It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oh yeah, the dialogue in CR is weird sometimes. They really improve this element in QOS, SF and NTTD (SP I’m not as sold on with ‘the author of all your pain’ stuff, but it’s far better than in CR).
As for the sinking building, I’ve yet to hear any better alternative. In a story that doesn’t have a traditional ‘climax’ (audiences expect a big set piece at the end of a Bond film) it’s the best thing they could have done. It does the job. Not sure if a low key foot chase or a somber death as in the book would have felt satisfying, and the end of a film is very important. It may well have ruined the movie if they’d not done it.
It was funny. That's why Craig made 5 movies. ;)
I think there's probably few 007 action set pieces which are really key to the plots, as you say. The LTK seaplane is, as I posted about just upthread, one of the best in my opinion as so many threads in the film after that point depend upon it; and when you compare the ski chase from OHMSS to the one in FYEO then the OHMSS one really benefits from being very important to the plot - Bond has to get away from Piz Gloria and warn the world: that in itself makes it much more thrilling because it's important. The FYEO one more or less happens while Bond is out for a stroll and really has no bearing on anything, as brilliant a chase as it is (if anything it slightly spoils the plot- Bond should know he's been rumbled as a spy as someone has tried to kill him, which should really put the suspicion on Kristatos).
The Spectre plane chase is at least vaguely important to setting up Bond and Madeline's relationship and flinging them together- there's a threat to her which is established. But I take your point. I think the Craig series has fewer tacked on action scenes than most after the 60s. The QoS car chase is probably pretty pointless- there's an argument to say the film would open better without it.
I remember being really disappointed watching Bullit for the first time: the car chase was famously the best one in the movies, but when you watch it the chase just sort of happens in an incidental way - it's not built up to or important to anything in the film. I found it a real let down, I thought it would be vital and dramatic, but it's not.
I mean, if you’re going to get away with contrived stunts/action sequences I suppose it’s going to be in a Bond film (it helps that these sequences are usually very inventive and interesting anyway). While I’m not the biggest FYEO fan I think that ski chase gives that film something special, unnecessary as it is, and to give the film credit for whatever reason it just feels naturally a part of the film.
I have never gotten to the torture scene in CR and thought "what this film needs now is a blow out action finale". Never. Once Le Chiffre takes a bullet the film feels wrapped up. Its like saying Bond should have gotten into a action set piece after his wedding in OHMSS, the film just doesn't need it.
But, yeah, Dalton never stood around on the side of the Thames talking about trust and "being able to look the enemy in the eye", because the audience could read how he felt on his face. When he crushes that ballon in his hands and Kara asks what's wrong he doesn't say "M was right, the enemy exists in the shadows, floating in the ether, I don't know who to trust, whether I'm half monk or half hitman. I have no armour left, maybe I just need to forgive myself." The audience knows exactly what he's feeling.
That’s not the climax of OHMSS. The assault on Piz Gloria is. That ending, while tragic, is the equivalent structurally of Bond sleeping with the Bond girl at the end of a typical film after they’ve finished the mission. So yeah, rather a strange example there.
Same for the CR point. The story clearly hasn’t ended yet. Not quite sure how it feels wrapped up - I’d personally be asking things like ‘did Mathis betray Bond?’, ‘who was Le Chiffre working for’ etc.
Like I said CR’s not a typical Bond story, and it had to be adapted for audiences who expect a level of spectacle and heightened reality in these films. And indeed a satisfying climax. Is there an alternative sequence/idea you’d have gone with instead of the sinking building?
That's what I'm saying, the ending of CR feels like all parties were nervous about whether the audience would get sucked into the poker scenes, so they bolted on some action at the end for "safety". In reality, it wasn't needed. The poker section is thrilling in itself, and between the parkour, the opening bathroom fight, the stairwell fight, the car flip and the maimi chase the film feels more than action heavy enough. The sinking House is surplus to requirements, and probably why people consider it the least memorable part of the film.
