In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1293032343551

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I do agree that the best adaptations hew closest to Fleming's original, but when the purely cinematic Bond gets it right, it makes for great movies as well; I believe that TSWLM, GE and SF will forever be as beloved (or nearly) by both the general public and the hardcore fan base as the more orthodox fare such as DN-TB, OHMSS, FYEO and CR.
    Fully agree with this.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I do agree that the best adaptations hew closest to Fleming's original, but when the purely cinematic Bond gets it right, it makes for great movies as well; I believe that TSWLM, GE and SF will forever be as beloved (or nearly) by both the general public and the hardcore fan base as the more orthodox fare such as DN-TB, OHMSS, FYEO and CR.
    Fully agree with this.

    I much prefer the more orthodox fare such as DN-TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK and CR.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    I'm glad this thread has managed to keep the discussion going in a more balanced way, other then the slaughtering elswhere on these boards.

    For me SP is hard to pinpoint. It has some classic scenes (the train fight) which ooze Bond in his classic form, especially as his dinnerdate just before is classic Bond. But it goes Moore-ott as well, with the car chase and the plane chase. Still, there are some more spy-like moments like the infiltrator Bond questions in l'Americain (yes, the mouse). And moreover the pale King. Also I should mention Bond's arrogance and toughness with Mrs. Sciarra.
    The falling house was again more Moore territory.

    So, all in all, the film delivers what so many (here) were asking for: a lighter toned Bond film. But as so often, people ask the things they don't want at all, for they don't know what they want but they have to complain anyway.

    I still find the script jarring. The story doesn't flow that well and the dialogue isn't very good. I'm amazed how both Craig and Lea manage to make useless dialogue work.

    This problem has existed for a long time. From TWINE onwards. And yes, I think this is due to P&W. The stories have been hit (CR!) and miss (DAD!!!!) ever since. It seems to me they are fairly good at making the screenplay, and, when they have some good source material, can fleshen out the story. But dialogue isn't their strong suit.

    Mendes does, however, seem to like the psychological warfare. Silva does it with 'mommy' M, Blofeld with this 'brother' thing. Bond isn't impressed and doesn't care, but I find it annoying and not very usefull. The film would've been better if Blofeld had been more focussed on his masterplan and less on his 'brother' psychological warfare which clearly does nothing to Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    So, all in all, the film delivers what so many (here) were asking for: a lighter toned Bond film. But as so often, people ask the things they don't want at all, for they don't know what they want but they have to complain anyway.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one that senses this.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    At this point the rampant and cartoonish hate SP gets means that, by any logic, it can only go up in people's minds. You'd think Mendes poured acid on a maternity ward of babies, judging by the mewling here.

    I'm not ignorant of some of SP's faults, but its massive style, art direction, vintage flair, performances, character work, themes/motifs and attention to Bond's development from the reckless man of CR earn massive respect from me. The amount of effort put into these films, and their ambition to not just be something you've seen twenty times before earns further respect, with the added depth and operatic power it has. The only way SP could even slightly sour is if I compared it to the early Connery (minus GF), OHMSS and the other Craig films, where it may rank in the back 6 or 7 films therein, but only because the others are so profoundly great. It's a waste of time for me to even think the Moore and Brosnan films are worthy of a comparison with SP, so I don't even bother.

    I think SP represents an interesting snapshot of where we're at in our reaction to the film industry now. Not only is everyone a critic, the criticism is almost barbaric. People think that movies that don't cross a billion are failures (even if SP got near $900 milllion), and they are better producers and writers than the people at EON who have grown up in the industry. Lastly, when people get what they asked for, they still complain. People hated seeing Bond placed in super emotional storylines that forgot the old Bond elements, so they got it all back, even the damn gun barrel. Now, people are crying for Craig to just play the Bond he did in the other films, the portrayal of the character so many hated (though I argue SP represents a Bond who has simply matured, and not a different guy at all). I just find it amusing, really. But I went through this with QOS and loads of other films, just as I will with SP. The trigger-happy culture may yet fall in line.

    I have nothing more to say other than I greatly enjoyed reading that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.

