› ›

New Daniel Craig interview — Bond 23 will be a "classic Bond film"

135

Comments

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 13,355
    I wouldn't be surprised if by a classic Bond film they partly mean that Bond will end up with the girl at the end. If I were writing the film I would have the girl sitting beside Bond's side in a hospital holding his hand or embracing him from behind while he sits on a chair on the lawn nursing his wounds or something like that, similar to the end of some of the Fleming books. I'd stay away from the cliched kiss with Bond seducing the girl either in a bed or god knows where else.
    Yet many would still not view this as "classic" which is why I would love to see something like this happen in a film. It again would challenge people's expectations of Bond.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    I don't know, if Bond does actually end up with the girl one way or another I think a good few will still see this as classic. Well, maybe half classic like the ending of Goldeneye. :)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I don't know, if Bond does actually end up with the girl one way or another I think a good few will still see this as classic. Well, maybe half classic like the ending of Goldeneye. :)
    I only wish with that one we saw Bond and Natalya actually board the helicopter but yes that was a great ending.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    I remember when I saw GE a second time with a friend of mine. He said "oh, that's a different ending". After the different endings in CR and QOS, if we see Bond at the end with the girl, regardless of what they're doing, it might be deemed atleast partly classic.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    One sentence that people may like:

    "It's going to be a great movie. We've got a great director Sam Mendes and I'm very excited about the script. I'm going to be very suave in it."

    http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/how-i-made-007-mad-very-mad-2855998.html
  • AgentJM7AgentJM7
    Posts: 421
    Good stuff. I'm thinking the train scene in CR, and the following taxi scene too. Love Craig when he's being suave and humorous. Great to hear! :D
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Good stuff. I'm thinking the train scene in CR, and the following taxi scene too. Love Craig when he's being suave and humorous. Great to hear! :D
    And yet another thing to prove Bond has now moved on from Vesper and back to how he was. This film may well change non-Craig people's minds.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    I'm thinking the train scene in CR, and the following taxi scene too.
    The entire sequence from when Bond first meets Vesper to when she tells him to take the next elevator has some of the best dialogue in the franchise (even if it does contain "Rolex?" / "Omega." / "Beautiful."). I particularly like Bond's explanation of why he broke cover straight away at the reception desk. And people say Purvis and Wade can't write dialogue.
  • SharkShark Banned
    Posts: 348
    I'm thinking the train scene in CR, and the following taxi scene too.
    The entire sequence from when Bond first meets Vesper to when she tells him to take the next elevator has some of the best dialogue in the franchise (even if it does contain "Rolex?" / "Omega." / "Beautiful."). I particularly like Bond's explanation of why he broke cover straight away at the reception desk. And people say Purvis and Wade can't write dialogue.
    They can, just Paul Haggis can't. And that whole 10 minute or so stretch reeks of his contribution. Stagy, forced, and archaic. The complete opposite of Richard Maibaum.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Sorry, but there is no way you can say for certain who wrote which line without the writers actually saying who did what.
  • BounineBounine
    edited August 2011 Posts: 2,598
    "Stagy, forced, and archaic. The complete opposite of Richard Maibaum."

    I agree. I wasn't enthused about this dialogue at all. I think the dialogue in QOS is superior to that of CR. One of the few things I like about QOS, along with the level and wonderfully natural style of humour.

    Anyway, I’m a fan of Craig, just not the intolerable abundance of action we got in QOS and the shoddy Brosnan flicks.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    "Stagy, forced, and archaic. The complete opposite of Richard Maibaum."
    The same Richard Maibaum who wrote THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN? Because I seem to remember Scaramanga showing Bond a high-tech solar installation that he single-handedly installed in a remote island base ... and then claimed that "science was never his strong suit". I also recall Bond being trapped in a well with beam of refined sunlight described as being "three thousand degrees Farenheit" ... and escaping without so much as a tan.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    Shark might very well have been referring to Maibaum's dialogue alone. It feels much more natural to me aside for the one liners of course which were a Bond ingredient that were required to be in there. As for the scenes you mention, well, he was writing for the tame, PG slapstick Moore era. I can't remember Scaramanga saying he installed all that stuff himself but if he did then that's a bit strange. Still, I much prefer Maibaum's dialogue to Haggis's in CR.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    I can't remember Scaramanga saying he installed all that stuff himself but if he did then that's a bit strange.
    No, he didn't say it, but it is implied - just five people are on Scaramanga's Island at the end of the film: Bond, Scaramanga, Goodnight, Nic Nac and Kra. Given the Scaramanga is security-conscious (to the point of paranoia), he's unlikely to have told anyone about his island hideaway. It's possible he had Hai Fat Industries install it when he took control of the company, but I find that unlikely because the location of his island would get out.

