In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1313234363751

Comments

  • edited April 2017 Posts: 3,327
    Couldn't we have M just being M in the next one, and Moneypenny and Q just going back to their normal selves too, 1962 to 1989 era.

    I'm really getting sick and tired of Bond going rogue every single bloody film now, or having a personal backstory for Bond. It's no longer original to the series anymore. It's been done to death.

    And also sick of M, Q and Moneypenny being right at the heart of the action. Why can't we go back to them just appearing once or twice in the movie, Bond being briefed, Bond flirting with Moneypenny as he leaves M's office, and then Bond being given some latest gadget by Q, instead of having to do something silly like steal the Aston Martin as he did in SP. It came off as very unrealistic.

    What I would give for a straight forward Bond film again. Bond on a mission to get a bad guy, but someone he doesn't know, someone who isn't connected to MI6, and someone who doesn't have anything to do with Bond's past.

    It's about time they went back to the formula again, and back to the books again. Keep P&W's original concepts to an absolute bare minimum.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited April 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Trouble is, people nowadays will complain no matter what. Of course I'd want a straightforward Bond film where Bond is on a mission chasing a supervillain/evildoer who has no connection with him nor his people. But, then again, there will be complaints from people saying "the movie doesn't offer anything new, nor brings anything fresh to the table". It happened with Jason Bourne (2016) for instance. They wanted "back to the roots" movie, filmmakers gave them exactly what they want, and the audience still complained. Me personally? I'd welcome a "Bond on a mission" film very openly, because I too am very tired of these personal vendetta dilemmas.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Some serious reshuffling is going to need to happen, where actors are cast in those parts that are a helluva lot cheaper than the likes of Fiennes. With what he's paid EON feel the need to use him a bit more than another M would be, because he comes with a hefty price tag that can't be wasted.

    I think we will see the next era return to some form of roots with Bond on missions unconnected from movie to movie, but in doing that I want EON to treat the formula with the same reservation they have with Craig. They've used what works for the story, but they don't throw the kitchen sink at it. I don't want every movie to have the same beats that you can predict, the same opening, the same briefing. That got old by 1969, and they went on to do it for three decades after that point.

    They need to find a compromise, doing films that feel traditional without being detrimentally tied to ticking every box. There's just so much in the formula that bogs down interesting storytelling. Bond's gotta see M, then Moneypenny, then Q, then he's gotta have this chase and this fight and this dialogue with the villain and Bond girl, and on and on and on. There's a way to tell those stories with those elements, but in a far more interesting and flipped way, which the Craig era has done in parts. Have a Bond girl, but write her to be platonic with Bond and put a spin on it. Do a classic car chase, but truly make it a visceral experience like never before. Explore different psychoses in villains, do newer stunts never seen before, visit places Bond has never been instead of a rotating door of the usual and bring back proper location shooting. Maybe even set a film in one major location like the old days before globe-trotting completely took over.

    The films simply need to feel as unique and individual as the Craig films feel to me, and like Connery's did. There was a point in the series where it all felt the same, and I don't want the series to fall into that again, because I quite frankly won't be bothered with it. They just need to get the absolute best Bond they can and write him with depth. If they have that, they can build any structure and tone they feel they need, but if they don't have that, well...
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Some serious reshuffling is going to need to happen, where actors are cast in those parts that are a helluva lot cheaper than the likes of Fiennes. With what he's paid EON feel the need to use him a bit more than another M would be, because he comes with a hefty price tag that can't be wasted.

    I think we will see the next era return to some form of roots with Bond on missions unconnected from movie to movie, but in doing that I want EON to treat the formula with the same reservation they have with Craig. They've used what works for the story, but they don't throw the kitchen sink at it. I don't want every movie to have the same beats that you can predict, the same opening, the same briefing. That got old by 1969, and they went on to do it for three decades after that point.

    They need to find a compromise, doing films that feel traditional without being detrimentally tied to ticking every box. There's just so much in the formula that bogs down interesting storytelling. Bond's gotta see M, then Moneypenny, then Q, then he's gotta have this chase and this fight and this dialogue with the villain and Bond girl, and on and on and on. There's a way to tell those stories with those elements, but in a far more interesting and flipped way, which the Craig era has done in parts. Have a Bond girl, but write her to be platonic with Bond and put a spin on it. Do a classic car chase, but truly make it a visceral experience like never before. Explore different psychoses in villains, do newer stunts never seen before, visit places Bond has never been instead of a rotating door of the usual and bring back proper location shooting. Maybe even set a film in one major location like the old days before globe-trotting completely took over.

    The films simply need to feel as unique and individual as the Craig films feel to me, and like Connery's did. There was a point in the series where it all felt the same, and I don't want the series to fall into that again, because I quite frankly won't be bothered with it. They just need to get the absolute best Bond they can and write him with depth. If they have that, they can build any structure and tone they feel they need, but if they don't have that, well...