    Deep shit also has depth.
  • Posts: 3,327
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SP isn't a travesty but it's overwhelmingly disappointing. I also think it's noticably Craig's weakest performance. I dare say compared to his 3 previous outings his performance in SP looked like he was phoning it in.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP isn't a travesty but it's overwhelmingly disappointing. I also think it's noticably Craig's weakest performance. I dare say compared to his 3 previous outings his performance in SP looked like he was phoning it in.

    As I stated in another thread yesterday, there was no way that wasn't going to be the case, simply because the last three movies were so heavy in going into Bond, to the point that people were upset about it. It's far easier just to quote my own point than waste time repeating it:
    I think people are simply caught off guard by Dan playing a Bond that isn't suffering from some existential crises. He gets criticized as Bond for not being as traumatized or troubled and intense in performance, when this is exactly what an overwhelming majority wanted the films to stray away from. They wanted a more glamorized, more unflappable and far less emotional Bond and they got it after three films of Bond getting his heart and body destroyed to an almost meta-sadistic level. The more overt ways Bond acts in SP and how lovably roguish he can be, like the sarcastic quips and waves he gives to henchmen who want to kill him are a clear and logical development for his character. Ever since CR's wounds healed he's become a far more peaceful and in control man by the nature of maturing. By SP, he's done this for so long and faced so much that things roll off of him, and he is so confident he doesn't mind playing games with his enemies. He's overt in how much he despises or disrespects them, such as in his interactions with C, Blofeld, SPECTRE henchmen and on. This is very much a "Conneryesque" performance at times, but this is also the kind of man Dan has played all along. His Bond is unapologetic about how overtly he lets people know he hates them, and he doesn't play any games with M, his villains or anyone. So while becoming more unflappable and professional, he still keeps his stubborn and uncompromising core in tact.

    I don't think Dan is actually capable of giving a bad performance; he's just too good and committed to it in a way even Sean couldn't be bothered to be at times. SP is probably his weakest performance of the 4, but it's not because it's bad, it's just because one of the films has to come in last and the others are just so heavy on the meat. CR is a rare script in the Bond canon that allowed him to play every level of Bond's character in a way we've never seen before or since, save for maybe OHMSS in some ways. QoS was written specifically for Craig to play a grieving Bond, full of very subtle but rich moments where we peer into his heart as he overcomes Vesper's betrayal and finally learns the ultimate truth about what happened. SF is the grand, mythic phoenix from the ashes story with Bond as a fallen knight getting up again, with obvious meat for Dan to play with. In SP Dan still gets interesting things to play with, like Bond's development to be something other than a spy, his reunion with White, his unexpected dynamic with Madeleine and his condemnation of Blofeld, but of course he's never going to surpass the unreachable highs of the last three films that were the craziest films performance-wise of the series save for a few exceptions. Dan deserved a film where his Bond wasn't constantly being emotionally drained or physically battered to hell, and largely SP is that film. He's more in control, less hampered by his own mind and the acts of others, and on the whole just gets along with it.

    I don't know what people wanted as an alternative. The previous films explored every level of Bond you could want (and a lot some didn't), so I think a more in control performance as in SP was warranted and goes a long way to showing that Bond has truly grown as a man and agent.

    So after a film where Bond falls in and out of love in the biggest way he has since Tracy through a massive betrayal, another where he mourns the woman and internally searches himself for feeling and the third where he becomes a mythical British protector, resurrects himself and faces the loss of his boss while confronting his childhood past, yeah, SP will be a little light in comparison if only because the previous films were so heavy. I still hold that Dan's performance in SP is great, it's just a different kind of great that shows how much his Bond has grown. It just so happens that his previous films are all top 10 performances easily, and so SP inevitably must come last simply because the script wasn't throwing so much at him to back up the matured Bond narrative arc.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Spectre has its weaknesses and particularly the London finale feeling out of place as well as Blofeld's motivation (or backstory if it offends some). Craig's performance wasn't part of the flaws. If anything, I loved Craig's performance as well as Bond's characterization.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Last time I watched it was a real chore, now I know some like to lump this and SF together but to me they were night and day.

