculous when you're telling stories about a guy who drives invisible cars and villains who want to destroy the world with gigantic orbiting heat lamps.  The films are as ridiculous as they ever were, but now they're pompous and pretentious to boot, with lots of hammy emoting about betrayals and lost loves and such.  Thus we get TWINE, wherein Bond shoots his lover dead in a "powerful" scene, then follows that up with a fistfight in the bowels of a nuclear reactor, juggling plutonium rods with his bare hands!  Folks, you can do "Hamlet" or you can do a Road Runner cartoon, but you can't have it both ways.

You're right, TELLE, the Bonds are now just generic action films.  A guy who runs around for two hours mowing down hordes of opponents with a machine gun is not James Bond, even if he's wearing a Brioni suit while he does it.  The recent Bonds are a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  (Plus, for the record, the action scenes are incompetently directed.  I still don't understand what's happening in some of them).

If you can't have fun with the more outlandish aspects of Bond, you might as well chuck them in favor of something more earthy, and that looks to be what they're doing this time out.  Still, the best description of the film so far seems to be "Batman Begins meets the Bourne Identity", so as usual the Bond producers are following trends rather than leading them.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Permanus on November 10, 2006, 11:14:29 AM
Cary Grant was a friend of Cubby Broccoli (having been best man at his wedding!) and was even offered the Bond role, but balked at comitting to a three-picture deal.

I'm having great fun just imagining Grant as Bond, especially if he did it in his His Girl Friday mode!


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 10, 2006, 12:15:03 PM
Yeah, the bad guys would hardly be able to get a word in edge-wise!

If you've ever seen "North By Northwest" (one of my top 3 films ever), it's pretty much a blueprint for the early Bond flics.  I don't know if Grant could have brought the hard edge to Bond that it needed, though he made a pretty unsettling (possible) bad guy in "Suspicion." 

The big issue would have been age, though.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on November 10, 2006, 01:10:09 PM
There are a lot of good points by different posters to reply to, but I'll do my best.

davidelliott, I am not "turned off". It will be the first Bond film I'm going to make a point of seeing for many, many years.

Permanus, I definitely liked Timothy Dalton as Bond. I thought he was far superior to, say, Roger Moore.

nightwing, you already know this but maybe others don't: I am a fan of your 007 articles (actually, all of your articles) and they are well worth reading.

Quote
the brutish thug Craig looks like (and Fleming wrote about)

nightwing, I believe you're being too hard on the real Bond (from the novels). You understand the character very well, but I don't agree Bond is brutish or a thug. He does have some sophistication, and he is human (unlike the character in the films), despite being a "blunt instrument". Maybe you forgot for a moment that this man makes his living by being cool under pressure, thinking quickly, and adapting to different environments around the world. He's physically tough, and he can hurt people, but he's not a "thug".

davidelliott, on the face of it I am not so happy about the new actor's look, because Bond is good-looking and can turn a woman's head, even if she thinks he looks a little "cruel" upon closer inspection. I don't know how Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant could ever play Bond. Moore as Bond had the same problems they would have. None of them are physical men. Bond is hard. Jimmy Stewart is a bumbling goof who was great at playing an idiot caught up in espionage, but I find the suggestion of him being Bond way off. Likewise with Cary Grant: too soft, too flabby. Every time I see Moore in any role, it's obvious in real life the man wouldn't win a fight with a Barbie doll. Physically he's a non-entity.

But apart from not being good-looking, well, we shall see. I am looking forward to the film. Casino Royale is one of the better books. I re-read just over a year ago, and I remember being surprised again how good it was. It'll make a good basis for a film I think.

I don't mind things getting a bit darker, but I also like the quirkiness of Bond's world, which nightwing touched on. Bond needs to be a vicious character in a hand-to-hand scrap. Soviet killers are wary of this man! But large scale battles where he does a good impression of the Terminator are ridiculous. If the film makes things more gritty, more street, I'm all for it.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on November 10, 2006, 01:37:52 PM
nightwing, you've given me a lot to think about...

The Moore Bonds were just really set-pieces strung together by a thread (which was intentional) and parts of DAD were embarrasing.  For me, the last GREAT 007 movie was The Living Daylights.  Dalton was excellent, it was a straight spy story (well, til the end when it sunk into some comedy)

I'm dwelling...


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 10, 2006, 03:48:28 PM
Aldous writes:

Quote
nightwing, I believe you're being too hard on the real Bond (from the novels). You understand the character very well, but I don't agree Bond is brutish or a thug. He does have some sophistication, and he is human (unlike the character in the films), despite being a "blunt instrument". Maybe you forgot for a moment that this man makes his living by being cool under pressure, thinking quickly, and adapting to different environments around the world. He's physically tough, and he can hurt people, but he's not a "thug".

Well, maybe "thug" is going it a bit high, as they say across the pond.  But the point I meant to make is that most people's impression of  "James Bond" is informed by the films, not the books.  In the books, he doesn't know how to fly a plane, defuse a bomb or perform a HALO jump.  He certainly isn't an expert on butterflies, rare orchids, vintage sherry or microchip technology.  In the early books, at least, he has no sense of humor and certainly doesn't crack wise as he kills people.  He averages one romantic conquest per adventure, not dozens.  In short, whereas most people would describe Bond as a high-society sophisticate, technologically adept, supremely cool under pressure and given to philandering ways, that is not what you find in the books, where Bond dresses relatively casually, probably couldn't operate a toaster without his housemaid May, falls hard for women and is always depressed when it doesn't work out, and definitely knows a thing or two about fear, even panic.

Movie Bond seems to be an amalgam of Fleming's creation plus traits of the actors who played him.  Much of what we think of as "Bondian" traits are really mannerisms and qualities of Connery and Moore.  So what I was getting at is that audiences who see this new film may be seeing Fleming's Bond for the first time ever, and ironically they may well come away saying, "that guy doesn't seem at all like James Bond."