    I agree, and they did begin to experiment a bit with not having Desmond show up in LALD, having Bond order other drinks, smoke cigars. Not exactly the level your talking about, but it was refreshing seeing M show up at Bond's house, I thought.
  • Posts: 676
    Trouble is, people nowadays will complain no matter what. Of course I'd want a straightforward Bond film where Bond is on a mission chasing a supervillain/evildoer who has no connection with him nor his people. But, then again, there will be complaints from people saying "the movie doesn't offer anything new, nor brings anything fresh to the table".
    I'm not so sure about that. I have never seen a fan - hardcore or casual - say that Bond going rogue or the villains being connected to Bond are selling points. I mean, Casino Royale didn't do either of those things, and people love that movie. I think it's possible to create a fresh Bond experience while sticking to the basic structure of Bond on a mission. There's a ton of room for variation within that basic structure. Just gotta use the ol' imagination.

    Ironically, I think Spectre indulges in a lot of tired old Bond formula that I thought the Craig era had successfully shaken... I don't dislike Spectre because I can't handle how cutting edge it is. Lol.
    @RichardTheBruce, that's a trait that defines Craig's Bond in a nutshell for me, really.

    M: "Bond, what're you doing?"

    Bond: "Something dangerous that I can't tell you about because if I do you'll try to stop me, and we both know that's not a good idea. Just tell your superiors I'm off the deep end. By the time they know what's up my business will be done."
    Once again, I wish this was in the actual movies. I mean the specific dialogue you've written. The closest Craig's Bond comes to this is in QoS when he meets M after escaping the kill-or-capture... But outside that, he seems to have severe communication issues (why not defend himself when accused of killing a member of Special Branch?). He's also very disrespectful towards M in Spectre, for absolutely no reason.

    I was actually quite excited, watching Spectre for the first time, when Bond said "Very good sir" to M after their meeting and "I completely understand" after Q explains that M ordered the smart blood injection. I thought to myself: finally, Craig's Bond has grown up and learned to play with others. And then I was dismayed to find him later, uh, stealing a car from Q Branch? He has never been more of a brat.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames I think you are missing some 'joie de vivre' expressed by a generation af actors who, in themselves, lived in a time where hardship was common. I've been to many places now where life is a lot more difficult in the West and noted this joy in living, which makes for the exact scenes like the grape picking. I see it with one of my friends too who's lost so much in life (and was close to finding his own run short) that he too goes by the adage of 'pick the day'. It's hard to pinpoint but I guess you can't play that if your life hasn't had such hardship. Both Conners and Moore had lived through real hardship before becoming well- or even decently payed actors. Craig just hasn't lived through that (afak) and that in itself is a good thing, but I don't think you can radiate that joy in life if you don't have it in yourself as a person.
    @CommanderRoss, I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I've always thought it was a generational thing, because I've tended to see it with older folks like my grandfather when he was alive, but having read your comments I realize that hardship could very well be the common factor. Many of these older actors lived through the war, and so lost a lot (including close friends) at a young age, and had to learn to basically survive day to day in a time of tremendous uncertainty. These sorts of life changing experiences are likely to give one an innate sense of perspective, and that indeed could translate very well onto screen when playing a character like Bond, who himself lives day by day without knowing if it will be his last.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    bondjames wrote: »
    @bondjames I think you are missing some 'joie de vivre' expressed by a generation af actors who, in themselves, lived in a time where hardship was common. I've been to many places now where life is a lot more difficult in the West and noted this joy in living, which makes for the exact scenes like the grape picking. I see it with one of my friends too who's lost so much in life (and was close to finding his own run short) that he too goes by the adage of 'pick the day'. It's hard to pinpoint but I guess you can't play that if your life hasn't had such hardship. Both Conners and Moore had lived through real hardship before becoming well- or even decently payed actors. Craig just hasn't lived through that (afak) and that in itself is a good thing, but I don't think you can radiate that joy in life if you don't have it in yourself as a person.
    @CommanderRoss, I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I've always thought it was a generational thing, because I've tended to see it with older folks like my grandfather when he was alive, but having read your comments I realize that hardship could very well be the common factor. Many of these older actors lived through the war, and so lost a lot (including close friends) at a young age, and had to learn to basically survive day to day in a time of tremendous uncertainty. These sorts of life changing experiences are likely to give one an innate sense of perspective, and that indeed could translate very well onto screen when playing a character like Bond, who himself lives day by day without knowing if it will be his last.

    Pool sheet. A great actor can convey anything, regardless of upbringing. Crappy actors might need a life kick in the arse to be able to display angst I guess....
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @bondjames I think you are missing some 'joie de vivre' expressed by a generation af actors who, in themselves, lived in a time where hardship was common. I've been to many places now where life is a lot more difficult in the West and noted this joy in living, which makes for the exact scenes like the grape picking. I see it with one of my friends too who's lost so much in life (and was close to finding his own run short) that he too goes by the adage of 'pick the day'. It's hard to pinpoint but I guess you can't play that if your life hasn't had such hardship. Both Conners and Moore had lived through real hardship before becoming well- or even decently payed actors. Craig just hasn't lived through that (afak) and that in itself is a good thing, but I don't think you can radiate that joy in life if you don't have it in yourself as a person.
    @CommanderRoss, I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I've always thought it was a generational thing, because I've tended to see it with older folks like my grandfather when he was alive, but having read your comments I realize that hardship could very well be the common factor. Many of these older actors lived through the war, and so lost a lot (including close friends) at a young age, and had to learn to basically survive day to day in a time of tremendous uncertainty. These sorts of life changing experiences are likely to give one an innate sense of perspective, and that indeed could translate very well onto screen when playing a character like Bond, who himself lives day by day without knowing if it will be his last.

