No Time To Die: Production Diary

1126212631265126712682507

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Aptly put.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Very symbolic IMHO that a thread about the next Bond movie within a Bond fan forum has drifted into discussing MI. Speaks volumes
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    edited January 2018 Posts: 7,055
    Because making the next Bond film is an impossible mission?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    patb wrote: »
    Very symbolic IMHO that a thread about the next Bond movie within a Bond fan forum has drifted into discussing MI. Speaks volumes

    I do apologise for momentarily increasing testosterone levels to the point of distraction.

    You're quite right, though. It does speak volumes and it is annoying. Though I suppose that will change when EON throw us a bit of string to play with.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
  • Posts: 4,617
    No criticism meant. I dont blame anyone. It illustrates the respect that the series has earned over the years, the sublime choice of "MIS girl" and the fact that something is actually happening re the production of the next one. Its only natual that it would be referenced whilst we don't have one tiny weeny bit of news re Bond
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,055
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Matter of taste, I suppose.

    Kind of sums up my feelings for Lea Seydoux.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,055
    I know you did. I know you did.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    Matter of taste, I suppose.

    Kind of sums up my feelings for Lea Seydoux.

    And mine. Don't find Seydoux to be jaw-droppingly stunning nor horrendously ugly but the fact that her character was so poorly written and her chemistry with Craig so forced made me dislike her more than I probably should have.

    McQuarrie and Ferguson created a much better female character than the Bond team did this time round.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Matter of taste, I suppose.

    Kind of sums up my feelings for Lea Seydoux.

    And mine. Don't find Seydoux to be jaw-droppingly stunning nor horrendously ugly but the fact that her character was so poorly written and her chemistry with Craig so forced made me dislike her more than I probably should have.

    McQuarrie and Ferguson created a much better female character than the Bond team did this time round.
    My sentiments exactly. I don't dislike Seydoux, however. I'm just indifferent.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Matter of taste, I suppose.

    Kind of sums up my feelings for Lea Seydoux.

    And mine. Don't find Seydoux to be jaw-droppingly stunning nor horrendously ugly but the fact that her character was so poorly written and her chemistry with Craig so forced made me dislike her more than I probably should have.

    McQuarrie and Ferguson created a much better female character than the Bond team did this time round.
    My sentiments exactly. I don't dislike Seydoux, however. I'm just indifferent.
    Same here. Interestingly Seydoux was instantly forgettable for me in SP but quite memorable in MI-GP. She looked better with the bangs, and her assassin character was pretty interesting. I can't believe it's the same actress, and wish there was more of Sabine Moreau.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    Matter of taste, I suppose.

    Kind of sums up my feelings for Lea Seydoux.

    And mine. Don't find Seydoux to be jaw-droppingly stunning nor horrendously ugly but the fact that her character was so poorly written and her chemistry with Craig so forced made me dislike her more than I probably should have.

    McQuarrie and Ferguson created a much better female character than the Bond team did this time round.
    My sentiments exactly. I don't dislike Seydoux, however. I'm just indifferent.
    Same here. Interestingly Seydoux was instantly forgettable for me in SP but quite memorable in MI-GP. She looked better with the bangs, and her assassin character was pretty interesting. I can't believe it's the same actress, and wish there was more of Sabine Moreau.
    Precisely.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing new about the SF matter. I pointed the same thing out months ago on this thread. ;)

    I don’t like the aspect that he’s suggesting to leave out the sexiness of women just because he finds it misogynistic, though (is that even used accurately nowadays?). I think despite all these, Bond needs his ravishing Bond Girls around him. I have to say... with the rest, I do agree with him.
    Oh, I completely agree @ClarkDevlin. Even though it's unlikely in a B25 with Craig, I hope we get at least one shot of a well formed female figure in a bikini, rather than a male in his blue swimwear (although we're probably up for that in the next one since they seem to do it once every other film with him).