    SF to me was like a film that Mendes had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve, it's littered with moments that will go down in Bond history, whereas I doubt many will be talking about anything apart from die hard fans of SP in years to come.

    Outside the fanbase (and that is what counts) people will be remembering SF fondly and it will go down as film that the masses really enjoyed, it did things that should never be attempted again and that should have been the digging into Bond's past limit.

    SP stinks of Mendes not really knowing what he wanted to do as well as dealing with a script that wasn't what he originally wanted, he'd probably loved to have made the film that him and Logan dreamt up.

    I don't think his heart was in the P&W polish as it was of the insistence of BB & MGW that P&W were bought back, I don't think Sam wanted that which is why they got their marching orders after SF, so to go back to them and beg must of been quite humiliating having given the impression he didn't need them anymore.

    SPECTRE is just boring at times and the other part frustrating, some of you might well been happy with it or like to defend it's unremarkable air and lack of danger or suspense but even the Moore films that were flippant and OTT had more of a sense of danger than this film, I didn't at one point think Bond was under pressure or barely breaking a sweat.

    It was generic and underwhelming after the PTS, the White scene is great but could have been better but 20 minutes of a near 2 and half hour films does not let it off the hook.

    This is without addressing scanning a ring to tie all the films together and step brother gate.

    I'm sorry I think it's one of the worst films of the series and I agree Craig looks his least committed and at times just going through the motions.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Mendes was not happy with Logan, not at all. It's my understanding that it was a joint decision with B&M to bring in P&W and later Butterworth. I hold Logan at fault for not laying the appropriate groundwork and Mendes for failing to cement a central story that didn't have echoes of SF. The former film was a case of bottling lightning and I'm of the mind they should've made the latter a plot driven affair; accepting that lightning doesn't strike twice. Despite this I personally think it works on several levels, but it's not a groundbreaking Bond movie.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    this

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    this

    I think what people mean is that doing a full on Fleming adaptation is hard without changing a lot. MR would need a change of Drax, a change of the character's entire background, and a change of the missile in addition to a bunch of other things. There's nothing from that book I'd want to see outside of Bond and M at Blades meeting the film's villain or the finale where Bond races the rocket in his car. I don't care to see Brand, as the woman leaving Bond thing has been done in some way, shape or form already and has lost its power.

    I don't care to see the Spangs, so I've not got a lot of excitement about DAF, but out of those I'd like to see YOLT or TMWTGG explored more. YOLT in a semi-faithful or inspired adaptation would be my dream for Bond 25, but in the way CR was able to take that story and let it be that, but giving it room to grow more on its own as well, being part Fleming, part original. TMWTGG just represents Bond going against a person as skilled a killer as him, which I've wanted to see done right forever, it just doesn't necessarily have to be the character of Scaramanga he kills. I'd actually much rather see a villain put a contract out on Bond following a PTS and the film is about Bond facing a small group of killers competing for his head than just one killer.

    But we'll never see adaptations anywhere near as faithful as what we have, or even close to the ones that were more inspired by Fleming than written from the books. That's just the age we're in, and the decades that have been placed between us and the books, all the villains that've been used and how the world has changed.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    this

    I think what people mean is that doing a full on Fleming adaptation is hard without changing a lot. MR would need a change of Drax, a change of the character's entire background, and a change of the missile in addition to a bunch of other things. There's nothing from that book I'd want to see outside of Bond and M at Blades meeting the film's villain or the finale where Bond races the rocket in his car. I don't care to see Brand, as the woman leaving Bond thing has been done in some way, shape or form already and has lost its power.

    I don't care to see the Spangs, so I've not got a lot of excitement about DAF, but out of those I'd like to see YOLT or TMWTGG explored more. YOLT in a semi-faithful or inspired adaptation would be my dream for Bond 25, but in the way CR was able to take that story and let it be that, but giving it room to grow more on its own as well, being part Fleming, part original. TMWTGG just represents Bond going against a person as skilled a killer as him, which I've wanted to see done right forever, it just doesn't necessarily have to be the character of Scaramanga he kills. I'd actually much rather see a villain put a contract out on Bond following a PTS and the film is about Bond facing a small group of killers competing for his head than just one killer.