    Pool sheet. A great actor can convey anything, regardless of upbringing. Crappy actors might need a life kick in the arse to be able to display angst I guess....
    If you are speaking generally then that goes without saying. I was speaking specifically about the Bond actors that we have had, as well as other actors from the past who can convey what we were discussing a few pages back. So my point still stands.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I agree with you, but with Bond not every actor can ring true with every aspect.
    Precisely.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 3,327
    Some serious reshuffling is going to need to happen, where actors are cast in those parts that are a helluva lot cheaper than the likes of Fiennes. With what he's paid EON feel the need to use him a bit more than another M would be, because he comes with a hefty price tag that can't be wasted.

    I think we will see the next era return to some form of roots with Bond on missions unconnected from movie to movie, but in doing that I want EON to treat the formula with the same reservation they have with Craig. They've used what works for the story, but they don't throw the kitchen sink at it. I don't want every movie to have the same beats that you can predict, the same opening, the same briefing. That got old by 1969, and they went on to do it for three decades after that point.

    They need to find a compromise, doing films that feel traditional without being detrimentally tied to ticking every box. There's just so much in the formula that bogs down interesting storytelling. Bond's gotta see M, then Moneypenny, then Q, then he's gotta have this chase and this fight and this dialogue with the villain and Bond girl, and on and on and on. There's a way to tell those stories with those elements, but in a far more interesting and flipped way, which the Craig era has done in parts. Have a Bond girl, but write her to be platonic with Bond and put a spin on it. Do a classic car chase, but truly make it a visceral experience like never before. Explore different psychoses in villains, do newer stunts never seen before, visit places Bond has never been instead of a rotating door of the usual and bring back proper location shooting. Maybe even set a film in one major location like the old days before globe-trotting completely took over.

    The films simply need to feel as unique and individual as the Craig films feel to me, and like Connery's did. There was a point in the series where it all felt the same, and I don't want the series to fall into that again, because I quite frankly won't be bothered with it. They just need to get the absolute best Bond they can and write him with depth. If they have that, they can build any structure and tone they feel they need, but if they don't have that, well...

    The problem is, the series now is feeling all the same. LTK experimented with the formula and shook things up back in 1989, while still remaining close to Fleming. Bond went rogue, and Bond was on a personal mission for once in the series, with a harder edged tone. Both M and Q appear out of their normal environments (on foreign soil) and become more involved with the story itself. Unfortunately this was as good as it would ever get, and Dalton's film has still not been bettered with any film that has followed.

    Little did we know at the time that LTK would be the template formula the same way DAF was back in 1971. LTK would set the template for the next 30 years, and over two different Bond actors.

    At least the template defined in 1971 would only set the formula for Moore's Bond until 1985. The Bond series now needs a serious overhaul again, and I think it needs to go back to basics (and the novels) even if it is just for one or two movies.

    SP attempted to bring back some of the most flawed parts of the old series formula, and in all the wrong ways, while still buried under a corrupted version of the LTK formula, making the Bond personal connection now nothing more than a stupid concept - Blofeld being family connected.



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @jetsetwilly, I don't think LTK was the ideal version of this idea, and I think the Craig era has been leaps and bounds more successful. The Dalton era, and even LTK, despite a bit of its tone, is still far too reminiscent of Moore's era, and that hampers the tone and message of the film. It is hard edged at times, sure, but far too often the blade is also very dulled.

    The Craig era, for whatever people want to say about it, allowed for a consistency that Dalton's movies didn't have, depicting a world that was largely played straight with a stable tone. Bond's world is given more consequence, and tension isn't flattened by a cheap one-liner or physical gag that still remained in Glen's approach to Dalton's movies (clearly Moore's style was hard to abandon fully). When Craig does spout a line, he does so with an acidic cynicism and dryness, serving less as a moment of humor and more a representation that he has had his fill.

    I love the Dalton films, you know that, but I wouldn't outright crown them as the originator of what we have now. LTK was an interesting prototype for what Bond could be, but the inability for those involved to truly embrace the concept of a "darker" Bond and world hampers the film immensely. In essence, it was a trial run that the Craig era has truly taken on as an overarching tone, even during the move to Mendes' approach. Its success has been in EON's ability to allow Dan to play the Bond he wants, a luxury Dalton was without under Cubby and Glen.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 676
    SP attempted to bring back some of the most flawed parts of the old series formula, and in all the wrong ways, while still buried under a corrupted version of the LTK formula, making the Bond personal connection now nothing more than a stupid concept - Blofeld being family connected.
    Agreed. Brofeld is easily the worst of the "personal connection" formula EON has used repeatedly in recent years. That well has truly run dry.
  • Posts: 4,044
    Milovy wrote: »
    SP attempted to bring back some of the most flawed parts of the old series formula, and in all the wrong ways, while still buried under a corrupted version of the LTK formula, making the Bond personal connection now nothing more than a stupid concept - Blofeld being family connected.
    Agreed. Brofeld is easily the worst of the "personal connection" formula EON has used repeatedly in recent years. That well has truly run dry.