Still, it's yet another misconception about Bond that he's a physical superman of some kind, or at least a brawler.  This seems to come from memories of Connery and Lazenby, and now Craig.  But while the Fleming novels had a great deal of violence, Bond himself was hardly what you'd call a powerhouse.  I seem to recall he was all of six feet tall (making him shorter than all his portrayers except Craig) and he weighed in at something like 170 pounds.  That's roughly my own stats, and trust me I'll never be mistaken for Mr Universe.  Yes, Fleming's Bond shot people in cold blood, stabbed them, kicked them down the stairs, whatever he had to do, but he would not have lasted long against the likes of Oddjob, for instance, or hit a guy over the head with a sofa(!).  If the new movie has a lot of physically demanding battle scenes, which apparently it does, this is more in deference to modern audience expectations than a nod to Fleming.  (I just re-read "Thunderball" recently and Bond comes off as a guy who fights tooth and nail when his back's against the wall, but without any great mastery of martial arts or anything beyond normal strength.  He gets his clock cleaned by Largo at the end and is only saved by a timely intervention from the love interest.  In fact he often ended up in the hospital at the end of his missions).

As far as being a "blunt instrument," I admit Bond was disgusted about something at the time he said that, and later might have felt differently. (Similarly, even though Vesper says Bond looks "rather like Hoagy Carmichael," in the next chapter he looks in the mirror and decides she doesn't know what the devil she's talking about.  So ultimately all we know about Bond is that he is 6 feet tall, 170 pounds with dark hair, a tan and a faint scar on one cheek.  Not much to go on).

Quote
Jimmy Stewart is a bumbling goof who was great at playing an idiot caught up in espionage, but I find the suggestion of him being Bond way off.

Actually I think his lanky build sounds more like what Fleming wrote.  And he was good at pulling off terrified acts of desperation, which again is how I often saw Bond in the books.  The problem with Stewart was that he'd have brought too much baggage as "the likable fellow."  And that doesn't fit Bond very well, my affection for Roger notwithstanding.

Anyway, as I said in the earlier post, when Fleming said "James Stewart," he meant the British actor who changed his name to Stewart Granger.

Quote
Every time I see Moore in any role, it's obvious in real life the man wouldn't win a fight with a Barbie doll. Physically he's a non-entity.

As a kid, I had no problem with that, partly because in Moore's era Bond dispatched more people with weapons and gadgets than he did with his hands.  But nowadays his fight scenes do come off pretty limp, with some notable exceptions (the running battle with Chang in the Venice glass factory in "Moonraker" is very, very good).  What helps is that Moore's Bond, despite his avuncular air, is actually more of a conniving cad than any of them.  He cheats to get his women and he cheats to win his fights. This works for me as his Bond is older and, one might assume, well beyond any interest in proving his masculinity or getting his blood pumping. He just wants to do his job and get back to the booze and broads, and for me that's okay.  (One of my favorite scenes comes in "For Your Eyes Only" when Roger/Bond runs up the winding staircase and pumps the villain's car full of bullets, finally kicking it off the cliff.  I always imagine he's thinking, "And THAT's for making me run up the stairs at my age, you young punk!"  :D)

Still and all, I once saw "The Naked Face" with Roger as a psychiatrist who's in way over his head with the bad guys and gets beaten to a pulp by two or three of them, without getting in one decent lick of his own.  That scene deeply disturbed me because it was the only fight scene he ever did that rang totally true.  After that, I could never fully enjoy his Saint or Bond outings again.  :(

davidelliott writes:

Quote
The Moore Bonds were just really set-pieces strung together by a thread (which was intentional)

Here's what I find interesting:

As the Bonds became a franchise with no end in sight, each film had ideas that didn't make it to screen, but were shelved for the next film in the pipeline.  So what you got was plotting sessions where the filmmakers said, "Hey, what about that stunt we designed where Bond falls out of a plane with no parachute?  Can you set up a scene where that happens?"  And thus the story becomes servant to the set-pieces.

On the other hand, at least all those stunts were possible, however implausible.  Now you have the scriptwriters calling the shots and the stuntmen are asked to make it all work.  So let's say the script says "Bond drives his motorcycle off a cliff, free-falls into the falling plane and flies it away."  The stunt coordinator replies, "That is physically impossible, sorry" and the producers say, "Never mind, we'll do it all with special effects.  Same with the para-surfing thingee in DAD.  On the whole, I liked it better when the stunt guys were in charge.

I agree The Living Daylights was wonderful.  Even the comedy worked for me, because it was pretty low-key.  Too bad they erased it entirely from the next film, because Dalton was better at it than people seemed to realize...and you definitely need *some* in there.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on November 10, 2006, 04:22:22 PM
Nightwing:

Quote
Movie Bond seems to be an amalgam of Fleming's creation plus traits of the actors who played him.  Much of what we think of as "Bondian" traits are really mannerisms and qualities of Connery and Moore.  So what I was getting at is that audiences who see this new film may be seeing Fleming's Bond for the first time ever, and ironically they may well come away saying, "that guy doesn't seem at all like James Bond."

Yes, I see what you mean.

Quote
Still, it's yet another misconception about Bond that he's a physical superman of some kind, or at least a brawler.  This seems to come from memories of Connery and Lazenby, and now Craig.  But while the Fleming novels had a great deal of violence, Bond himself was hardly what you'd call a powerhouse.  I seem to recall he was all of six feet tall (making him shorter than all his portrayers except Craig) and he weighed in at something like 170 pounds.  That's roughly my own stats, and trust me I'll never be mistaken for Mr Universe.  Yes, Fleming's Bond shot people in cold blood, stabbed them, kicked them down the stairs, whatever he had to do.....