    I didn't realize you'd mentioned the bullet issue. Another negative on the SF logic train.
    I couldn’t agree more. I’d rather we have an eye catching Bond Girl in a lacy lingerie or a two piece bikini that you’d see on Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret catalogs. Give me that over the “tortured soul Bond woman” that all of Craig’s leading ladies seem to play.

    It wasn’t more the bullet but Bond playing dead and not going after Patrice immediately when he held on to a very serious hardware that could do global damage. But, I digress.

    The "tortured soul" idea is how Fleming wrote a lot of them though isn't it? More often than not the girls in the books were damaged/broken/vulnerable, so really this is just the Craig films sticking close to the source material. I've probably missed a few in my head but Gala, Solitaire and Tatiana are the only ones I can think of who didn't have some sort of tragic backstory. Severine's backstory felt very Fleming to me, he seemed to have a weird thing for rape victims.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.

    Nor me. Honestly find her really plain.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited January 2018 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing new about the SF matter. I pointed the same thing out months ago on this thread. ;)

    I don’t like the aspect that he’s suggesting to leave out the sexiness of women just because he finds it misogynistic, though (is that even used accurately nowadays?). I think despite all these, Bond needs his ravishing Bond Girls around him. I have to say... with the rest, I do agree with him.
    Oh, I completely agree @ClarkDevlin. Even though it's unlikely in a B25 with Craig, I hope we get at least one shot of a well formed female figure in a bikini, rather than a male in his blue swimwear (although we're probably up for that in the next one since they seem to do it once every other film with him).

    I didn't realize you'd mentioned the bullet issue. Another negative on the SF logic train.
    I couldn’t agree more. I’d rather we have an eye catching Bond Girl in a lacy lingerie or a two piece bikini that you’d see on Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret catalogs. Give me that over the “tortured soul Bond woman” that all of Craig’s leading ladies seem to play.

    It wasn’t more the bullet but Bond playing dead and not going after Patrice immediately when he held on to a very serious hardware that could do global damage. But, I digress.

    The "tortured soul" idea is how Fleming wrote a lot of them though isn't it? More often than not the girls in the books were damaged/broken/vulnerable, so really this is just the Craig films sticking close to the source material. I've probably missed a few in my head but Gala, Solitaire and Tatiana are the only ones I can think of who didn't have some sort of tragic backstory. Severine's backstory felt very Fleming to me, he seemed to have a weird thing for rape victims.
    Mary Goodnight also didn't have a tragic backstory as far as I can recall. Although, I wouldn't qualify Solitaire as part of that group since she had been held captive by Mr. Big in similar vein as in the film. She was the one to come to Bond, after all, wasn't she?

    Now that you mentioned Solitaire, I wouldn't mind if they recycle the African warlord angle they originally developed for Blofeld in Spectre, and properly give the role to Buonaparte Ignace Gallia. I think it'd prove to be a very relevant villain. Something we haven't seen in a Bond film but quite came close to in William Boyd's Solo, if memory serves. A very fitting antagonist for a Craig film.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    Rebecca Ferguson would make a terrific bond girl!
  • Posts: 1,926
    Using two former M:I women, Seydoux and Ferguson would be like taking women from The Avengers TV series.

    Oh, wait, that worked out pretty well, actually.
  • Posts: 463
    Never understood the love for Furgeson in MI5 either. Terribly written character and it was such a stretch that her triple-crossing antics didn't get her killed off.
  • Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing new about the SF matter. I pointed the same thing out months ago on this thread. ;)

    I don’t like the aspect that he’s suggesting to leave out the sexiness of women just because he finds it misogynistic, though (is that even used accurately nowadays?). I think despite all these, Bond needs his ravishing Bond Girls around him. I have to say... with the rest, I do agree with him.
    Oh, I completely agree @ClarkDevlin. Even though it's unlikely in a B25 with Craig, I hope we get at least one shot of a well formed female figure in a bikini, rather than a male in his blue swimwear (although we're probably up for that in the next one since they seem to do it once every other film with him).