    That won't stop them.
  • Posts: 3,327
    @jetsetwilly, I don't think LTK was the ideal version of this idea, and I think the Craig era has been leaps and bounds more successful. The Dalton era, and even LTK, despite a bit of its tone, is still far too reminiscent of Moore's era, and that hampers the tone and message of the film. It is hard edged at times, sure, but far too often the blade is also very dulled.

    The Craig era, for whatever people want to say about it, allowed for a consistency that Dalton's movies didn't have, depicting a world that was largely played straight with a stable tone. Bond's world is given more consequence, and tension isn't flattened by a cheap one-liner or physical gag that still remained in Glen's approach to Dalton's movies (clearly Moore's style was hard to abandon fully). When Craig does spout a line, he does so with an acidic cynicism and dryness, serving less as a moment of humor and more a representation that he has had his fill.

    I love the Dalton films, you know that, but I wouldn't outright crown them as the originator of what we have now. LTK was an interesting prototype for what Bond could be, but the inability for those involved to truly embrace the concept of a "darker" Bond and world hampers the film immensely. In essence, it was a trial run that the Craig era has truly taken on as an overarching tone, even during the move to Mendes' approach. Its success has been in EON's ability to allow Dan to play the Bond he wants, a luxury Dalton was without under Cubby and Glen.

    I guess we see LTK different then, because I see that film as harder edged than both SP and SF, and at least on par with QoS. It's also the only real time we have seen Fleming Bond on screen in his truest form.

    True, there was a Moore hangover with Dalton's first film, but by the second film the script was really tailored to Dalton's strengths, and any humour in LTK was stripped right back, and left to the brief scenes with Q.

    And to me LTK was the Craig template. It was the first time Cubby and co. really had the balls to push the boundaries, including landing the film with a 15 certificate, but they didn't dare persevere with this route during the Brosnan era, opting back to the more traditional formula.

    It was only Bourne and 9/11 that caused Babs and co. to go back to what they started in LTK.



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @jetsetwilly, I enjoy the film immensely, I just think far too much credit is given to it.

    It's got the Moore era hang-ups like TLD did, just in different areas and ways. They're still there, and still deflate a lot of tension. It's part of why I hate to see Dalton quipping in it. It doesn't feel like something that this Bond should ever do in the situation he's in, supposedly on a serious mission and fully focused on nothing but vengeance.

    There's also a helluva lot of cheese that additionally sinks its tone, making it as confused as the likes of GF at times. The ultimate sign of this is the ending, the weakest part of the film by far that does nothing with the dramatic stakes and consequences Bond should have been facing at the end of the mission. Instead they went meek, safe and silly.

    I stand by my point that QoS is a far better model of this story, because above all it has consistency, something neither Dalton film achieved. I just don't see much of a maverick bravery in what EON did with LTK overall. They didn't really support Tim the way they should've and if they weren't going to go all in with that story, they shouldn't have done it at all. Maybe it was too much to ask for Bond to let go of the established formula so soon after Moore was done, but I'll be damned if those leftovers don't sink an otherwise compelling film.

    It's high ranking to me, but it would be seriously high if the tone wasn't such an issue at critical times where the movie makes you wonder if it knows what story it's telling.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I once showed a mate (who hated Bond) LTK, with the caveat 'it's the one the fans call hard-edged', so you may get into it. Within 45 mins he thought that notion was laughable. For him it was merely trying to ape the style of the time, but came up way short. It actually made him look at some of the earlier films in a more favourable light.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2017 Posts: 4,043
    EON not committing to the material and not giving Tim the type of film his interpretation deserved will always be the downfall of that film.

    All of Q's scenes are totally unnecessary and rob the film of all it's seriousness. Also Dalton despite more experienced in the role than in TLD has his accent wandering amongst other issues.

    LTK is a seriously flawed film, Dalton may be giving us the most Fleming portrayal of the series but the above mentioned dilutes all that down and as our friend says above the jarring tone makes you feel like the story doesn't feel confident enough to get over what it's trying to say.

    QOS I think does this much more successfully.




  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Birdleson wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I once showed a mate (who hated Bond) LTK, with the caveat 'it's the one the fans call hard-edged', so you may get into it. Within 45 mins he thought that notion was laughable. For him it was merely trying to ape the style of the time, but came up way short. It actually made him look at some of the earlier films in a more favourable light.

    That is a fairly standard reaction. We, as diehard fans, tend to be blind to the overall product and focus on the bits that tickle our fancy.

    Yes, I've noticed that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    LTK isn't something that will grab the casual viewer easily. It's too different from the general public's expectation of what James Bond is. The fact that it lacks the flair, style and charisma of nearly all of the other Bond films doesn't help either. Yes, Davi & Dalton are on fire, but a lot of the nuances in their performances will be lost on the casual viewer, who will see the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist as similar to nearly all other generic action fare, like Lethal Weapon etc.