That's about right, because I remember from the books he was about six feet tall and around 12 stone, which would make him slender, and I think Fleming based him on his own size. (I don't have the books here to refer to so I am writing these things from memory.) Your last line that I've quoted there tells us what sort of a fighter Bond is. Don't dismantle the "misconception" too far, because I distinctly remember Bond is a dangerous fighter in a scrap, and this is in his dossier. He is good with his hands (boxer) and handy with a knife. He is also a very accurate and quick shot with a pistol. You can't interchange the movie and book characters, eg. throwing Oddjob from the films against Bond from the books. Oddjob cannot be harmed with physical blows in the films, which is pure cinematic fantasy. In reality, any man, no matter how well trained in chop-socky or whatever Oddjob's specialty was, can be hurt and even killed by a tough and aggressive fighter even if that fighter is smaller. (Oh no, I do apologise. I didn't mean to turn this into an Oddjob vs. Bond - Who Would Win? thread...) And yes, no one said he was a powerhouse. I am talking about something quite different.

Quote
Actually I think his lanky build sounds more like what Fleming wrote.  And he was good at pulling off terrified acts of desperation, which again is how I often saw Bond in the books.

I'm afraid I still think he is way off. Physically he's a mess, gangly and awkward. Bond isn't lanky in the way of a Hollywood Western actor. Stewart always reminds me of Goofy when he moves. (I'm always expecting him to say "Gwarsh!")

"Terrified acts of desperation"? Yes, I guess so, but combined with an actor like Jimmy Stewart it creates entirely the wrong mental picture. Bond can focus his mind, even when very scared and in pain, and do what he has to do. Again, it's something quite different to James Stewart in a panic.

Quote
Anyway, as I said in the earlier post, when Fleming said "James Stewart," he meant the British actor who changed his name to Stewart Granger.

Yes, I did see that.

Quote
On the other hand, at least all those stunts were possible, however implausible.

Even the scene where the car goes from one side of the river to  theother, doing a mid-air roll on the way, was actually performed, of course. (Is that The Man With The Golden Gun?)


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 11, 2006, 11:40:04 PM
Quote
Don't dismantle the "misconception" too far, because I distinctly remember Bond is a dangerous fighter in a scrap, and this is in his dossier. He is good with his hands (boxer) and handy with a knife. He is also a very accurate and quick shot with a pistol.

If memory serves, he also wrote some sort of manual on hand-to-hand combat that became required reading for Secret Service recruits.

But if we focus on the knives and guns, and indeed plain old dirty fighting, I still think Roger Moore could have made it work.  I'll grant you aside from the karate school scene in Man With The Golden Gun and a few other moments here and there, there aren't many examples, but if you look outside the Bond films to work like "The Sea Wolves", "Gold" and "The Wild Geese," Roger could definitely pull of the "tough guy" routine and even the "right phony" school of ruthless killing.  The two problems with Roger's Bond are that (1) he saw it as the "signature" role that defined him to the masses, and thus resisted being as ruthless as he was in other, lower-profile work, and (2) the stunt coordinators for whatever reason insisted on a lot of silly kicks and roundhouse punches, rather than the close-quarters body blows of Sean and George's films.  Frankly I think it'd be easier to pull off that stuff and make it look realistic. Anyone's going to look silly with all those kicks.

Quote
You can't interchange the movie and book characters, eg. throwing Oddjob from the films against Bond from the books. Oddjob cannot be harmed with physical blows in the films, which is pure cinematic fantasy. In reality, any man, no matter how well trained in chop-socky or whatever Oddjob's specialty was, can be hurt and even killed by a tough and aggressive fighter even if that fighter is smaller.

Well, Bond didn't get very far fighting the Oddjob of the novel, either.  In the book, he was pretty much as he appeared on film, except I'm not sure he had that lethal hat.  I do remember he took his shoes off and broke a stair railing with his bare foot to show off.  Anyway, Bond only beats him by setting him up to get sucked out a plane window, the fate reserved for Goldfinger himself in the film.

My point was that the movies have created an image of Bond that's closer to Tarzan or Superman than to Fleming's character.  Thus when people disparage Roger, they always say, "he's too weak and flabby for James Bond."  Flabby I'll grant you, at least at the end there, but he's a large man with, at the start, a fairly athletic build.  He was NOT a muscleman in the mode of Sean, George and now Daniel, but neither was Bond.  When audiences see James Bond take his shirt off, they expect to see the hunky physique of Sean Connery coming out of the bath in From Russia With Love.  If true to Fleming, you'd see something closer to Timothy Dalton seducing Talisa Soto in License to Kill...he was fit, but hardly hunky.

Quote
And yes, no one said he was a powerhouse. I am talking about something quite different.

Well, you didn't say it, but it's been said.  I still maintain that as cool as it is to see Sean hurling gold ingots at Oddjob, or clobbering that guy in You Only Live Twice with a sofa (!), those kinds of superheroics should not define Bond.

Quote
Even the scene where the car goes from one side of the river to  theother, doing a mid-air roll on the way, was actually performed, of course. (Is that The Man With The Golden Gun?)

Yes, but of course they cheated.  The steering apparatus was moved to the center of the car, the seats came out and the "driver" laid on the floor to guide the car.  So a real AMC Gremlin ( :D ), balanced and equipped in standard fashion, could never have done it.

But still, it is a real car and a real bridge, and despite what Hollywood thinks, CGI is still not far enough along to match any stunt done in real life.  No matter how well it's done, our eyes and minds can always tell a fake.



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 11, 2006, 11:43:32 PM
That delightful filter strikes again!

In my reference above to Roger as a "right phoney", the substituted word "phoney" was originally a B-word usually reserved for children born out of wedlock.

Phoney...????


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on November 12, 2006, 01:50:25 AM
Where you said (or, rather, where the system said) "right phoney" really threw me till I read your follow-up post.

Two nice comments by Daniel Craig in my paper this weekend.

First one:

Quote
I've given 100 percent on this. I've given everything I could. If people don't like it, stuff them.

Second one:

Quote
I am not putting any negative spin on this because to be typecast as James Bond is a very high-class problem for an actor.

Both remarks show a healthy attitude. I admit I never understood what Sean Connery was on about when he disliked the Bond role because he wanted to do more and better things with his career. How quickly actors change their tunes after wishing and hoping to be famous.