    I didn't realize you'd mentioned the bullet issue. Another negative on the SF logic train.
    I couldn’t agree more. I’d rather we have an eye catching Bond Girl in a lacy lingerie or a two piece bikini that you’d see on Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret catalogs. Give me that over the “tortured soul Bond woman” that all of Craig’s leading ladies seem to play.

    It wasn’t more the bullet but Bond playing dead and not going after Patrice immediately when he held on to a very serious hardware that could do global damage. But, I digress.

    The "tortured soul" idea is how Fleming wrote a lot of them though isn't it? More often than not the girls in the books were damaged/broken/vulnerable, so really this is just the Craig films sticking close to the source material. I've probably missed a few in my head but Gala, Solitaire and Tatiana are the only ones I can think of who didn't have some sort of tragic backstory. Severine's backstory felt very Fleming to me, he seemed to have a weird thing for rape victims.
    @thelivingroyale, I have to agree, Fleming quite a number of times incorporated sadism in his novels. Men, especially Bond himself, got a lot of physical torture, and women many times were equally misconducted. In that regard, Madeleine´s childhood story would also fit.
    But I think it´s not so much the female characters that make recent Bond films such a drag, but the overall way of handling the films, and how Bond´s character comes out of the situation. I think I wouldn´t have a problem with a grumpy Bond, if the film on the whole wouldn´t be so incongruous as the last two, with confused supporting character dynamics, and dumb attempts at humor.
  • Posts: 7,532
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing new about the SF matter. I pointed the same thing out months ago on this thread. ;)

    I don’t like the aspect that he’s suggesting to leave out the sexiness of women just because he finds it misogynistic, though (is that even used accurately nowadays?). I think despite all these, Bond needs his ravishing Bond Girls around him. I have to say... with the rest, I do agree with him.
    Oh, I completely agree @ClarkDevlin. Even though it's unlikely in a B25 with Craig, I hope we get at least one shot of a well formed female figure in a bikini, rather than a male in his blue swimwear (although we're probably up for that in the next one since they seem to do it once every other film with him).

    I didn't realize you'd mentioned the bullet issue. Another negative on the SF logic train.
    I couldn’t agree more. I’d rather we have an eye catching Bond Girl in a lacy lingerie or a two piece bikini that you’d see on Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret catalogs. Give me that over the “tortured soul Bond woman” that all of Craig’s leading ladies seem to play.

    It wasn’t more the bullet but Bond playing dead and not going after Patrice immediately when he held on to a very serious hardware that could do global damage. But, I digress.

    The "tortured soul" idea is how Fleming wrote a lot of them though isn't it? More often than not the girls in the books were damaged/broken/vulnerable, so really this is just the Craig films sticking close to the source material. I've probably missed a few in my head but Gala, Solitaire and Tatiana are the only ones I can think of who didn't have some sort of tragic backstory. Severine's backstory felt very Fleming to me, he seemed to have a weird thing for rape victims.
    I have to agree, Fleming quite a number of times incorporated sadism in his novels. Men, especially Bond himself, got a lot of physical torture, and women many times were equally misconducted. In that regard, Madeleine´s childhood story would also fit.
    But I think it´s not so much the female characters that make recent Bond films such a drag, but the overall way of handling the films, and how Bond´s character comes out of the situation. I think I wouldn´t have a problem with a grumpy Bond, if the film on the whole wouldn´t be so incongruous as the last two, with confused supporting character dynamics, and dumb attempts at humor.
    What I like about the cinematic incarnation of the Bond Girl template pre-reboot, regardless of their tragic backgrounds, they weren't doom and gloom. And dare I say, not all the abuse victim Bond Girls in the novels were moody or grumpy whereas the women in Craig's Bonds mostly are, specifically Camille and even more so Madeleine.

    Now, let's talk Domino. She was wronged by Largo quite often, even in the Eon film, but you never got the impression from her that she didn't enjoy life and the perks she had rather than being all damn grumpy her way around.