    But we'll never see adaptations anywhere near as faithful as what we have, or even close to the ones that were more inspired by Fleming than written from the books. That's just the age we're in, and the decades that have been placed between us and the books, all the villains that've been used and how the world has changed.

    Well the basis of the story is of course Bond beeing send after a formideable enemy who doesn't know him (after messing things up, it's his redemption mission), and uncovering a bigger (Russian) plot while he fails to do his single assignment when he has the chance (because of his interest in the conference). This could be used, as it hasn't been done before. TMWTGG (film) is far more focussed on the paraphernalia then the story itself, which remains untouched.

    That could work still with loads of 'terrorists'.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Anything faithful has my vote.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    this
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    this

    I think what people mean is that doing a full on Fleming adaptation is hard without changing a lot. MR would need a change of Drax, a change of the character's entire background, and a change of the missile in addition to a bunch of other things. There's nothing from that book I'd want to see outside of Bond and M at Blades meeting the film's villain or the finale where Bond races the rocket in his car. I don't care to see Brand, as the woman leaving Bond thing has been done in some way, shape or form already and has lost its power.

    I don't care to see the Spangs, so I've not got a lot of excitement about DAF, but out of those I'd like to see YOLT or TMWTGG explored more. YOLT in a semi-faithful or inspired adaptation would be my dream for Bond 25, but in the way CR was able to take that story and let it be that, but giving it room to grow more on its own as well, being part Fleming, part original. TMWTGG just represents Bond going against a person as skilled a killer as him, which I've wanted to see done right forever, it just doesn't necessarily have to be the character of Scaramanga he kills. I'd actually much rather see a villain put a contract out on Bond following a PTS and the film is about Bond facing a small group of killers competing for his head than just one killer.

    But we'll never see adaptations anywhere near as faithful as what we have, or even close to the ones that were more inspired by Fleming than written from the books. That's just the age we're in, and the decades that have been placed between us and the books, all the villains that've been used and how the world has changed.
    They did it in Casino Royale.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2017 Posts: 6,304
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes was not happy with Logan, not at all. It's my understanding that it was a joint decision with B&M to bring in P&W and later Butterworth. I hold Logan at fault for not laying the appropriate groundwork and Mendes for failing to cement a central story that didn't have echoes of SF. The former film was a case of bottling lightning and I'm of the mind they should've made the latter a plot driven affair; accepting that lightning doesn't strike twice. Despite this I personally think it works on several levels, but it's not a groundbreaking Bond movie.

    Butterworth was also involved in SF.
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
    Having no core Fleming to follow...?

    DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.

    There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
    this

    I think what people mean is that doing a full on Fleming adaptation is hard without changing a lot. MR would need a change of Drax, a change of the character's entire background, and a change of the missile in addition to a bunch of other things. There's nothing from that book I'd want to see outside of Bond and M at Blades meeting the film's villain or the finale where Bond races the rocket in his car. I don't care to see Brand, as the woman leaving Bond thing has been done in some way, shape or form already and has lost its power.

    I don't care to see the Spangs, so I've not got a lot of excitement about DAF, but out of those I'd like to see YOLT or TMWTGG explored more. YOLT in a semi-faithful or inspired adaptation would be my dream for Bond 25, but in the way CR was able to take that story and let it be that, but giving it room to grow more on its own as well, being part Fleming, part original. TMWTGG just represents Bond going against a person as skilled a killer as him, which I've wanted to see done right forever, it just doesn't necessarily have to be the character of Scaramanga he kills. I'd actually much rather see a villain put a contract out on Bond following a PTS and the film is about Bond facing a small group of killers competing for his head than just one killer.

    But we'll never see adaptations anywhere near as faithful as what we have, or even close to the ones that were more inspired by Fleming than written from the books. That's just the age we're in, and the decades that have been placed between us and the books, all the villains that've been used and how the world has changed.