This also brings up the issue of George Reeves for me. I don't know how accurate all those stories are of him being "bitter" and disgruntled about being "typecast" as the TV Superman. If you want to be a star, and you are in the top two or three of TV stars in terms of popularity and influence, how is that a bad thing? George must have known this was the height of his career, and a success 99 percent of actors can only daydream about.

And with Sean Connery. He ought to have known that Bond was the height of his career and was he never thankful?


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 13, 2006, 10:36:47 AM
You can add Errol Flynn to the list.  One of the most popular stars of his era, indeed for a while a bigger draw at Warner Bros than Cagney, Bogart or Davis, he nevertheless despised the costumed epics that made him such a big deal.  Flynn's gripe seemed to be that prancing around in tights with a sword at his hip was not "real" acting but just childish shenanigans.  People who tried to explain to him that nobody did it better...Gable just looked silly at it...got nowhere with Flynn.

I think George Reeves was in the same boat.  He wanted fame like any actor, but when he got it, it was as a live-action version of a cartoon character.  You have to remember that in the 50s it was considered a major step down for an actor to work on television at all, and to find oneself in a show aimed at children was about as low on the ladder as you could get.  So everyone who complemented Reeves for his TV work was, in his mind, also saying, "too bad you couldn't make it in the movies."  It's a bit different these days for two reasons: one, actors in the US find it easier now to shuttle between TV and film work without hurting their image (it's never been an issue in the UK) and two, in this modern era there can never be shame in fame.  Whether you get famous for winning a championship or for giving the president a hummer, you're still famous and that's what counts.  In George's case, the goal was to gain fame without compromising dignity.

With Connery, I think the big issue was that even though he was famous, no one knew who he was. One of his friends told the story of how, at dinner in a nice restaurant, he and Sean were approached by a woman who'd been watching them from a nearby table for some time.  "Excuse me," she asked the friend, "but are you having dinner with James Bond?"  "No madam," he answered, "I'm dining with Sean Connery."  Looking very disappointed, the woman said, "Oh.  Well, he looks like James Bond," and walked away.

That kind of episode (and it's not the only one I've heard of like that) would certainly make you want to consider diversifying your professional portfolio a bit, and take on some different roles.  Plus, I think money was just as big a factor.  Sean considered himself as much an architect of the Bonds' success as any of the directors or producers and he wanted part ownership of the franchise, which of course he never got.  When he gripes about the films, it usually boils down to complaints about Harry and Cubby.

If you follow all his interviews, though, Sean sometimes shows real affection for the character.  Seems to depend on what day you ask.



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Great Rao on November 13, 2006, 10:51:33 AM
A bit off topic here, but I'm curious about Never Say Never Again - what caused Sean to participate in that, and is it considered one of the "official" Bond films?


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 13, 2006, 11:21:58 AM
The story behind "Never Say Never Again" is long and complicated, but here's the short version:

Producer Kevin McClory had the rights to Fleming's "Thunderball" novel, but found it impossible to mount his own James Bond film in competition with the EON series (this being the mid-60s). He entered a partnership with Broccoli and Saltzman and together they made "Thunderball" in 1965.  The understanding was that after ten years, the rights would revert to McClory again (who knew?).

In 1975, McClory appeared from the Phantom Zone and announced he was ready to make his Bond movie.  Legal action ensued and finally by 1983 the path was cleared for a new, rival Bond film.  Sean Connery had already given his verbal commitment to the film, which by this point had gone through almost as many permutations as the latest Superman movie.  One of the unused scripts was even written by Sean Connery in partnership with Leigh Brackett (wife of Superman scribe Ed Hamilton) and involved an A-Bomb under the Statue of Liberty, and mechanical sharks in New York Harbor ???.  The script that was finally used, for legal reasons, amounts to a pretty direct remake of "Thunderball."

Why did he sign on?  Partly as a poke in the eye to his old bosses (when Johnny Carson asked him, on the "Tonight Show," who the villain of the film was, Connery answered, "Cubby Broccoli") and partly, let's be honest, because Sean's career was off the rails by 1983, after a series of flops like "Wrong Is Right," "Cuba," "Meteor," "The Next Man" and so on.  Playing Bond again put him back on the map and, once signed to Creative Artists Agency, on the path to the Oscar.

"Never Say Never Again" is not considered an "official" Bond film, as it was made outside the EON-produced series and lacks signature elements like John Barry's "James Bond Theme," the gunbarrel logo, a pre-credits sequence, Maurice Binder-like opening titles, and so on.  In fact it was released in competition with an official Bond film, Roger Moore's "Octopussy."  However, the rights to NSNA were acquired by EON about five years ago in a legal battle, and so it's at least theoretically possible the film could be included in future collections of Bond DVD's, etc. 

The name of the film was suggested by Connery's wife as an "in joke."  Ten years earlier, when asked after "Diamonds Are Forever" when he return to the Bond role, Sean had said, "Never again."



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Super Monkey on November 13, 2006, 08:19:23 PM
That delightful filter strikes again!

In my reference above to Roger as a "right phoney", the substituted word "phoney" was originally a B-word usually reserved for children born out of wedlock.

Phoney...????

welcome to the club ;)


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on November 14, 2006, 05:13:57 AM
Two nice comments by Daniel Craig in my paper this weekend.

First one:

Quote
I've given 100 percent on this. I've given everything I could. If people don't like it, stuff them.

You know, quite a difference from Pierce Brosnan... he would be really upbeat about each of his films in the interviews I saw ("I think we have a real winner with this film... the fans will enjoy it, I think")... never told the Bond fans... to "stuff it"

Such class... low class...


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 14, 2006, 10:09:46 AM
Yes, but then after each of his films, Brosnan would do interviews where he griped about how lame they were and how he never got to do anything he wanted to do withthe role.

Frankly I don't think hyping a poor film is a service to fans.  If Brosnan had real class, he'd tell us it stunk BEFORE we spent money on it.



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on November 14, 2006, 01:12:28 PM
Yes, but then after each of his films, Brosnan would do interviews where he griped about how lame they were and how he never got to do anything he wanted to do withthe role.