I think it’s more fans who take issue with it, often those who know the book well. No one I’ve watched it with has ever complained about it. Actually some have even said Bond trying to save Vesper from the elevator is one of the highlights.
I don’t see what devising a big sequence for what is essentially the climax of the film has to do with the poker game. These are different sections of the film, they obviously wanted the poker to be gripping, but they clearly wanted to make Vesper’s death memorable/impactful too. Again, this is the climax of a Bond film. You need a set piece, even in a comparatively unusual Bond story like CR. A quiet death akin to the novel is a big no-no, and would have killed the pace of this film. It could legitimately have ruined it, and even something consciously smaller scale could have done so too.
Again, any alternative ideas for what they could have done?
You can’t do that in a Bond film. Drama is integral to these films, but going down this route, setting up Vesper’s deteriorating mindset, requires a set up which grinds the pace to a halt and means it becomes more a melodrama than an action adventure (but ultimately character based) Bond movie. Vesper in the film is at any rate depicted as much more self assured than her literary counterpart, so seeing her break down and become helpless would have rang slightly false. We get a sense of Vesper’s conflict in the film, but ultimately she takes matters into her own hands, and her suicide is depicted as an off the cuff decision, a ‘way out’ for her which also protects Bond. It works frankly. I really can’t think of a better alternative here.
Oh, more action after the poker scenes was needed.
The issue is that the climax is mechanical (like many Bond movies) but they needed something after Le Chiffre's death.
I agree (although not about the OHMSS comparison); the film is fighting that set piece - it doesn't want it, I can almost feel the film rejecting it. The story of Bond and Vesper needs to come to a big crescendo, but Bond having a fairly ordinary fight with a few faceless heavies in a slightly contrived setting doesn't feel part of that to me and gets in the way.
I think this is an odd comment; Craig's Bond is pretty much the silent, brooding one who doesn't say much. Dalton looked angry and tense all the time- it was just his default position even when he should have been relaxed and confident.
But where are the equivalent scenes of Dalton talking about "trust" with M? "The old ways are the best"? "You used to be able to look the enemy in the eye?" "the shadows?" feel free to pop some examples in a comment. Dalton didn't have scenes like that, because his Bond didn't need them, you understood there was a lot happening beneath the surface, that didn't need to be put into words. His delivery of "I got the message" tell us so much more about what's going on inside bonds head than Craigs "I don't have any armour left" or "for what felt for 5 minutes I wanted everything with you".
That'd be cool, it'd be great to see the new Bond behind the wheel of a new Aston. Great way to start the next era
I love Dalton’s Bond, but Craig was just as good, and actually I’d argue better at conveying that side of the character.
Well why did one need a bunch of awkward, ham-fisted dialogue talking about his emotions when the other clearly didn't?
I think it’s really only CR that comes close to that. And even if those moments/bits of dialogue aren’t to your taste it’s nothing against Craig’s acting in itself. It’s an issue you have with the writing.
Dalton had some clunky lines (usually the quips, and honestly, I think a lot of that had to do with his delivery).
Those are totally different scenes: Dalton's Bond didn't fall in love; Craig's did. That he actually put that into words to the person he's in love with isn't all that surprising. Honestly I didn't really buy there was much going on under the surface with Dalton's: he's just angry. It's not massively interesting: we get stuff like "If (M) fires me I'll thank him for it" (which if anything gets Bond's character wrong) - and certainly LTK brings up a discussion of loyalty between the two of them. If Craig had said that would that have been a problem?