    Regarding comparisons to QoS, I think that's unfair. EON learnt a lot from the Bourne Supremacy, which served as a template for Bond to find his 'solace'. They essentially took that story (which had the hero's girl die under water at the start of the film rather than at the end of the prior entry) and grafted onto the classic Bond universe, with its classy locales, expensive visuals & sinister & nefarious organizations. LTK didn't have such a successful contemporary template to draw from in 1989, and so I think they did a decent enough job for the time.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Shardlake wrote: »
    EON not committing to the material and not giving Tim the type of film his interpretation deserved will always be the downfall of that film.

    All of Q's scenes are totally unnecessary and rob the film of all it's seriousness. Also Dalton despite more experienced in the role than in TLD has his accent wandering amongst other issues.

    LTK is a seriously flawed film, Dalton may be giving us the most Fleming portrayal of the series but the above mentioned dilutes all that down and as our friend says above the jarring tone makes you feel like the story doesn't feel confident enough to get over what it's trying to say.

    QOS I think does this much more successfully.

    I seem to like the Q aspect of LTK more than most, but I understand why some find his presence distracts from what is going on, or adds to much levity to it. I honestly think the script needed to make it far more apparent that Q was acting on M's behalf, and openly have Bond confront the notion that he was really endangering his position in the service by acting out. But of course, we never get any of it.
    bondjames wrote: »
    LTK isn't something that will grab the casual viewer easily. It's too different from the general public's expectation of what James Bond is. The fact that it lacks the flair, style and charisma of nearly all of the other Bond films doesn't help either. Yes, Davi & Dalton are on fire, but a lot of the nuances in their performances will be lost on the casual viewer, who will see the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist as similar to nearly all other generic action fare, like Lethal Weapon etc.

    Regarding comparisons to QoS, I think that's unfair. EON learnt a lot from the Bourne Supremacy, which served as a template for Bond to find his 'solace'. They essentially took that story (which had the hero's girl die under water at the start of the film rather than at the end of the prior entry) and grafted onto the classic Bond universe, with its classy locales, expensive visuals & sinister & nefarious organizations. LTK didn't have such a successful contemporary template to draw from in 1989, and so I think they did a decent enough job for the time.

    I don't really get the Bourne comparison on the whole. Supremacy is an entire film about outfoxing crooked government, and the big idea is Bourne working to forgive himself. QoS on the other hand has any notions of solace as second or third to the story. Bond is not overtly going after resolution, and only characters like Mathis push him towards facing Vesper's actions to see the truth behind them. When Bond opens himself up and wipes away his somewhat rational disgust at being betrayed, he's finally able to know all and forgive Vesper, but he never sets out to do so. Bond and Bourne work for completely disparate ends, and for even different reasons. It's like arguing Casablanca rips off Gone with the Wind because both feature tortured lovers. We have to look at how those broad genre conventions or ideas are used, as they'll more often than not be quite different.

    LTK's 80s influences are easier to argue than any Bond-Bourne connections in QoS, if one wanted to. If Bond was removed from the story you would be able to make the plot a Miami Vice motion picture, with Sanchez as the big bad drug baron to be brought asunder. The sweaty, grittily shot, sun-drenched drug plots of those kinds of 80s films, down to the fight the law enforcement have with the kingpin and all his colorful side-allies is plainly there to see. But because Bond is there, the movie is able to shadow that influence. I'm fine with Bond films stepping outside the box of what a Bond movie is (this is a QoS lover talking here), but with LTK it's never a mystery what playbook it's working under.

    Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but let's not argue that LTK didn't play by a specific template or didn't do the late 80s equivalent of MR's aping of Star Wars, for example. Bond had moved toward the culture of the time and what audiences of the day were starving for, for better or worse. But it's definitely there, undeniably so, much like it can't be argued that the more earnest tone of new millennium (and largely post-9/11) movies paved the way for the market EON are now playing Bond to.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 3,327
    @jetsetwilly, I enjoy the film immensely, I just think far too much credit is given to it.

    It's got the Moore era hang-ups like TLD did, just in different areas and ways. They're still there, and still deflate a lot of tension. It's part of why I hate to see Dalton quipping in it. It doesn't feel like something that this Bond should ever do in the situation he's in, supposedly on a serious mission and fully focused on nothing but vengeance.

    There's also a helluva lot of cheese that additionally sinks its tone, making it as confused as the likes of GF at times. The ultimate sign of this is the ending, the weakest part of the film by far that does nothing with the dramatic stakes and consequences Bond should have been facing at the end of the mission. Instead they went meek, safe and silly.

    I stand by my point that QoS is a far better model of this story, because above all it has consistency, something neither Dalton film achieved. I just don't see much of a maverick bravery in what EON did with LTK overall. They didn't really support Tim the way they should've and if they weren't going to go all in with that story, they shouldn't have done it at all. Maybe it was too much to ask for Bond to let go of the established formula so soon after Moore was done, but I'll be damned if those leftovers don't sink an otherwise compelling film.

    It's high ranking to me, but it would be seriously high if the tone wasn't such an issue at critical times where the movie makes you wonder if it knows what story it's telling.