    So, source material isn't that all the Bond Girls are depressed, moody and grumpy women. Most of them have tragic backgrounds, yes. But, the Craig films follow the Vesper Lynd template with the excited portion of her persona cut out, even though I love Severine and regret that she wasn't used more in the film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?

    Do you know many women like her? I sure don't. It might be equal parts me liking the character (she was flat out f*cking cool at times and gave Cruise a run for his money in the action department) as much as it is me finding her attractive, but there's certainly nothing ordinary about her to me. She was better than any Bond girl we've had since Vesper, with whom she shares that 60s femme fatale vibe; although Vesper was obviously the more emotionally resonant of the two.

    No, that scene was in the film. Very much so.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?

    Do you know many women like her? I sure don't. It might be equal parts me liking the character (she was flat out f*cking cool at times and gave Cruise a run for his money in the action department) as much as it is me finding her attractive, but there's certainly nothing ordinary about her to me. She was better than any Bond girl we've had since Vesper, with whom she shares that 60s femme fatale vibe; although Vesper was obviously the more emotionally resonant of the two.

    No, that scene was in the film. Very much so.

    And she was very British which I liked,being a Brit myself.
    A bit like Lara Croft .

  • Posts: 7,532
    I would put Eva, Olga, and Lea all above her!
    That scene was in the film but am pretty sure that particular shot wasnt!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I would put Eva, Olga, and Lea all above her!
    That scene was in the film but am pretty sure that particular shot wasnt!

    Eva, certainly. Olga, maybe on par. Lea, absolutely not. For me, at least.

    I admired what they tried to do with Lea with the "daughter of an assassin" angle, but the script didn't do the idea justice. Lea is a fine actress but her romance with Craig is so forced to me that I can't rate the character at all. Cruise and Ferguson worked much better in this regard, as they held back on the full-blown romance angle. It only occurred to me over Christmas how hard Newman's score is working in certain scenes to add weight to the Bond-Swann romance. The music during the train conversation sequence is so heavy-handed. Compare this with the similar scene from CR and you see where SP went wrong.

    From memory - the first shot was, the second one cuts to the reverse. It doesn't linger on her derrière quite so much. ;)

    I'd very much love for Craig to get a character like Ilsa Faust - who is more of the Anya Amasova type, just a bit more British obviously!
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?

    Do you know many women like her? I sure don't. It might be equal parts me liking the character (she was flat out f*cking cool at times and gave Cruise a run for his money in the action department) as much as it is me finding her attractive, but there's certainly nothing ordinary about her to me. She was better than any Bond girl we've had since Vesper, with whom she shares that 60s femme fatale vibe; although Vesper was obviously the more emotionally resonant of the two.

    No, that scene was in the film. Very much so.

    And she was very British which I liked,being a Brit myself.
    A bit like Lara Croft .

    You know what? I'm not a Brit but I do love Lara Croft so maybe that is what it is.

    Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of Bond girl we are going to get this time round. MI does work on a different template compared to Bond at the moment so comparing is just for arguments' sake.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 1,162
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?

    Ordinary? That's exactly what she is not! Personally, I don't find her gorgeous/hot/sexy merely by looks, but by being a class act. Something very, very rare these days!
  • Posts: 4,617
    Obviously is all opinion but I think she has a classical beauty (beyond big boobs and make up) that goes back to a previous era of Hollywood. She matches this with the way she carries herself. Understated and cool. Not flashy or over acting. A little like Scott Thomas in the original. Pure class with a forties feel.

    With her starring in the next MI, comparisons with the next Bond girl will be inevitable so IMHO, EON really need to do something in this area. They have their work cut out.

    Ordinary? Hell. no
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?

    Do you know many women like her? I sure don't. It might be equal parts me liking the character (she was flat out f*cking cool at times and gave Cruise a run for his money in the action department) as much as it is me finding her attractive, but there's certainly nothing ordinary about her to me. She was better than any Bond girl we've had since Vesper, with whom she shares that 60s femme fatale vibe; although Vesper was obviously the more emotionally resonant of the two.