Frankly I don't think hyping a poor film is a service to fans.  If Brosnan had real class, he'd tell us it stunk BEFORE we spent money on it.



yes, I've heard those interviews, too... BUT I don't think he told the fans to "stuff it".  I also think his gripes were valid, in light of the invisible cars and that stupid fight in TND that took place in the recording studio... and just the traditional sci-fi elements of the bulk of his films...

To me, Daniel Craig sounds like a spoiled brat (in the interviews I've read)... he sounds like "They don't like me.. I've done my best... if they don't like me, then they can stuff it! Waaaaaah!"


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 14, 2006, 02:19:28 PM
Yes, well my point about Brosnan was that he knew his films were rotten the week of release, which was the time to tell us, wasn't it?  You can be the corporate shill and say what your bosses tell you to, or you can be frank and slam a film for its many faults. But it's hard to have it both ways and come off as even slightly credible.  (This movie's great, go see it!...How'd you like it?...You didn't? Yeah, I agree it was awful.  Oh well, see you next time!)

Another example is the whole smoking issue.  When smoking was banned for Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies," Brosnan defended the decision, saying something along the lines of, "You can't have a role model for youngsters setting a bad example."  Then he proceeded to promote the very same film by appearing on the cover of Cigar Afficianado with a stogie in his mouth.  Sure he did that cover as Brosnan, not Bond, but he did it as part of the TND publicity machine, so the lines are blurred.  Come on, Pierce, either stick to those lofty, kid-saving principles and refuse to promote smoking PERIOD, or defend your rights as a smoker and tell the world EON's daft for making Bond give up the habit.

As for Craig, he does have a dirty mouth, but he's right about one thing; once you've done your best, that's all you can do.  If people love you, great, if they hate you, oh well, what's done is done.  But as far as the whole "stuff it" bit, I have a sneaking suspicion he's trying to foster an image as a tough guy who doesn't give a...um...something the filter won't let me say here.  In a weird kind of way, I'm betting the producers even encourage him to keep up the attitude to help promote the movie.  (Hey look, folks! This Bond is a keg of dynamite! Don't tick him off!)

I don't want to keep going round on this ad naseum with you, as I do get your point.  Good manners are sorely lacking in all walks of life these days, and movie stars, after athletes anyway, are the worst.  I just don't think anyone should point to Brosnan as a paragon of "class", especially after the bitter and childish things he said for months after being asked to step down.  Maybe Roger Moore would be a better example; he always has something pleasant and charming to say (even about people who may not deserve it), and he invariably shows up for the interview dressed to the nines, as opposed to most modern stars who look like boxcar hoboes half the time.







Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on November 14, 2006, 04:54:20 PM
You're the man, nightwing...

I still don't think I'm going to see CR, although I may actually like the story and idea of a literal (more or less) adaptation, but as far as ditching the whole 007 history and the reboot, aside from Craig and other casting gaffes, I don't think I would enjoy it.

FWIW, I was emabarassed by half of Brosnan's 007 films.  TND and DAD were okay, but the direction and editing in DAD were VERY un-Bond-like... it was like watching a music video with it's slo-mo editing in places.  I DID like the references to earlier films, especially all the old gadgets in the one scene, but the Aston Martin and the villain's similarly weapon equipped car were so over-the-top it wasn't even funny.

That substanciates the pattern, though... once a Bond film get's "way out there", the next one comes back down to Earth... OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, GE and now CR all follow the pattern and usually it's when a new actor plays Bond.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on November 15, 2006, 02:12:34 AM
Two nice comments by Daniel Craig in my paper this weekend.

First one:

Quote
I've given 100 percent on this. I've given everything I could. If people don't like it, stuff them.

You know, quite a difference from Pierce Brosnan... he would be really upbeat about each of his films in the interviews I saw ("I think we have a real winner with this film... the fans will enjoy it, I think")... never told the Bond fans... to "stuff it"

Such class... low class...

He said he gave 100 percent, David. He said he gave everything he could. If you are a fan, how could you ask for more than that?

I actually find it refreshing, especially since I mostly have contempt for stars and their hangers-on, with their PR departments and phony personalities. I like Daniel Craig so far because in him I recognise a man I could have a drink with.

Nightwing:

Quote
Maybe Roger Moore would be a better example; he always has something pleasant and charming to say (even about people who may not deserve it), and he invariably shows up for the interview dressed to the nines, as opposed to most modern stars who look like boxcar hoboes half the time.

I am in complete agreement, regarding Roger Moore and the rest of it. His sort of class is largely missing these days. What you said about Roger Moore reminded me of things I have read about Bogart in biographies. Bogie set the standard in his day when it came to interviews, etc. I remember reading that a lot of male stars of the day would do things like answer the door for an appointment dressed in a towel, and would make the poor sap wait while they got shaved and dressed, etc. Some sort of power trip I imagine. Whereas Bogie would answer his hotel door ready to roll, shaved, showered and "dressed to the nines". Like you, I don't get the multimillionaire superstar types who dress in tramp's clothes and who look miserable, and don't shave regularly. I am a fan of the late Charles Bronson, and he once came out with a criticism very similar to yours about the stars of today (would have been the 70s), and he said, I always dress as well as I can afford. He had no time for that affectation nonsense. So basically I agree with your assessment of Roger Moore the man.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: JulianPerez on November 15, 2006, 05:23:07 AM
I'm interested in seeing this new Bond film.

I can't say whether it will work or not, because obviously I haven't seen it yet, BUT...I find the concept alone intriguing.

First, by the sound of things, this movie will buck the Bond "formula." You know what I'm talking about: first scene has Bond blowing something up, then the credits, then he flirts with Moneypenny and gets an exposition from his boss, until finally he penetrates the villain's base like Theseus in the Labyrinth.

I've always thought the most interesting film in a franchise is the one that doesn't use the "formula": for that reason I've never liked INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE as much as others seem to, and my favorite Bond and Indiana films are respectively, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM - and for the exact same reasons. In a franchise based on making the same movie over and over, they came early on and did a different and more intriguing kind of story before a story formula was set in stone.