    I see a lot more that is usable in MR than you do. True, it has been stripped for spare parts in MR, GE, and DAD at least, but it would be nice to see the story done seriously, in the CR-QoS-SF tone. SP is a misstep in tone and I think it won't play as well in the future. And parts like the Dover cliffs (kind of done in DAD) and the alluring nature of the Brand character (although I admit she's far from well-defined) could work, if not with Craig, then with the next Bond.

    I see very little left in DAF and find TMWTGG thin to begin with...YOLT is really the prize but like MR a lot would have to be reimagined. THR has at least a PTS left in it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @echo, it's been a while since I read MR, so I'm not the best judge. I agree on the count of YOLT, though.

    I have high hopes that with P&W considered for Bond 25 their interest in Fleming and the story and the obvious implication of Blofeld and Bond in a final fight will make them see that it's the perfect time to do a modern day adaptation of YOLT in the fashion they were able to do for CR. I would kill to see the garden of death used, and for a conflict at a castle as the big finale, with the twist being that Bond storms a high compound containing Blofeld with 00 or SAS agents off the books as one last favor from M.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP isn't a travesty but it's overwhelmingly disappointing. I also think it's noticably Craig's weakest performance. I dare say compared to his 3 previous outings his performance in SP looked like he was phoning it in.

    As I stated in another thread yesterday, there was no way that wasn't going to be the case, simply because the last three movies were so heavy in going into Bond, to the point that people were upset about it. It's far easier just to quote my own point than waste time repeating it:
    I think people are simply caught off guard by Dan playing a Bond that isn't suffering from some existential crises. He gets criticized as Bond for not being as traumatized or troubled and intense in performance, when this is exactly what an overwhelming majority wanted the films to stray away from. They wanted a more glamorized, more unflappable and far less emotional Bond and they got it after three films of Bond getting his heart and body destroyed to an almost meta-sadistic level. The more overt ways Bond acts in SP and how lovably roguish he can be, like the sarcastic quips and waves he gives to henchmen who want to kill him are a clear and logical development for his character. Ever since CR's wounds healed he's become a far more peaceful and in control man by the nature of maturing. By SP, he's done this for so long and faced so much that things roll off of him, and he is so confident he doesn't mind playing games with his enemies. He's overt in how much he despises or disrespects them, such as in his interactions with C, Blofeld, SPECTRE henchmen and on. This is very much a "Conneryesque" performance at times, but this is also the kind of man Dan has played all along. His Bond is unapologetic about how overtly he lets people know he hates them, and he doesn't play any games with M, his villains or anyone. So while becoming more unflappable and professional, he still keeps his stubborn and uncompromising core in tact.

    I don't think Dan is actually capable of giving a bad performance; he's just too good and committed to it in a way even Sean couldn't be bothered to be at times. SP is probably his weakest performance of the 4, but it's not because it's bad, it's just because one of the films has to come in last and the others are just so heavy on the meat. CR is a rare script in the Bond canon that allowed him to play every level of Bond's character in a way we've never seen before or since, save for maybe OHMSS in some ways. QoS was written specifically for Craig to play a grieving Bond, full of very subtle but rich moments where we peer into his heart as he overcomes Vesper's betrayal and finally learns the ultimate truth about what happened. SF is the grand, mythic phoenix from the ashes story with Bond as a fallen knight getting up again, with obvious meat for Dan to play with. In SP Dan still gets interesting things to play with, like Bond's development to be something other than a spy, his reunion with White, his unexpected dynamic with Madeleine and his condemnation of Blofeld, but of course he's never going to surpass the unreachable highs of the last three films that were the craziest films performance-wise of the series save for a few exceptions. Dan deserved a film where his Bond wasn't constantly being emotionally drained or physically battered to hell, and largely SP is that film. He's more in control, less hampered by his own mind and the acts of others, and on the whole just gets along with it.

    I don't know what people wanted as an alternative. The previous films explored every level of Bond you could want (and a lot some didn't), so I think a more in control performance as in SP was warranted and goes a long way to showing that Bond has truly grown as a man and agent.