    No, that scene was in the film. Very much so.
    Agreed. I love the character. Icy cool, capable and yet seductive. She reminds me a lot Barbara Bach's Anya (I'm referring to the character and not the acting), and at least from my perspective, that's a good thing.

    She's certainly very attractive, but it's the combination of her beauty and her character which makes her extremely appealing to me. A female version of Bond, right down to the irony, which she delivered with a wink far more deftly than our incumbent male Bond did in the same year.
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don’t get the Ferguson thing. Yeah, she’s alright.
    I didn't get it myself. Until I saw Mission: Impossible 5. About a week ago.

    Then I understood. Yes, I most certainly did.

    Oh yes.

    No doubt.

    I’ve also seen it. Still don’t get it.

    +1 I agree, she is very ordinary, certainly not Bond girl material.
    Oh and that clip of her climbing out of the pool, didnt they only use that in the trailer?

    Ordinary? That's exactly what she is not! Personally, I don't find her gorgeous/hot/sexy merely by looks, but by being a class act. Something very, very rare these days!
    Absolutely!
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing new about the SF matter. I pointed the same thing out months ago on this thread. ;)

    I don’t like the aspect that he’s suggesting to leave out the sexiness of women just because he finds it misogynistic, though (is that even used accurately nowadays?). I think despite all these, Bond needs his ravishing Bond Girls around him. I have to say... with the rest, I do agree with him.
    Oh, I completely agree @ClarkDevlin. Even though it's unlikely in a B25 with Craig, I hope we get at least one shot of a well formed female figure in a bikini, rather than a male in his blue swimwear (although we're probably up for that in the next one since they seem to do it once every other film with him).

    I didn't realize you'd mentioned the bullet issue. Another negative on the SF logic train.
    I couldn’t agree more. I’d rather we have an eye catching Bond Girl in a lacy lingerie or a two piece bikini that you’d see on Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret catalogs. Give me that over the “tortured soul Bond woman” that all of Craig’s leading ladies seem to play.

    It wasn’t more the bullet but Bond playing dead and not going after Patrice immediately when he held on to a very serious hardware that could do global damage. But, I digress.

    The "tortured soul" idea is how Fleming wrote a lot of them though isn't it? More often than not the girls in the books were damaged/broken/vulnerable, so really this is just the Craig films sticking close to the source material. I've probably missed a few in my head but Gala, Solitaire and Tatiana are the only ones I can think of who didn't have some sort of tragic backstory. Severine's backstory felt very Fleming to me, he seemed to have a weird thing for rape victims.
    I have to agree, Fleming quite a number of times incorporated sadism in his novels. Men, especially Bond himself, got a lot of physical torture, and women many times were equally misconducted. In that regard, Madeleine´s childhood story would also fit.
    But I think it´s not so much the female characters that make recent Bond films such a drag, but the overall way of handling the films, and how Bond´s character comes out of the situation. I think I wouldn´t have a problem with a grumpy Bond, if the film on the whole wouldn´t be so incongruous as the last two, with confused supporting character dynamics, and dumb attempts at humor.
    What I like about the cinematic incarnation of the Bond Girl template pre-reboot, regardless of their tragic backgrounds, they weren't doom and gloom. And dare I say, not all the abuse victim Bond Girls in the novels were moody or grumpy whereas the women in Craig's Bonds mostly are, specifically Camille and even more so Madeleine.

    Now, let's talk Domino. She was wronged by Largo quite often, even in the Eon film, but you never got the impression from her that she didn't enjoy life and the perks she had rather than being all damn grumpy her way around.