The thing I always liked about Bond in the films, and in the novels too (though I must confess the only one of the books I've really read is my uncle's first edition of THUNDERBALL on a plane) is that James Bond as a character has a great deal of "edge." He's a good guy, but he's got a streak of mischief and love of pleasure, a dirtiness that gives him a sort of "coolness" that a shiny-toothed Mountie hero can't match. At the same time, Bond movies work as straightforward good vs. evil adventure stories, because while Bond is no angel, he's up against sociopaths with sinister agendas.

There was an interview around the time the first KILL BILL came out, where Quentin Tarantino expressed interest in making a James Bond movie. Now that would have been something to see. When watching KILL BILL parts 1 and 2, I was struck by how THIS is closer to the spirit of James Bond than anything else in the theater those years: KILL BILL combined over the top comic book stuff like villains with eyepatches with an edgy, sexy streak and ultra-stylization.

James Bond movies are adventure movies, but ideally you should hesitate before taking your Mom to one.

Over time, this "edge" to the character has been lost, and it's not entirely because this niche is less and less unique than when Bond first filled it (not a year goes by where a "bucking the rules" cop movie is made) but also because the films have not been playing this element up. James Bond movies in the sixties were super-risque and ultraviolent for the time...they had edge, and it's hard to remember that considering the films have been xeroxes of xeroxes.

It's hard to identify the exact moment, but I think it may have been THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, during the dinner conversation between Roger and Dracula himself, Christopher Lee. Here was Bond, a man who at his core, is a guy that kills people for money...getting sanctimonious to Scamanger...because Scamanger kills people for money!

So yeah, I am pretty intrigued they're trying to make Bond more "Tarantino" for CASINO ROYALE, because that's what Bond should be doing too.

Leigh Brackett almost wrote a James Bond? Now that would have been awesome. Edgar Rice Burroughs is the greatest adventure novelist of all time, but Leigh comes a close second. 

Incidentally, I actually wrote a haiku about Ed Hamilton and Leigh Brackett:

Edmond Hamilton
Writer Mighty as Great Oak
Until wife gets home


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: nightwing on November 15, 2006, 12:31:26 PM
JulianPerez writes:

Quote
I've always thought the most interesting film in a franchise is the one that doesn't use the "formula": for that reason I've never liked INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE as much as others seem to, and my favorite Bond and Indiana films are respectively, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM - and for the exact same reasons. In a franchise based on making the same movie over and over, they came early on and did a different and more intriguing kind of story before a story formula was set in stone.

I'm with you on "Russia," easily the best Bond in the series and not likely to be toppled.  But "Temple of Doom" is a sick, dark mess.  The "raft from the plane" bit is pure Road Runner and Coyote stuff (in a bad way).  The brains,bugs and eels for dinner scene takes the cute "sheep's head" moment from Octopussy and drags it on well past the point of humor (like an SNL sketch) and at best is the kind of thing you expect from a 6-year-old.  Kate Capshaw plays easily the most annoying love interest in any film ever, and that's including Denise Richards, Tanya Roberts and Britt Eklund from the Bond films.  Indy's attempt to shoot the bad guys near the end, only to find his gun gone, is a joke that can't work because it references the previous film...which according to Steven and George happens LATER in Indy's life.  And the whole "fortune and glory" routine is a half-hearted and abortive attempt to paint Indy as a younger, more reckless and not yet fully developed character compared to "Raiders." But other that that line, and a bit of a harder edge to Indy in the opening scene, nothing is done with it.

This is an unrelentingly dark and depressing film that piles on stunt after stunt with no sense of pace.  I still remember coming out of the theater in 1984 feeling like I'd been dragged into an alley and worked over with brass knuckles.  Lots of films have created the same effect since then, but that one was the first.

Quote
Over time, this "edge" to the character has been lost, and it's not entirely because this niche is less and less unique than when Bond first filled it (not a year goes by where a "bucking the rules" cop movie is made) but also because the films have not been playing this element up. James Bond movies in the sixties were super-risque and ultraviolent for the time...they had edge, and it's hard to remember that considering the films have been xeroxes of xeroxes.

A friend of mine just wrote a review for "Casino Royale" that had a neat turn of phrase.  He said it harks back to the early days of the series, "before the lava of creativity cooled into the crust of formula." 

The thing about being "edgy" is that you have to keep one-upping yourself.  In 1964, just releasing a film with a character named "Pussy Galore" was about the most scandalous, daring thing imaginable.  Showing a guy like Bond, who beds multiple partners in one film with no pretense of commitment, was amazing stuff.  But all it amounted to really was, "Oh my god, he's in his bath towel and she's already naked!  They're kissing! They're gonna do it! Pant! Pant!").  Nothing graphic was shown, but it was "racy."  Ten years later Bond is still bending a girl over a bed, with a slow fade to the next scene, only now it's tame...a cop-out.  By now you'd have to show them naked and thrusting to get anyone's attention and even then some audience members would be yawning.

Anyway, you're right that Bond has spawned countless imitators who've made him seem a lot less unique and interesting.  When I was growing up, you had basically two choices for big-screen action (unless you wanted to hunt down a kung-fu movie at a drive-in), and those were James Bond and Burt Reynolds.  Now action flics are a dime a dozen.

Quote
It's hard to identify the exact moment, but I think it may have been THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, during the dinner conversation between Roger and Dracula himself, Christopher Lee. Here was Bond, a man who at his core, is a guy that kills people for money...getting sanctimonious to Scamanger...because Scamanger kills people for money!

That's an odd scene, isn't it?  You have to wonder if that's the writers trying desperately to justify why this guy should be considered the villain.  A well-dressed, cultured Englishman who shoots people for a living....hmm, is this the bad guy or the hero?  The funny thing is, you'd think with all that was happening in the world in 1974, James Bond would come off as even less sympathetic.  After all, he did his killing on the orders of a government.