    I really love the ending to LTK. In fact, its probably one of my favourites, alongside OHMSS. For once we don't see a villains lair being blown up, with an army of bad buys in orange boiler suits v an army of good guys in black boiler suits.

    Instead we get one of the best action scenes in the series, ending in a bloodied, battered and torn Bond laying on the floor - the first time we have ever seen this in a Bond film. And then the `Don't you want to know why?' line, which felt like it jumped straight out of a Fleming novel.

    I also don't really see that much cheese in this one, other than the scenes with Q, and the `bless your heart' moments. Other than that the humour is kept to a bare minimum. In fact, I can't remember one quip that Dalton does in this film.

    I have bigger issues with QoS, because Bond turns superhuman again in this one. The plane action scene feels very box ticking, as does the speed boat chase, and I really cannot stand the freefall into the sinkhole, where Bond is right as rain again two seconds later. It also suffers from severe editing, not allowing many scenes to breathe.

    The Aston car chase works well, as does the rooftop chase, and the ending is good too, but overall not a patch on LTK.



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @jetsetwilly, you mistake my words. I don't mean LTK's climax, I mean it's ending. The meek, inconsequential one where Bond never faces M for what he's done, Felix is downright giddy after the murder and rape of his wife, and Pam and Lupe are further diluted as schoolgirls contending for Bond's heart in the most sophomoric of ways. It's all too much in its artificialness, and with an improved ending the film would improve immeasurably.

    QoS doesn't show us a superhuman Bond, either. We see him in every major scene of action (car chase, Siena chase, Slate fight, dogfight/free fall, hotel raid, etc) take brutal amounts of damage. In each scene the cuts of the previous scrap at caked over by all the fresh gashes, with sweat ever trickling from every bit of cracked skin were the protective layer has been peeled back by punches, kicks, stabs, bludgeoning and burns. It's his willpower alone that keeps him going.

    LTK's finale shows a battle worn Bond well, but in comparison to QoS where he's covered in blood, sweat and dirt for over half of it, it doesn't compare. LTK also wasn't the first movie to show a beat up or bruising Bond, as the Connery era had gone there before.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,244
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @bondjames I think you are missing some 'joie de vivre' expressed by a generation af actors who, in themselves, lived in a time where hardship was common. I've been to many places now where life is a lot more difficult in the West and noted this joy in living, which makes for the exact scenes like the grape picking. I see it with one of my friends too who's lost so much in life (and was close to finding his own run short) that he too goes by the adage of 'pick the day'. It's hard to pinpoint but I guess you can't play that if your life hasn't had such hardship. Both Conners and Moore had lived through real hardship before becoming well- or even decently payed actors. Craig just hasn't lived through that (afak) and that in itself is a good thing, but I don't think you can radiate that joy in life if you don't have it in yourself as a person.
    @CommanderRoss, I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I've always thought it was a generational thing, because I've tended to see it with older folks like my grandfather when he was alive, but having read your comments I realize that hardship could very well be the common factor. Many of these older actors lived through the war, and so lost a lot (including close friends) at a young age, and had to learn to basically survive day to day in a time of tremendous uncertainty. These sorts of life changing experiences are likely to give one an innate sense of perspective, and that indeed could translate very well onto screen when playing a character like Bond, who himself lives day by day without knowing if it will be his last.

    Pool sheet. A great actor can convey anything, regardless of upbringing. Crappy actors might need a life kick in the arse to be able to display angst I guess....

    Perhaps, but even an actor can only emulate something if he knows what he has to emulate.
    Take Top Gun: Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer are very much the top fighter pilots because they hung out with real ones and were able to understand why these guys are so cocky and full of themselves. They translate that to the screen.

    I thought about this joie de vivre because I've long been wondering why all the Cubans I met, the Bosnians and Croats just after that war and those Indians in their slums seemed so much happier then my well-to-do friends in the West. It's really increadeable how boring we humans can get when everything is going perfectly (and how much we still complain). But i digress. I think people in general, and Connery and Moore especially, bacause of their histories couldn't take life all that seriously, and thus had more fun living it. Now I find Craig to be a very fine actor, but I think @Bondjames has a point when he says he's missing something, some flair. Something, oddly enough that you could certainly find in the recent Man From Uncle film. Personally I think that's because of Guy Ritchie, whom gets this Joie de vivre just fine (and is certainly misunderstood because of it).

    Now I know too little about Craig's personal life to say that I am right, but if I am it would be difficult for him to understand this whole concept and emulate it onto our screens, for he should first be aware that this is what is missing and then try to learn from people who live their lives this way. It's hard to portray loss if you haven't lost someone, it's hard to portray love for life if you can't feel it that way. (I'm not saying he doesn't enjoy living, that's something completely different).

    p.s. I'd rather play snooker ;-)
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Craig has never really portrayed a Bond who's living it up and enjoying himself. He always seems too angsty to let go and just enjoy. It's down to the writing and directing as well of course.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig has never really portrayed a Bond who's living it up and enjoying himself. He always seems too angsty to let go and just enjoy. It's down to the writing and directing as well of course.