"The old ways are the best" isn't even Bond's line! I'm not sure the others are either. I'm sure we can come up with examples of lines Dalton didn't say either :D
You might think it's only a CR problem, but I don't find any of the romantic dialogue between Bond and Madeline in Bond 25 convincing. It's all very hammy, including "you'll never see me again", "I'm not going to lose... control", "you have all the time in the world" as a matter of fact a lot of the dialogue in Bond 25 is just bad generally. The interplay between Bond and Nomi about the 007 status, bond and M strange antagonistic dynamic, Bond's absolutely baffling exchange with blofeld in his cell. Bond 25 jumps many sharks, but to take blofeld, a man whose iconic stature is built on being the end all be all, ultimate cat stroking manipulator and mastermind, pulling all the strings, and turn him into the interlude villain whose outsmarted and whose operation gets subsumed into the real, actual scary bad guy has to take the cake, huh? How on earth did we, in one film, go from Blofeld sat at the head of the spectre table, shrouded in darkness, everyone scared into a hushed silence at his mere presence, to suddenly he is playing the second fiddle? Anyway, I'll stop ranting now.
I suppose for me I found the dialogue in the handful of intimate moments between Bond and Madeline in NTTD as being similar in spirit to the dialogue between Bond and Tracy in the barn in OHMSS. Same for the beach scene with Vesper in CR. It’s just the type of dialogue needed for those scenes, broadly speaking.
To each their own on everything else you mentioned. Like I said I don’t think any of that is a mark against Craig’s acting. Just an individual issue (or indeed issues) with the script, which is fair enough.
Hmm. I suppose the difference is that I never thought of OHMSS as taking itself particularly seriously, it just happens to have a story where Bond gets married. The relationship is handled more maturely than, say, Bond and Tiffany Case (obviously) but that's by virtue of the material being what it is. I don't find Lazenby to be playing it with a particular sharp edge, indeed he's very playful and silly in some scenes, like when Draco's men capture him initially. The film is certainly more thoughtful than what came before, but It seems a lot more organic, whereas with Craig and CR, it's a very intentional and deliberate shift. Right from the use of black and white in the PTS, moving the gunbarrel, removing Q and Moneypenny, lines like "do I look like I give a damn?" They very much want to make it clear that this is not the same bond you're used to. With OHMSS, I don't get that. There certainly is a shift from the farcical antics of DAF, but I don't feel like the filmmakers are going out of their way to make that shift felt.
I think just taking the barn scene Lazenby plays it pretty sincerely. It personally gives me the same vibes as Craig’s Bond when he’s on the beach with Vesper, or in the hotel room with Madeline.
I mean, Craig’s Bond did certainly have that harder edge, and in many ways those ‘do I look like I give a damn’ moments are there to differentiate him, but I don’t think he's quite as different or as always serious compared to previous incarnations as you’re making out. There’s the playful sparring with Vesper when they first arrive at the hotel (all the ‘Mrs. Broadchest’ stuff), him turning on the charm with Solonge and even the hotel receptionist, the dark humour during the defibrillator scene (‘I’m all ears’). Even the ‘half hitman’ line, stupid as I think it is, is basically a quip. Seems to me pretty in line with how the character had been depicted previously, albeit with Craig’s own take on it (which is the norm with new Bonds).
It'll be a front-mid-engine Grand Tourer again likely. I'm excited but a bit disappointed, as they were originally going to do a 2019 concept with a rear-mid-engine layout to go more after Ferrari and Lamborghini, which excited me, but they cancelled those plans.
At the end of the day, it comes back to how the film plays up those moments. When Bond turns on the charm with solonge and the receptionist it's played so straight you could hear a pin drop. It's the least stylised or heightened "sexy" way of shooting that interaction, which again is communicating a shift towards the real, lived in reality of our world. If those scenes had more flair, put some score behind them (like Brosnan flirting with the woman at the kiosk in hamburg), then you can say his Bond played into that as much as other versions. But, and I think this more or less sums up the divide happening, at the end of the day it doesn't matter to me that technically speaking those things happened if the film isn't to some extent centred around them. Yes, technically those scenes were filmed, the actors turned up, cameras rolled, its in the finished product, but the film itself isn't centred in that playful energy and the repartee and snappy pacing, like, say, TSWLM is, so the fact they happen at all is kinda incidental to me.
Strongly disagree. These are great little moments, sexy without being smarmy.