The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1163164166168169190

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited September 2014 Posts: 17,789
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Those were hilarious moments

    There's literally nothing I can say to that except I presume you're also a big fan of Mrs Brown's Boys?
    I had to look that up, no, never saw the show, but I *do* find Batman & Robin to be a very funny film, if that means anything....
    ;)

    Look man, my two favourite Bonds are TLD & LTK, so I'm not in it for the jokes, but IF you're gonna silly it up, then I'm not gonna judge a film by Dalton or early-to-mid Connery standards.
    Y'all heah me BOY?? :))
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Those were hilarious moments

    There's literally nothing I can say to that except I presume you're also a big fan of Mrs Brown's Boys?

    :))
  • Posts: 11,189
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Those were hilarious moments

    There's literally nothing I can say to that except I presume you're also a big fan of Mrs Brown's Boys?
    I had to look that up, no, never saw the show, but I *do* find Batman & Robin to be a very funny film, if that means anything....
    ;) [/i] :))

    I agree with you on that. Batman and Robin's bloody hilarious. Doesn't make it a good film though.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I think that with TSWLM they had found Roger Moores style and voice so he did a 5 movie run very fit to his strengths.

    With Connery they were looking for a style and with GF they found the formula and yet they never had Connery down, the movies fluctuated in strength.

    Which indeed makes the Moore run a more steady and consistent one.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Disagree

    CONNERY

    In DN Connery's Bond was jittery, prone to impulsive actions that his later Bond wouldn't do (the murder of the guard in the swamp is one example).

    In FRWL, through GF and TB we see Bond's laconic charm, easy manner and less pronounced menace come to the fore, but it's a casual, slow change and it doesn't effect his performance one iota. He is the same man, but if we compare Bond in DN and TB we see two almost different characters.

    But it's a character who is growing and changing as we all do through life. We all find more confidence in what we do.

    I do not subscribe to the idea that Connery was 'bored' in YOLT. The film introduced more action, a faster pace than previously, and Connery's natural understated performace and easy manner doesn't fit quite so well. The film often shoots past him in a blur.

    Yet, watch Connery in the quieter moments - with Tiger or Dikko - he is no different to normal. Just as charismatic and cool as ever. He isn't bored or tired. It's a bandwagon that everyone jumps on without watching the film closely.

    In DAF his Bond was the same, just.....larger.

    MOORE

    In LALD and TMWTGG we have a rather pensive, quietly dangerous, manipulative Bond. He trusts no one. This is Moore trying not to be Simon Templar. And he gives more considered performances as a result.

    By the time of TSWLM Moore has abandoned this, and The Saint is back, smirking at the ladies, raising the old eyebrow, the gentleman spy all over.

    Now, he does maintain this persona pretty well throughout SPY to AVTAK, but the mixture of gently sending himself up in one scene and the more hard edged Bond in the next isn't always comfortable on the eyes.

    CONCLUSION

    Connery's Bond evolves slowly from the tetchy, cruel Bond of DN to the weary, hard nosed Bond of DAF.
    Moore simply changes his performance from TMWTGG to TSWLM to suit the new, stripped down and rebuilt films which would suit the late 70s.



  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 306</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The fatherly relationship of Dr. Kaufman with Stamper is poorly sold in TND.</b></font>
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Is there a relationship? Good heavens, I never even noticed. So yeah, I agree. :)
  • Posts: 7,653
    We know there is a relationship as we were told that Stamper had learned his torture skills from Kaufman, share such knowledge and you are bound to bond. ;)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    ... oh yes. But that's it, right? Hmmm. So I just forgot that tidbit. Is it ever brought up again?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    I don't like what the script tries to do here. We never see the two of them together, not even a conversation or something except a fairly unimpressive exchange of words on the phone. We have one scene with Kaufman, that's it. We spend more time with Wade in TND! So if I was supposed to somehow think twice about Kaufman's death, they should have given me a title card with that specific instruction because now, Kaufman feels like just another passing character. Yet on two occasions it is mentioned - not shown! - but mentioned that Kaufman was like a father to Stamper. It explains why Stamper will torture Bond, something we'll never see, and that Kaufman taught him the art, which we never see, and we knew this already because Kaufman had told us, but not shown, that he tortures people as a hobby. When Stamper goes "this is for Kaufman", I'm immediately pulled out of the climax of the film because my mind once again tries to remember when I ever witnessed the father-son type of warmth that supposedly existed between these two. The answer: never! For what purpose did they try to sell us on this Kaufman - Stamper thing? It never pays off!! Imagine if Dr. No had told Bond "by the way, Miss Taro was like a daughter to me" and then had shouted "this if for Miss Taro!" when he tries to knock Bond into the reactor water. Would it have made any difference at all?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    So much of what we never see, yes! You are right, DarthDimi.
    I wish they had shown more of that and far less of Jack Wade (who never fails to bug me).
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 306</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The fatherly relationship of Dr. Kaufman with Stamper is poorly sold in TND.</b></font>

    Fully agree. They could and should have exploited the two characters jointly!
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Yes, I've had a problem with this too. Completely agree.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I suppose its a bit like the Zorin/Karl Mortimer relationship.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I suppose its a bit like the Zorin/Karl Mortimer relationship.

