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

1180181183185186190

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    One thing I'd like to find out?

    Are Russian soldiers immediately shot on the spot if they make a potentially deadly mistake?

    Ordinarily it takes a commanding officer three tries to do so.
  • Posts: 315
    Sark wrote: »
    Does anyone here really know enough about the Russian military to say yea or nay to this thesis?

    I'll jump in and tell you what I know. The Russian military suffers from the same problem as their political system, a small cabel of white males who are corrupt, power-hungry and very wealthy. Because Russia has adopted a defensive position because of the ever-increasing presence of NATO, their weapon systems became more and more limited. The dedicated Russian military person is as dedicated and as intelligent as their Western/NATO counterpart. His weapons toolbox is just very limited but never underestimate their creativity and resolve.

    I know that we in the West like to portray them as stumbling buffoons and inferior to the USA/British soldier. However the Russian military personnel I've interacted with are very informed and quite capable.

  • Posts: 15,106
    CJB wrote: »
    The Russian military costumes in GE looked about half a century out of date. I'm not keen-eyed enough to notice, but apparently the epaulets in the 1995 bit of the film still had CA (which in English stands for Soviet Army) on them.

    So nah.

    It was set relatively shortly after the fall of USSR so possible that uniform changes were not completed. Wasn't the Russian army in a poor state at that time?
  • Posts: 7,653
    A realistic portrayal of anything, are we talking the 007 franchise here???

    An amusing thought which is nice for a change.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    FLeiter wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    Does anyone here really know enough about the Russian military to say yea or nay to this thesis?

    I'll jump in and tell you what I know. The Russian military suffers from the same problem as their political system, a small cabel of white males who are corrupt, power-hungry and very wealthy. Because Russia has adopted a defensive position because of the ever-increasing presence of NATO, their weapon systems became more and more limited. The dedicated Russian military person is as dedicated and as intelligent as their Western/NATO counterpart. His weapons toolbox is just very limited but never underestimate their creativity and resolve.

    I know that we in the West like to portray them as stumbling buffoons and inferior to the USA/British soldier. However the Russian military personnel I've interacted with are very informed and quite capable.
    I think this sums it up nicely. however, at the time, in Russia things were in a deplorable state, with many servicemen who hadn't had their salary payed out. It was also a time where new recruits were mistreated badly (many a suicide) and a lot of former soviet weaponry (and transport aircraft) fell in the hands of, shall we say, illicit companies. Mind you, many of these aircraft- and crew were hired by the UN because many had seen action in Afghanistan and they were the only pilots brave enough to fly there (and in many African crisis) again and drop supplies etc.

    So, was GE accurate? not in the least. the truth is many of these soldiers were hard-drinking, hard-fighting rough guys who wouldn't have missed Bond if he'd been running half way up the other mountain.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Well I suppose Oromov's drinking was half way to an accurate portrayal then ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 329</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Michael G. Wilson has a talent for writing clever Bond scripts.</b></font>
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    He did in the 80s. God only knows why he stopped.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Isn't he not a part of the screen writers guild? He could have; if that was the case, helped QoS. Anyway, both OP and TLD are both great espionage tales.


  • Posts: 1,497
    Michael G. Wilson was involved in some strong scripts: especially FYEO, TLD and LTK, in adapting some of the unused Fleming material into the 80's films, specific scenes like the keyhaul sequence for example, or adapting some of the short stories like the early sequence of TLD.

    Though it is difficult to pinpoint his contribution to the films. Afterall Richard Maibaum was still actively in involved in all of those scripts as well, and he is the true bard of the Bond screenplays.

    I thought his idea for QOS with the water angle was a bit uninspired, so I'm not sure how he would fare today as a screenwriter. I prefer having someone like Logan involved, who is a screenwriter first and foremost. So talented? Hard to say, but important for contributing to the series? Certainly.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 329</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Michael G. Wilson has a talent for writing clever Bond scripts.</b></font>

    Agree! It is a shame he did not contribute more, but then again being a producer is more than enough!
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 15,106
    SaintMark wrote: »
    A realistic portrayal of anything, are we talking the 007 franchise here???