    So after a film where Bond falls in and out of love in the biggest way he has since Tracy through a massive betrayal, another where he mourns the woman and internally searches himself for feeling and the third where he becomes a mythical British protector, resurrects himself and faces the loss of his boss while confronting his childhood past, yeah, SP will be a little light in comparison if only because the previous films were so heavy. I still hold that Dan's performance in SP is great, it's just a different kind of great that shows how much his Bond has grown. It just so happens that his previous films are all top 10 performances easily, and so SP inevitably must come last simply because the script wasn't throwing so much at him to back up the matured Bond narrative arc.

    I appreciate the perspective but to me I just wasn't feeling his SP performance. I've seen short films with Craig having to work with less material and as per usual he embodies the role; but I just felt that his performance in SP came off as Craig acting the part and imo didn't do much of a convincing job. That's not to say his performance was terrible, not even close but in a nutshell, Craig to me looked as though he was trying to act like James Bond instead of just being James Bond, which he's more than capable of.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    echo wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Mendes was not happy with Logan, not at all. It's my understanding that it was a joint decision with B&M to bring in P&W and later Butterworth. I hold Logan at fault for not laying the appropriate groundwork and Mendes for failing to cement a central story that didn't have echoes of SF. The former film was a case of bottling lightning and I'm of the mind they should've made the latter a plot driven affair; accepting that lightning doesn't strike twice. Despite this I personally think it works on several levels, but it's not a groundbreaking Bond movie.

    Butterworth was also involved in SF.

    I'm just saying the foundations on which they built the former were more sturdy than the latter. Butterworth wasn't involved, to my knowledge, at the stage I'm talking about.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP isn't a travesty but it's overwhelmingly disappointing. I also think it's noticably Craig's weakest performance. I dare say compared to his 3 previous outings his performance in SP looked like he was phoning it in.

    As I stated in another thread yesterday, there was no way that wasn't going to be the case, simply because the last three movies were so heavy in going into Bond, to the point that people were upset about it. It's far easier just to quote my own point than waste time repeating it:
    I think people are simply caught off guard by Dan playing a Bond that isn't suffering from some existential crises. He gets criticized as Bond for not being as traumatized or troubled and intense in performance, when this is exactly what an overwhelming majority wanted the films to stray away from. They wanted a more glamorized, more unflappable and far less emotional Bond and they got it after three films of Bond getting his heart and body destroyed to an almost meta-sadistic level. The more overt ways Bond acts in SP and how lovably roguish he can be, like the sarcastic quips and waves he gives to henchmen who want to kill him are a clear and logical development for his character. Ever since CR's wounds healed he's become a far more peaceful and in control man by the nature of maturing. By SP, he's done this for so long and faced so much that things roll off of him, and he is so confident he doesn't mind playing games with his enemies. He's overt in how much he despises or disrespects them, such as in his interactions with C, Blofeld, SPECTRE henchmen and on. This is very much a "Conneryesque" performance at times, but this is also the kind of man Dan has played all along. His Bond is unapologetic about how overtly he lets people know he hates them, and he doesn't play any games with M, his villains or anyone. So while becoming more unflappable and professional, he still keeps his stubborn and uncompromising core in tact.

    I don't think Dan is actually capable of giving a bad performance; he's just too good and committed to it in a way even Sean couldn't be bothered to be at times. SP is probably his weakest performance of the 4, but it's not because it's bad, it's just because one of the films has to come in last and the others are just so heavy on the meat. CR is a rare script in the Bond canon that allowed him to play every level of Bond's character in a way we've never seen before or since, save for maybe OHMSS in some ways. QoS was written specifically for Craig to play a grieving Bond, full of very subtle but rich moments where we peer into his heart as he overcomes Vesper's betrayal and finally learns the ultimate truth about what happened. SF is the grand, mythic phoenix from the ashes story with Bond as a fallen knight getting up again, with obvious meat for Dan to play with. In SP Dan still gets interesting things to play with, like Bond's development to be something other than a spy, his reunion with White, his unexpected dynamic with Madeleine and his condemnation of Blofeld, but of course he's never going to surpass the unreachable highs of the last three films that were the craziest films performance-wise of the series save for a few exceptions. Dan deserved a film where his Bond wasn't constantly being emotionally drained or physically battered to hell, and largely SP is that film. He's more in control, less hampered by his own mind and the acts of others, and on the whole just gets along with it.