    But that relationship was better explored. We even see Zorin pat Mortner affectionately on the head, we see Mortner shout desperately as his "creation" struggles to get a grip on the bridge, there are multiple scenes when we see them together. I buy the "Frankenstein and his monster" relationship.
  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I suppose its a bit like the Zorin/Karl Mortimer relationship.

    But that relationship was better explored. We even see Zorin pat Mortner affectionately on the head, we see Mortner shout desperately as his "creation" struggles to get a grip on the bridge, there are multiple scenes when we see them together. I buy the "Frankenstein and his monster" relationship.

    Yeah you're right. The Stamper Kaulfan relationship was thrown away really in one line: "he was like a father to me".
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I suppose its a bit like the Zorin/Karl Mortimer relationship.

    But that relationship was better explored. We even see Zorin pat Mortner affectionately on the head, we see Mortner shout desperately as his "creation" struggles to get a grip on the bridge, there are multiple scenes when we see them together. I buy the "Frankenstein and his monster" relationship.

    Yeah you're right. The Stamper Kaulfan relationship was thrown away really in one line: "he was like a father to me".

    Agreed.

    One of TND weaknesses is it's handling (and lack thereof) of character relationships (I.e. Paris and Bond).
  • Posts: 15,106
    I don't think it was sold at all actually. I love the brief Kaufman scene, but otherwise the father/son relationship is nonexistent. Like MayDayDiVicenzo says, it is the same with most relationships in TND. It is a very impersonal Bond movie.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    A non-existent relationship is in place unless Kaufman became Stamper's daddy in a different environment.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I just had to add...
    NicNac wrote: »
    CONCLUSION
    Connery's Bond evolves slowly from the tetchy, cruel Bond of DN to the weary, hard nosed Bond of DAF.
    Moore simply changes his performance from TMWTGG to TSWLM to suit the new, stripped down and rebuilt films which would suit the late 70s.
    ...this is a brilliant take IMHO.

    About the present question- SO WHAT?? We didn't SEE Stamper getting a father influence from Kaufman so it's not valid? Did we SEE Vader being Luke's father before he said it to him on the antenna array? Please, let's NOT demand extra scenes to explain EVERYTHING! ;)
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I guess it didn't bother me as much as most of you. I agree that they could have done more with the relationship (at least one scene together would have been nice) but I never was completely dissatisfied with it. The look of concern on Stamper's face when he sees Bond exiting the hotel room was nicely done in my opinion. So I'm going to have to disagree with this one. It could have been better but I don't believe that they did a poor job.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 307</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Bond's computer savviness in CR could make Wishaw's Q slightly redundant as an ally.</b></font>
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Bond can't make a signature gun.
  • Kerim wrote: »
    Bond can't make a signature gun.

    Or do any of Q's computer wizardry when tracking down Silva's evil plot hidden in the computer (granted, Q gets beat here, but that's mostly for plot convenience).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Kerim wrote: »
    Bond can't make a signature gun.

    Or do any of Q's computer wizardry when tracking down Silva's evil plot hidden in the computer (granted, Q gets beat here, but that's mostly for plot convenience).

    Yet he can just randomly pluck the word 'Granborough' from an impenetrable list of letters and order Q to use it as a password.

    But as you say - plot convenience.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 307</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Bond's computer savviness in CR could make Wishaw's Q slightly redundant as an ally.</b></font>

    Disagree: We all have a certain level of computer knowledge! Then you have hacker types who think outside the box!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    I was under the impression that in CR, Bond could do quite a bit of hacking himself.
  • Posts: 12,526
    /\ Maybe? But there are call kinds of tricks of the trade though i'm sure?
  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    I wonder what Q's role will be in the future. Thinking of SF Q appears to be more a code-breaker or CSI guy now. Arming Bond was a footnote, it seemed to me. Will this character have room in future Bond films? Or will his part speedily become a nuisance? I'm undecided now and almost wish Q hadn't come back.
  • I think, contrary to Q's "exploding pen" remark, as the films continue to embrace more of the traditional elements of the cinematic James Bond, so too will Q take on his more traditional role of armorer/gadget-provider. I can't imagine hacking will be an integral part of most future Bond films.

    Regarding this current debate, I agree that so far Bond has displayed equal to or superior "computer savviness" as the new Q. My evidence behind this being that, as others have mentioned, a) Bond successfully hacks into M's computer in Casino Royale, and b) Bond easily one-ups Q in discovering Silva's passcode. For his own part, computer-wise, Q creates some cyber "breadcrumbs" for Silva to follow up to Scotland. (Still have no idea what that looks like in real world terms; I just chalk it up to: "An easy way for us to get to Act 3.")

    But I don't think there will be any question of Q's redundancy/relevance as we move forward, since I really do believe (or at least hope) Q will take on more of an innovative armorer-type role—à la Lucius Fox, who himself was essentially Q in Gotham form. Q's gadgets can be really high-tech and he can have a really high-tech research lab that resembles an Apple store (with more explosion marks), but I doubt we'll see him Skyping with Bond on his iPad the whole film.
Sign In or Register to comment.