It's also interesting that Roger conveys such genuine fervor here.  You wonder if he was a bit at sea in his first two Bonds, playing a "hero" who slaps women around, tries to shoot them, tricks them into bedding him and so on.  Quite a switch from his "Saint" days.  And sure enough by the end of his tenure, he's the knight in shining armor, doing insane things like jumping on planes or dirigibles to put his life in danger for the fair damsel, even though the mission's already accomplished. 

There's a neat reversal of the Scaramanga dinner scene in "Octopussy," when Bond sanctimonously turns down an offer of employment from the title character and she replies, "I'll not apologize to you, a paid assassin, for what I am!"

The trouble is by this point sweet old Rog has been in the saddle so long we've forgotten that yes, he is a paid assassin.  Doggone it, he made it seem like such a sociable calling!

Before I give up entirely on the issue of how "classy" one actor is compared to another, I submit this video clip of Pierce Brosnan's compassionate and caring response to the "news" (later debunked) that Daniel Craig had lost two teeth filming a stunt scene for the new film...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMIhRnJBc7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMIhRnJBc7Q)

There's class and charm for ya.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: JulianPerez on November 16, 2006, 06:53:05 PM
Quote from: nightwing
I'm with you on "Russia," easily the best Bond in the series and not likely to be toppled.  But "Temple of Doom" is a sick, dark mess.  The "raft from the plane" bit is pure Road Runner and Coyote stuff (in a bad way).  The brains,bugs and eels for dinner scene takes the cute "sheep's head" moment from Octopussy and drags it on well past the point of humor (like an SNL sketch) and at best is the kind of thing you expect from a 6-year-old.  Kate Capshaw plays easily the most annoying love interest in any film ever, and that's including Denise Richards, Tanya Roberts and Britt Eklund from the Bond films.  Indy's attempt to shoot the bad guys near the end, only to find his gun gone, is a joke that can't work because it references the previous film...which according to Steven and George happens LATER in Indy's life.  And the whole "fortune and glory" routine is a half-hearted and abortive attempt to paint Indy as a younger, more reckless and not yet fully developed character compared to "Raiders." But other that that line, and a bit of a harder edge to Indy in the opening scene, nothing is done with it.

This is an unrelentingly dark and depressing film that piles on stunt after stunt with no sense of pace.  I still remember coming out of the theater in 1984 feeling like I'd been dragged into an alley and worked over with brass knuckles.  Lots of films have created the same effect since then, but that one was the first.

On the question of TEMPLE OF DOOM's pacing...the first act was pretty much BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG, going from a nightclub gun battle to a car chase to a plane nearly crashing out of the sky...I found it breathtaking, presenting something new every few minutes...but I can see why others found it exhausting. Either way, it doesn't last long: it then leads to the scary, quieter second act, where you've got a frightening Indian guy giving exposition, missing children taken by an evil cult, and finally forests filled with evil idols and vampire bats. For me, the spookiest moment was NOT the guy getting his heart ripped out, but was earlier, on the way to Pankot, they good guys are presented with this downright otherworldly idol that the elephants refuse to approach, and Harrison Ford selling the scene, demanded Willie and Shorty "not come up there." While on the idol, he discovers fresh red huiman blood. The music becomes screechy and strange...an astonishingly frightening scene.

The point here is, TEMPLE OF DOOM wasn't all breakneck - they mixed up the kind of movie it is periodically.

As for the "chilled monkey brains" scene...I'm with you that it was pretty moronic, but what is often forgotten is that the subtle, angry tension between Indiana and that Prime Minister guy, which made it all a very tense, dramatic scene.

When people say they didn't like TEMPLE OF DOOM because it was the most horror-centered and darkest of the Indiana Jones films, I'm not sure how to respond, because the reason I like TEMPLE OF DOOM is BECAUSE it makes the exotic horror and the darkness so explicit. There's a tendency to lump RAIDERS and LAST CRUSADE together and have TEMPLE OF DOOM be the odd film out of the three.

Actually, I think it's the other way around: it is RAIDERS and TEMPLE OF DOOM that are more like each other, and LAST CRUSADE that is the odd film out. The reason is that - the presence of Marcus and John Rhys-Davies aside - the TEMPLE and RAIDERS have their artifact be a mysterious, and rather scary, object with a mind of its own. They featured occult forces that were downright scary (that had really spooky John Williams music surrounding them). LAST CRUSADE on the other hand, was much more the traditional adventure film, with cowboys and escapes and castles.

RAIDERS had Indiana Jones start out in spooky, possibly haunted Mayan ruins with spiders and heathen idols. LAST CRUSADE started out with Indiana Jones in a Western with a gunfight against banditos.

People call Indiana Jones a series of adventure films with occult/horror elements, but that doesn't ring true to me: Indiana Jones films are really, horror movies with adventure elements. If you take out the horror/occult elements from Indiana Jones, you lose the distinctiveness of the franchise and you get a movie like THE ROCKETEER (a great film, but not very Indy-ish). TEMPLE OF DOOM makes that the most clear, which is why I like it most of all: the "personality" of the Indy films shines the most. This is why I don't think Indiana Jones's imitators have been very successful: they keep making adventure movies in exotic locales without duplicating the history and occultism, so they never do it quite right.

Quote from: nightwing
The thing about being "edgy" is that you have to keep one-upping yourself.  In 1964, just releasing a film with a character named "Pussy Galore" was about the most scandalous, daring thing imaginable.  Showing a guy like Bond, who beds multiple partners in one film with no pretense of commitment, was amazing stuff.  But all it amounted to really was, "Oh my god, he's in his bath towel and she's already naked!  They're kissing! They're gonna do it! Pant! Pant!").  Nothing graphic was shown, but it was "racy."  Ten years later Bond is still bending a girl over a bed, with a slow fade to the next scene, only now it's tame...a cop-out.  By now you'd have to show them naked and thrusting to get anyone's attention and even then some audience members would be yawning.

Yeah, I'm with you. I love Roger Moore, but the last thing I need to see is his bare ass.

The point I'm making here is not that Bond movies should be excessively violent or the sex should be explicit.