    I always thought the post-Casino dinner scene with Vesper captured this really well.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig has never really portrayed a Bond who's living it up and enjoying himself. He always seems too angsty to let go and just enjoy. It's down to the writing and directing as well of course.

    He has moments of fun, but at times he's labored by what he faces in the stories. In his first and second films Bond is dealing with betrayal from a woman he wanted to grow old with, and that's not something he's going to be all smiles about. SF shows him picking himself back up from near death while facing a world that wants his kind to die out. Again, not really time for kicks.

    In between these moments though we get the trick he plays with the man's car at the Ocean Club, the card game with Dimitrios and seduction of Solange, all the fun he and Vesper have before he knows the truth about her, his man talk interactions with Mathis, etc in CR. In QoS every scene with Mathis outside his death is lively, his little tricks with Fields and chats with Camille are great, and in SF his snarky discussions with M, his very light flirtations with Moneypenny, mental chess matches with Q and more again show a lighter side of him. And SP is full of moments where Bond "lives it up," as he's less brought down by what he's facing. Which makes sense, as the previous films made him strong.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    LTK isn't something that will grab the casual viewer easily. It's too different from the general public's expectation of what James Bond is. The fact that it lacks the flair, style and charisma of nearly all of the other Bond films doesn't help either. Yes, Davi & Dalton are on fire, but a lot of the nuances in their performances will be lost on the casual viewer, who will see the conflict between the protagonist and antagonist as similar to nearly all other generic action fare, like Lethal Weapon etc.

    Regarding comparisons to QoS, I think that's unfair. EON learnt a lot from the Bourne Supremacy, which served as a template for Bond to find his 'solace'. They essentially took that story (which had the hero's girl die under water at the start of the film rather than at the end of the prior entry) and grafted onto the classic Bond universe, with its classy locales, expensive visuals & sinister & nefarious organizations. LTK didn't have such a successful contemporary template to draw from in 1989, and so I think they did a decent enough job for the time.

    I don't really get the Bourne comparison on the whole. Supremacy is an entire film about outfoxing crooked government, and the big idea is Bourne working to forgive himself. QoS on the other hand has any notions of solace as second or third to the story. Bond is not overtly going after resolution, and only characters like Mathis push him towards facing Vesper's actions to see the truth behind them. When Bond opens himself up and wipes away his somewhat rational disgust at being betrayed, he's finally able to know all and forgive Vesper, but he never sets out to do so. Bond and Bourne work for completely disparate ends, and for even different reasons. It's like arguing Casablanca rips off Gone with the Wind because both feature tortured lovers. We have to look at how those broad genre conventions or ideas are used, as they'll more often than not be quite different.

    LTK's 80s influences are easier to argue than any Bond-Bourne connections in QoS, if one wanted to. If Bond was removed from the story you would be able to make the plot a Miami Vice motion picture, with Sanchez as the big bad drug baron to be brought asunder. The sweaty, grittily shot, sun-drenched drug plots of those kinds of 80s films, down to the fight the law enforcement have with the kingpin and all his colorful side-allies is plainly there to see. But because Bond is there, the movie is able to shadow that influence. I'm fine with Bond films stepping outside the box of what a Bond movie is (this is a QoS lover talking here), but with LTK it's never a mystery what playbook it's working under.

    Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but let's not argue that LTK didn't play by a specific template or didn't do the late 80s equivalent of MR's aping of Star Wars, for example. Bond had moved toward the culture of the time and what audiences of the day were starving for, for better or worse. But it's definitely there, undeniably so, much like it can't be argued that the more earnest tone of new millennium (and largely post-9/11) movies paved the way for the market EON are now playing Bond to.
    The influences of The Bourne Supremacy on QoS are terribly apparent to me, and have been since the film came out. I've outlined them previously on these boards, and so won't repeat all of it here. Yes, there are the obvious action edit quick cut influences, but those are purely cosmetic. There's also the impact of violence on Bond/Bourne and the staring at mirrors while bruised and cut. There's the underwater death of the protagonist's girl (not in the novel) in CR. Moreover, the title of the film is Quantum of 'Solace' (so that element was arguably intended to be at least as equal in the film as the Quantum bit). This is the first direct sequel, and focuses on Bond's quest for peace and answers to Vesper's death. At the very end, he gets his answers, while being guided along the way by M and Mathis in his pursuit. The Quantum water plot, I would argue, is quite incidental to this at least emotionally. The internal traitor dynamic is turned on its head (Abbot in Bourne really is one vs. Mathis in QoS who is wrongly accused). We have a sharp boss (M/Landy) trying to put out fires while the CIA is out to kill a crack agent who's apparently lost it. In both cases, the female superior eventually realizes that the agent in question is actually on the ball and not an emotional wrecking machine. The epilogue with the Neski girl at the end of the film in Russia was quite a moment in the earlier film, and EON did something similar with the Yusef epilogue in QoS.

    "There's no place it won't catch up to you. It's how every story ends. It's what you are, Jason...a killer. You always will be. Go ahead. Go on. Go on.! Do it.! Do it.!"

    "She wouldn't want me to. That's the only reason you're alive."

    The above exchange from Bourne clearly mirrors QoS's M/Bond exchanges regarding various kills throughout QoS, but those are framed more around Bond being a loose canon.