    Even if he did tell everyone where his island was, it doesn't change the fact that he used some of the most sophisticated technology of the time (the kind that would require a PhD to understand) and still claimed that "science was never his strong suit".
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    One thing that's always bothered me with that movie is towards the end Moore is at the top of some scaffolding (it's dark) at the Scaramanga place, has on a white shirt, drops his Walther and it falls (some distance) to the ground, a few seconds later he's back on floor level, and wearing a suit with his piece back in his hand as Lee stalks across the screen, probably nothing but I did question it
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    It's just a continuity error. But that entire sequence irritates me - the Funhouse is perhaps the least-Bondian location in the entire franchise.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    It's almost as if some footage was lost somewhere, filmed but never included in the final release, there's a blatant gap in time somewhere

    Same guy at the beginning from Diamonds are Forever, but 99.9 per cent of all Bond fanatics are well aware of him

    and of course, while we're at it, Karate school, Bond goes martial arts etc, follows on from the success of the aforementioned ETD the year before TMWTGG was released

    Still don't understand why Lieutenant Hip drove off and left him behind to fend for himself after Moore broke out of the dojo center :-??
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    And let's not forget how M got hold of Bond at the end of the film when on Scaramanga's boat.
  • BounineBounine
    edited September 2011 Posts: 2,598
    One thing that's always bothered me with that movie is towards the end Moore is at the top of some scaffolding (it's dark) at the Scaramanga place, has on a white shirt, drops his Walther and it falls (some distance) to the ground, a few seconds later he's back on floor level, and wearing a suit with his piece back in his hand as Lee stalks across the screen, probably nothing but I did question it
    Unless I misunderstand something, I was always under the impression Bond took the jacket from the wax figure of himself.

  • SharkShark Banned
    edited September 2011 Posts: 348
    It's just a continuity error. But that entire sequence irritates me - the Funhouse is perhaps the least-Bondian location in the entire franchise.
    Why? It's macabre and strange, and has got a lot in common with Fleming's Spectreville from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Only the Funhouse is tripper.
    One thing that's always bothered me with that movie is towards the end Moore is at the top of some scaffolding (it's dark) at the Scaramanga place, has on a white shirt, drops his Walther and it falls (some distance) to the ground, a few seconds later he's back on floor level, and wearing a suit with his piece back in his hand as Lee stalks across the screen, probably nothing but I did question it
    That's a jump cut. Peter Hunt helped popularise the technique in the early Bond pics. In his own words:

    "Of course everybody has forgotten that now, because we've all fallen into that idiom in the way of presenting films. We always cut films in the way I did Dr. No, but at that time that was something completely different to do. If you looked at any films made before 1961, even American films, they always have the guy walking down the steps, through the gates, getting into the car and driving away. We don't do any of that anymore [laughs]. The fellow says he's going, and he's there."
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    im looking forward to Bond 23 but i hope they make it more like Casino Royale than Qantum of Solace...no more Jason Bourneisms, better well defined humour (like Connery or the early Brosnan films), bring in Moneypenny (Carey Mulligan or Karen Gillian would be good choices), have generally more fun and a good storyline
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    What is Jason Bourneisms? Is it this shakey cam technique everyone goes on about?

    The same technique Abel Gance used in 1927 for 'Napoleon'? Why do we credit the Bourne films for a technique that is decades old?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    I would say QOS has more Jason Stathamisms than Bourneisms.
  • chuck007chuck007
    Posts: 172
    I would say QOS has more Jason Stathamisms than Bourneisms.
    I would say QOS has more Bondisms than Brosnanisms

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I would say QOS has more Jason Stathamisms than Bourneisms.
    I would say QOS has more Bondisms than Brosnanisms

    I would say Lord of the Rings has more Hobbitisms than Bobbitisms.
  • chuck007chuck007
    Posts: 172
    I would say QOS has more Jason Stathamisms than Bourneisms.
    I would say QOS has more Bondisms than Brosnanisms

    I would say Lord of the Rings has more Hobbitisms than Bobbitisms.
    agree :-D
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,713
    I would say QOS has more Jason Stathamisms than Bourneisms.
    I would say QOS has more Bondisms than Brosnanisms
    Brosnan had the gunbarrel at the start, Bond theme during action sequences, Q, Moneypenny... Dare I say Brosnan's outings have more Bondisms than the Craig movies.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,843
    To me Quantum is as much 007 as From Russia with love or Licence to kill.

    And while I wouldn't mind a bit more humor I don't want (sorry Dalton and others) an over the top bond film. Maybe because life is a bit more serious now for me I want a "bad ass Bond film"

    Like the early Connery's the 2 Dalton films and the Craig films the kind of bond where as long as you don't piss him off or try and hurt England your OK but when you do Bond is coming for you and he will kill you and sleep with your hot mistress.
  • chuck007chuck007
    Posts: 172
    I would say QOS has more Jason Stathamisms than Bourneisms.
    I would say QOS has more Bondisms than Brosnanisms
    Brosnan had the gunbarrel at the start, Bond theme during action sequences, Q, Moneypenny... Dare I say Brosnan's outings have more Bondisms than the Craig movies.
    We found Gunbarell in CR, and much much more creative than Brosnan's Gunbarells :)

    Bond theme, action sequences, Q, and moneypenney were not what i call Brosnanisms

    When i said about Brosnanisms i'm telling about laziness of character development, smarmy face, pain face,stupid joke and lack of toughness...
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638

    Brosnan had the gunbarrel at the start, Bond theme during action sequences, Q, Moneypenny... Dare I say Brosnan's outings have more Bondisms than the Craig movies.
    That is about all some of the Brosnan films had, a bunch of cliches.

Sign In or Register to comment.