    I don't know what people wanted as an alternative. The previous films explored every level of Bond you could want (and a lot some didn't), so I think a more in control performance as in SP was warranted and goes a long way to showing that Bond has truly grown as a man and agent.

    So after a film where Bond falls in and out of love in the biggest way he has since Tracy through a massive betrayal, another where he mourns the woman and internally searches himself for feeling and the third where he becomes a mythical British protector, resurrects himself and faces the loss of his boss while confronting his childhood past, yeah, SP will be a little light in comparison if only because the previous films were so heavy. I still hold that Dan's performance in SP is great, it's just a different kind of great that shows how much his Bond has grown. It just so happens that his previous films are all top 10 performances easily, and so SP inevitably must come last simply because the script wasn't throwing so much at him to back up the matured Bond narrative arc.

    I appreciate the perspective but to me I just wasn't feeling his SP performance. I've seen short films with Craig having to work with less material and as per usual he embodies the role; but I just felt that his performance in SP came off as Craig acting the part and imo didn't do much of a convincing job. That's not to say his performance was terrible, not even close but in a nutshell, Craig to me looked as though he was trying to act like James Bond instead of just being James Bond, which he's more than capable of.

    I think a part of that is down to the fact that his Bond for the first time isn't dragged down by a giant personal issue. I don't think people know how to take Craig as Bond without him facing a massive personal issue or existential crisis, so the unflappable Bond of SP comes off as him not trying simply because the other scripts are so heavy when it comes to challenging the character and sending him to hell and back.

    For some it works, others it doesn't. Who knows.
  • Posts: 19,339
    My problem with SP is Blofeld and London more than Craig,who I thought was as good as usual as Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP isn't a travesty but it's overwhelmingly disappointing. I also think it's noticably Craig's weakest performance. I dare say compared to his 3 previous outings his performance in SP looked like he was phoning it in.

    As I stated in another thread yesterday, there was no way that wasn't going to be the case, simply because the last three movies were so heavy in going into Bond, to the point that people were upset about it. It's far easier just to quote my own point than waste time repeating it:
    I think people are simply caught off guard by Dan playing a Bond that isn't suffering from some existential crises. He gets criticized as Bond for not being as traumatized or troubled and intense in performance, when this is exactly what an overwhelming majority wanted the films to stray away from. They wanted a more glamorized, more unflappable and far less emotional Bond and they got it after three films of Bond getting his heart and body destroyed to an almost meta-sadistic level. The more overt ways Bond acts in SP and how lovably roguish he can be, like the sarcastic quips and waves he gives to henchmen who want to kill him are a clear and logical development for his character. Ever since CR's wounds healed he's become a far more peaceful and in control man by the nature of maturing. By SP, he's done this for so long and faced so much that things roll off of him, and he is so confident he doesn't mind playing games with his enemies. He's overt in how much he despises or disrespects them, such as in his interactions with C, Blofeld, SPECTRE henchmen and on. This is very much a "Conneryesque" performance at times, but this is also the kind of man Dan has played all along. His Bond is unapologetic about how overtly he lets people know he hates them, and he doesn't play any games with M, his villains or anyone. So while becoming more unflappable and professional, he still keeps his stubborn and uncompromising core in tact.

    I don't think Dan is actually capable of giving a bad performance; he's just too good and committed to it in a way even Sean couldn't be bothered to be at times. SP is probably his weakest performance of the 4, but it's not because it's bad, it's just because one of the films has to come in last and the others are just so heavy on the meat. CR is a rare script in the Bond canon that allowed him to play every level of Bond's character in a way we've never seen before or since, save for maybe OHMSS in some ways. QoS was written specifically for Craig to play a grieving Bond, full of very subtle but rich moments where we peer into his heart as he overcomes Vesper's betrayal and finally learns the ultimate truth about what happened. SF is the grand, mythic phoenix from the ashes story with Bond as a fallen knight getting up again, with obvious meat for Dan to play with. In SP Dan still gets interesting things to play with, like Bond's development to be something other than a spy, his reunion with White, his unexpected dynamic with Madeleine and his condemnation of Blofeld, but of course he's never going to surpass the unreachable highs of the last three films that were the craziest films performance-wise of the series save for a few exceptions. Dan deserved a film where his Bond wasn't constantly being emotionally drained or physically battered to hell, and largely SP is that film. He's more in control, less hampered by his own mind and the acts of others, and on the whole just gets along with it.