    An amusing thought which is nice for a change.

    The claim was most realistic. So it does not have to be truly realistic. Just not as unrealistic as other times.
  • Posts: 15,106
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Michael G. Wilson was involved in some strong scripts: especially FYEO, TLD and LTK, in adapting some of the unused Fleming material into the 80's films, specific scenes like the keyhaul sequence for example, or adapting some of the short stories like the early sequence of TLD.

    Though it is difficult to pinpoint his contribution to the films. Afterall Richard Maibaum was still actively in involved in all of those scripts as well, and he is the true bard of the Bond screenplays.

    I thought his idea for QOS with the water angle was a bit uninspired, so I'm not sure how he would fare today as a screenwriter. I prefer having someone like Logan involved, who is a screenwriter first and foremost. So talented? Hard to say, but important for contributing to the series? Certainly.

    I think the water angle was one of the strongest points of QOS.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    I'm not quite aware of his exact contributions but, as has been said above, the scripts he did work on were quite good indeed. I do have a feeling he's got the right sense of how Bond should balance between fantasy and reality.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Ludovico wrote: »
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Michael G. Wilson was involved in some strong scripts: especially FYEO, TLD and LTK, in adapting some of the unused Fleming material into the 80's films, specific scenes like the keyhaul sequence for example, or adapting some of the short stories like the early sequence of TLD.

    Though it is difficult to pinpoint his contribution to the films. Afterall Richard Maibaum was still actively in involved in all of those scripts as well, and he is the true bard of the Bond screenplays.

    I thought his idea for QOS with the water angle was a bit uninspired, so I'm not sure how he would fare today as a screenwriter. I prefer having someone like Logan involved, who is a screenwriter first and foremost. So talented? Hard to say, but important for contributing to the series? Certainly.

    I think the water angle was one of the strongest points of QOS.

    It felt forced into the storyline. There was this interesting buildup to the mystery of Quantum that started at the end of CR and continued to Tosca, but then midway through QOS, the narrative seems to detour into this other story arc. It was topical I suppose, but just seemed to be a bit randomly thrown in. I think Wilson was trying to give QOS it's own unique storyline to allow it stand alone, but I still feel QOS would have been better as just a direct continuation of CR; made as a 2 part series (or a 3 part! And have had Martin Campbell directed all 3)
  • Posts: 15,106
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Michael G. Wilson was involved in some strong scripts: especially FYEO, TLD and LTK, in adapting some of the unused Fleming material into the 80's films, specific scenes like the keyhaul sequence for example, or adapting some of the short stories like the early sequence of TLD.

    Though it is difficult to pinpoint his contribution to the films. Afterall Richard Maibaum was still actively in involved in all of those scripts as well, and he is the true bard of the Bond screenplays.

    I thought his idea for QOS with the water angle was a bit uninspired, so I'm not sure how he would fare today as a screenwriter. I prefer having someone like Logan involved, who is a screenwriter first and foremost. So talented? Hard to say, but important for contributing to the series? Certainly.

    I think the water angle was one of the strongest points of QOS.

    It felt forced into the storyline. There was this interesting buildup to the mystery of Quantum that started at the end of CR and continued to Tosca, but then midway through QOS, the narrative seems to detour into this other story arc. It was topical I suppose, but just seemed to be a bit randomly thrown in. I think Wilson was trying to give QOS it's own unique storyline to allow it stand alone, but I still feel QOS would have been better as just a direct continuation of CR; made as a 2 part series (or a 3 part! And have had Martin Campbell directed all 3)

    But then Quantum would have spent the whole movie running away from Bond. The water scheme was underdeveloped but they needed one for the villain to make the organisation a menace.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Wilson and Maibaum did well in the 80s when they dug out nuggets from Fleming, both short stories and novels. Fleming is the key, not sure what each of them came up with so a bit uncertain. There were cringeworthy moments back then as well.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Fleming must always be the base for a successful Bond film. That is my view.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Fleming must always be the base for a successful Bond film. That is my view.