What I'm trying to say here is this: James Bond films are not seen as being the kind of racy flick they used to be. I don't think this is because the general culture has "caught up" with James Bond, so much as it is that Bond movies have, over time, become so enmeshed in the formula that we've forgotten what a "bad boy" James Bond really is.

Maybe. like you said, a nice guy like Sir Roger had a lot to do with this. He's such a sweet old English dude that you can take him home to meet Mom - a very strange statement to make about a character like Bond, and very different from the two guys before him. Even when Sean Connery's trying to be a sexier version of Dick Van Dyke in DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE, there was this strange grit and sex appeal about him that was totally inappropriate. Watching "Sean O'Connery" in DARBY O'GILL was a little like watching a porn star play Snow White.

I think the raciness is a much more important element of Bond than you make it out to be because without the Bond movies's daring - without all the bright blue gags and very distinctive, misbehaving hero, the Bond films become just another action film...which is precisely what happened in the past few recent films...and why CASINO ROYALE trying to give Bond his "edge" back is something that really tickles my fancy.

If they want it to be edgy they don't have to try to one-up themselves when it comes to explicit sex. They just need to make a film where there is a type of raciness, and more importantly raciness that leads to glamour and adventure. MOULIN ROUGE had no explicit sex, but it had a kind of sexiness that was exotic and glamorous, and not entirely PG-13.

One element that has been lost over time gradually from the Bond films is how there's been this sort of humor related to sex. Whether it was the gay henchmen in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, or Bond turning a radio off and saying "I'm fully satisfied" in GOLDFINGER, or the girlfriends with names like "Plenty O'Toole" (!). You can even see this in the early Roger Moore films - the trick he pulled on Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman with the tarot cards, or his tendency to say "Oh, the things I do for England" so forlornly as he's about to do the nasty with some hot babe (no doubt hating every minute of it, of course :D ).

Like I said, KILL BILL was more "James Bond" than "James Bond" was. This humor about sex was present there, too. When Uma Thurman steals a vehicle with PUSSY WAGON spraypainted on the side, for instance.

Quote from: nightwing
That's an odd scene, isn't it?  You have to wonder if that's the writers trying desperately to justify why this guy should be considered the villain.  A well-dressed, cultured Englishman who shoots people for a living....hmm, is this the bad guy or the hero?  The funny thing is, you'd think with all that was happening in the world in 1974, James Bond would come off as even less sympathetic.  After all, he did his killing on the orders of a government.

That's a very, very interesting point that didn't occur to me. Considering what was going on in 1974, you'd have to make Bond a heroic type, because Bond as a guy that kills people on behalf of his government comes off as downright sinister. Incidentally, that was by far the most hallucinogenic and counterculture of the Bond films, from that weird disco tunnel scene to Tattoo, who is himself a living acid trip.

Nowadays, I think the idea of Bond as assassin will play better, because - for good or for ill - we as a culture have gone back to the idea that sometimes you have to do something bad to make things turn out right.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on November 16, 2006, 11:11:27 PM

JulianPerez writes:
Quote
It's hard to identify the exact moment, but I think it may have been THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, during the dinner conversation between Roger and Dracula himself, Christopher Lee. Here was Bond, a man who at his core, is a guy that kills people for money...getting sanctimonious to Scamanger...because Scamanger kills people for money!

That's an odd scene, isn't it?  You have to wonder if that's the writers trying desperately to justify why this guy should be considered the villain.  A well-dressed, cultured Englishman who shoots people for a living....hmm, is this the bad guy or the hero?  The funny thing is, you'd think with all that was happening in the world in 1974, James Bond would come off as even less sympathetic.  After all, he did his killing on the orders of a government.

The issue was dealt with in "The Mechanic" a couple of years earlier, and far more convincingly.

But I mainly wanted to address the mistaken idea mentioned above that at his core, Bond is a guy who kills people for money. Bond is a secret service agent earning a salary who is permitted to kill in the line of duty if necessary. I do wish people would get that right.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on January 13, 2007, 12:30:17 AM
Is it really on the level that the new Bond film has the biggest box office take of them all?

Anyway.....

Daniel Craig has now been nominated for a Bafta.


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on January 15, 2007, 02:39:59 AM
And I have seen Casino Royale twice and loved it!  I'm a convert to Daniel Craig


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on January 15, 2007, 03:02:52 AM
Casino Royale opens this month and it's the first 007 movie in 21 years I'm not gonna see.  Anyone else turned off?

 ???


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Uncle Mxy on January 15, 2007, 10:54:55 AM
I haven't seen Casino Royale just yet.  Until it hits Netflix, it just doesn't exist for me.  The last film I paid to see in a theater was Superman Returns.  :)  Speaking of which, I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Superman ties to James Bond -- Tom Mankiewicz, Cary Bates, Teri Hatcher stupidly miscast as a Bond Girl, etc. 

He said he gave 100 percent, David. He said he gave everything he could. If you are a fan, how could you ask for more than that?
Someone saying they're giving 100% is refreshing to me, after hearing so many folks speak of giving 110% (shades of Spinal Tap!).  When Pierce Brosnan was cast as Bond, everyone cheered.  When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, everyone jeered.  I can't blame Craig for being snippy, especially with the British press.

Brosnan got lost in dreary over-production, and really wasn't allowed to bring Irish charm or Remington Steele into the picture the same way that Roger Moore channeled his Simon Templar and army officer past.  I'd have liked to have seen what Brosnan could've done if Bond had been more explicitly 'rebooted' for him. 



Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: davidelliott on January 15, 2007, 03:41:51 PM
Casino Royale opens this month and it's the first 007 movie in 21 years I'm not gonna see.  Anyone else turned off?

 ???

HELLO????  I saw it twice (see post previous to yours)


Title: Re: New James Bond
Post by: Aldous on January 16, 2007, 02:02:31 AM
Hello, yourself, David.  :P

First you write this:

Quote
Casino Royale opens this month and it's the first 007 movie in 21 years I'm not gonna see.

Then you write this:

Quote
And I have seen Casino Royale twice and loved it!

Hence the puzzled look!!  ::)