    I don't know what people wanted as an alternative. The previous films explored every level of Bond you could want (and a lot some didn't), so I think a more in control performance as in SP was warranted and goes a long way to showing that Bond has truly grown as a man and agent.

    So after a film where Bond falls in and out of love in the biggest way he has since Tracy through a massive betrayal, another where he mourns the woman and internally searches himself for feeling and the third where he becomes a mythical British protector, resurrects himself and faces the loss of his boss while confronting his childhood past, yeah, SP will be a little light in comparison if only because the previous films were so heavy. I still hold that Dan's performance in SP is great, it's just a different kind of great that shows how much his Bond has grown. It just so happens that his previous films are all top 10 performances easily, and so SP inevitably must come last simply because the script wasn't throwing so much at him to back up the matured Bond narrative arc.

    I appreciate the perspective but to me I just wasn't feeling his SP performance. I've seen short films with Craig having to work with less material and as per usual he embodies the role; but I just felt that his performance in SP came off as Craig acting the part and imo didn't do much of a convincing job. That's not to say his performance was terrible, not even close but in a nutshell, Craig to me looked as though he was trying to act like James Bond instead of just being James Bond, which he's more than capable of.
    You've pretty much summed up my view as well. I don't think I feel that way because I don't know how to take Craig Bond being glib. I just don't think he's credible in that regard. It comes across forced, just like Brosnan did to me. As you said, like he's acting the part rather than embodying.

    Having just rewatched a few Connery and Moore films recently, one thing I can affirm is that these two knew how to make the most ridiculous of moments credible on screen. It just seemed natural to them. Perhaps it's because they are from that older golden age, I don't know. I can also see someone like Cary Grant being able to pull off the nonsensical stuff as well. These men were unflappable by nature. I just don't see that with many of today's actors. It could be a sign of the times, or it could just be the actor.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2017 Posts: 11,139
    Agreed. I can't remember which thread it was in but I made a comment at how entertaining it was just to watch Connery snooping around at Shrublands and as he makes his way to exit a room, he stops to go and pick off a grape and tosses it into his mouth before exiting the room. It's a rather inconsequential scene but it's little touches like that that made Connery so magnetic and a pure joy to watch. I love it.

    Thunderball-James-Bond-Sean-Connery-grape-fruit-tray.png

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Wakanda!?!

    Absolutely!

    ;)
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Agreed. I can't remember which thread it was in but I made a comment at how entertaining it was just to watch Connery snooping around at Shrublands and as he makes his way to exit a room, he stops to go and pick off a grape and tosses it into his mouth before exiting the room. It's a rather inconsequential scene but it's little touches like that that made Connery so magnetic and a pure joy to watch. I love it.

    Thunderball-James-Bond-Sean-Connery-grape-fruit-tray.png
    All true.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Dan's equivalent is his nonchalant tossing of random objects.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dan's equivalent is his nonchalant tossing of random objects.

    Yes, anything and everything shall be tossed, and he also has a running tendency to say, "Thank you," every time someone does a favor for him and nothing more.

    I'd personally love to see Dan get a chance to check a hotel room for bugs out in the field in the way Sean did in all of Young's films, and that George did in OHMSS. I love those quiet little moments, and with Dan's ability to speak with his eyes, he'd really excel in a similar scene.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think the difference with Dan tossing stuff and Connery stopping to eat a grape or going out of his way to dump a bunch of flowers on some one's head is, Connery was either in a tense situation or in immediate danger while in the middle of getting away. The first thought to a normal person would be to just get the hell out of there asap but Connery just has to humourously waste a bit of time. Dan otoh just tossed stuff in hotel rooms and car parks with no looming or immediate threat.
Sign In or Register to comment.