    Hence why the Brosnan films were so shitty.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 330</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>An imperfect Bond is more appealing than a superman-Bond.</b></font>

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    Craig's Bond clearly has weaknesses. I'm not talking about his womanising (see 'Fatal weakness' in GoldenEye), I'm talking about his inability to always save the loved one in distress (M in SF), to always escape the bad guys (LeChiffre in CR), to always be the right judge of character (Vesper in CR). I get the sense that Fleming also wanted to keep us in suspense, to remind us occasionally that Bond too can make mistakes from time to time.

    In some of the films though, Bond is almost dogmatically 'perfect'. Does he ever not succeed in what he sets out to do in e.g. TSWLM or MR? He knows the right answers, had the best hunches, says the cleverest things, lashes out at thugs when the moment couldn't have been better, ...

    Seeing a more vulnerable Bond, a more 'human' Bond, like the Dalton or Craig Bond, amps up the tension. I'm more invested in the character. So I prefer an imperfect Bond for sure!
  • Posts: 15,106
    I completely agree. I will also add that the villain should not be Bond's equal, but Bond's superior.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    @Ludovico, you make an excellent point there. If Bond has little to fear from the villain, the stakes are low. I like a villain who can always stay ahead of Bond, until the right moment for Bond to strike!
  • Posts: 2,081
    Hell yes. Flawed, imperfect, with weaknesses is interesting, whereas the opposite wouldn't be. As far as I'm concerned that applies to Bond, any other fictional characters, and indeed people in real life. Obviously everyone really is imperfect in real life anyway but some seem too... polished, you know...
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 330</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>An imperfect Bond is more appealing than a superman-Bond.</b></font>

    I agree whole heartedly if given the choice? But I have to say I do love all the movies.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I prefer a fine balance of the two. A flawed character who is also a seasoned professional without the angst bogging him down.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Definitely a flawed character is better. It just makes his success all the more meaningful and poignant not to mention a more interesting person.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm in agreement with most here that the basic premise is correct. A flawed, imperfect Bond is indeed more appealing than a superman Bond.

    We want to be able to relate to our heroes, and in today's world, particularly post-911, a flawed hero is more credible. Our sense of invincibility no longer exists.....we are not so confident of our rosy future, and a flawed hero reflects that. Moreover, people always root for the underdog, and so I'm in agreement with @Ludivico that the villain must come across as superior in some way to Bond, whether it be in wealth, intellect, education, status etc. etc. It's the classic David and Goliath scenario.

    Of course, Bond must still prevail, but not so easily. There must be some loss, some sacrifice, some distress........but not too much now. It must still be fun. We must still be happy when we walk out of the theatre, not depressed.

    I know some fans find the Craig Bond a little too dreary for their liking, and long for lighter fare of old, including a more infallible and unflappable hero. While I can relate, I don't agree. I think they've got the balance just right in the 3 Craig films, and I hope they continue with this mix.

    The man is wounded, but committed to Queen and Country. He is dutiful and skilled, and he's lucky...but he makes mistakes like we all do, and sometimes that results in tragedy (some have argued that he failed 'M' in SF by taking her to the ranch). He's the hero for the complex times we live in.....there's no black or white any more. Just grey. Even Marvel is in on it these days
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited June 2015 Posts: 7,314
    I agree with the thesis, at least partially. I would just like to add that sometimes watching Superman Bond from TB and TSWLM is an absolute treat and can be a thrill ride all it's own. This is mostly due to the excellent performances given by Connery and Moore in those films. Since that is no longer in vogue, I doubt we'll see another portrayal of the character like that any time soon. Which is fine because Craig doesn't want to go that route anyway. I wouldn't be opposed to the next actor doing so though. Providing they can give a good enough performance, of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    pachazo wrote: »
    sometimes watching Superman Bond from TB and TSWLM is an absolute treat and can be a thrill ride all it's own. This is mostly due to the excellent performances given by Connery and Moore in those films................I wouldn't be opposed to the next actor doing so though. Providing they can give a good enough performance, of course.

    I agree @pachazo. It's all about the actor and how they sell/deliver it. Not easy to do in today's world....probably more difficult than before, but a skilled actor could do it probably.
Sign In or Register to comment.