    So, source material isn't that all the Bond Girls are depressed, moody and grumpy women. Most of them have tragic backgrounds, yes. But, the Craig films follow the Vesper Lynd template with the excited portion of her persona cut out, even though I love Severine and regret that she wasn't used more in the film.
    I agree. It's all about tone. Natalya is a top 2 or 3 Bond girl for me, and even though she lost a lot of colleagues at Severnaya, they didn't dwell on that aspect. I appreciated that.
  • boldfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Nothing new about the SF matter. I pointed the same thing out months ago on this thread. ;)

    I don’t like the aspect that he’s suggesting to leave out the sexiness of women just because he finds it misogynistic, though (is that even used accurately nowadays?). I think despite all these, Bond needs his ravishing Bond Girls around him. I have to say... with the rest, I do agree with him.
    Oh, I completely agree @ClarkDevlin. Even though it's unlikely in a B25 with Craig, I hope we get at least one shot of a well formed female figure in a bikini, rather than a male in his blue swimwear (although we're probably up for that in the next one since they seem to do it once every other film with him).

    I didn't realize you'd mentioned the bullet issue. Another negative on the SF logic train.
    I couldn’t agree more. I’d rather we have an eye catching Bond Girl in a lacy lingerie or a two piece bikini that you’d see on Sports Illustrated or Victoria’s Secret catalogs. Give me that over the “tortured soul Bond woman” that all of Craig’s leading ladies seem to play.

    It wasn’t more the bullet but Bond playing dead and not going after Patrice immediately when he held on to a very serious hardware that could do global damage. But, I digress.

    The "tortured soul" idea is how Fleming wrote a lot of them though isn't it? More often than not the girls in the books were damaged/broken/vulnerable, so really this is just the Craig films sticking close to the source material. I've probably missed a few in my head but Gala, Solitaire and Tatiana are the only ones I can think of who didn't have some sort of tragic backstory. Severine's backstory felt very Fleming to me, he seemed to have a weird thing for rape victims.
    I have to agree, Fleming quite a number of times incorporated sadism in his novels. Men, especially Bond himself, got a lot of physical torture, and women many times were equally misconducted. In that regard, Madeleine´s childhood story would also fit.
    But I think it´s not so much the female characters that make recent Bond films such a drag, but the overall way of handling the films, and how Bond´s character comes out of the situation. I think I wouldn´t have a problem with a grumpy Bond, if the film on the whole wouldn´t be so incongruous as the last two, with confused supporting character dynamics, and dumb attempts at humor.
    What I like about the cinematic incarnation of the Bond Girl template pre-reboot, regardless of their tragic backgrounds, they weren't doom and gloom. And dare I say, not all the abuse victim Bond Girls in the novels were moody or grumpy whereas the women in Craig's Bonds mostly are, specifically Camille and even more so Madeleine.

    Now, let's talk Domino. She was wronged by Largo quite often, even in the Eon film, but you never got the impression from her that she didn't enjoy life and the perks she had rather than being all damn grumpy her way around.

    So, source material isn't that all the Bond Girls are depressed, moody and grumpy women. Most of them have tragic backgrounds, yes. But, the Craig films follow the Vesper Lynd template with the excited portion of her persona cut out, even though I love Severine and regret that she wasn't used more in the film.

    That's fair enough. I guess they didn't want to trivialise the tragic backstories so they went with tortured/moody portrayals with Camille and Madeline.

    I think they struck a really good balance with Vesper and Severine though. Severine especially feels so fleshed out and real in how she hides how tortured/vulnerable she is and she's so effortlessly fit and charismatic. In a way, as horrible as it is to say this, I think it makes the tragic backstories more sympathetic when they still have a fun/charming side, because you grow to like them at first and then find out they've actually been through some messed up stuff and feel sorry for them. Whereas if you're introduced to a Bond girl moping or scowling, it's a bad first impression, (even if it is more realistic in the context of what they've been through) so it's "oh, that's why they're like that" instead of "woah that's pretty messed up, she seems nice as well, that's a shame".

    I agree they should have used her more. She might be my favourite Bond girl to be honest. Either her, Kara or Natalya.
Sign In or Register to comment.