    "I think you are so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don't care who you hurt."

    "Is he still alive?"
    "He is."
    "I'm surprised."

    No, the parallels are quite clear to me, and I think they were to the general public as well. The Bourne Supremacy is and was an exceptional film that was very influential in this genre. More so than the first one, in my view.

    In fact, come to think of it, the Marie/Bourne dynamic in that earlier film has continued to influence the entire Craig era, right down to Bond's decision not to kill Blofeld in 2015's SP. "You have a choice". Indeed.

    Regarding LTK's comparisons to Miami Vice and other more contemporary fare from the late 80's: Yes, those similarities are definitely there. In that case, the producers and director arguably weren't as stylistically successful in grafting those elements into the Bond larger than life universe as they were in QoS. Perhaps Glen was out of his depth in this respect, but it could have also been budget constraints. Dalton also wasn't quite as suave as he could have been (Willis & Arnie arguably had more charm at that time). A more accomplished director like Spielberg might have made more out of it.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig has never really portrayed a Bond who's living it up and enjoying himself. He always seems too angsty to let go and just enjoy. It's down to the writing and directing as well of course.
    To me, it seems like he's acting it and so he's just not credible in this respect. Yes, a lot of it could indeed be due to writing and directing, but I feel it's more than that. Difficult to put my finger on it though, and as I said, I rarely find actors credible with this element these days.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @bondjames, as usual, you argue strong points and I can see the connections you're making. Because some of the Bourne team worked on QoS there's a definite visual carry over at times, and the movies share the very conflicted and corrupt nature of government, with Bond and Bourne the good loose cannons.

    It's hard to tell if Bond and Bourne are riffing on one another, or if the things the two films share are simply coincidences because they're bound by a genre that features these kinds similar themes and ideas of shattered visions of government with traitors everywhere and a more grounded take on what it means to be a spy.

    I still feel that Supremacy is more motivated by solace than QoS is, but when I said QoS doesn't do it as loudly, I simply meant from a subtlety standpoint. I think so much of Supremacy is bound by Bourne's journey to just find out what his past was and forgive for that sin he committed (with the story supporting that), whereas in QoS, although the Vesper angle and Bond's forgiveness does play a big part, it's presented as far more subdued and is diluted by the main scheme he is trailing to find out more about Quantum. Bond never mentions Vesper by name in the film or makes a motion to bring anything about her up, whereas Bourne is constantly confronted with his past and has to deal with things then and there. I like that approach in each film, however, as how the story is told relates to who Bourne and Bond are and makes the two feel like different experiences despite the bleed over. Bourne still isn't himself fresh off amnesia, so memories will come flying at him unpredictably to the point that he's forced to face them, as he has no ability to repress what he can't recall. Bond however is obviously able to recall it all, and he shoves all his feeling down into his gut to burn it up so that nobody suspects his vulnerability and he doesn't have to face the hurt he's been caused directly or the possible suspicions he may have of Vesper's innocence.

    I haven't watched the Bourne films in a long time, and you have me wanting to fire them up sooner rather than later to see if I make any connections myself. I still haven't seen any of the new Bourne, so I should probably do that sometime. But I appreciate you sharing your perspective and the findings that you think support your claim.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Fair points @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. I've rewatched the Bourne films many times since Craig took over as Bond, so perhaps that's why my perspective is a little different from yours. They made a very significant positive impact on me in the early 00's, at a time when EON was futzing about with tripe bunk like TWINE & DAD. Their impact on the genre was quite profound.

    I see what you're saying about the emphasis on solace in QoS vs. The Bourne Supremacy. It's certainly not as obvious, and is more subtle in the Bond film, perhaps to avoid direct comparisons with the Bourne entry.

    The Bourne/Marie dynamic, including her death having a profound impact on him as he came to terms with who he was and is, still resonates with me. It was her words, that he "has a choice" to keep running and be a killer or not, which were the fundamental element of that film. Elements which were first broached in The Bourne Identity. So when EON took the Vesper story from the novel and expanded on it for the film with the "you have a choice" angle, then took it even further in QoS with Bond's solace, and finally brought it full circle in the train conversation in SP, (resulting in his decision not to kill Blofeld) the similarities to that aspect of the Bourne story were quite clear to me.

    Craig's Bond has the opportunity to leave cleanly and find a life - something which Bourne can never do.
  • Posts: 3,327
    @jetsetwilly, you mistake my words. I don't mean LTK's climax, I mean it's ending. The meek, inconsequential one where Bond never faces M for what he's done, Felix is downright giddy after the murder and rape of his wife, and Pam and Lupe are further diluted as schoolgirls contending for Bond's heart in the most sophomoric of ways. It's all too much in its artificialness, and with an improved ending the film would improve immeasurably.

    QoS doesn't show us a superhuman Bond, either. We see him in every major scene of action (car chase, Siena chase, Slate fight, dogfight/free fall, hotel raid, etc) take brutal amounts of damage. In each scene the cuts of the previous scrap at caked over by all the fresh gashes, with sweat ever trickling from every bit of cracked skin were the protective layer has been peeled back by punches, kicks, stabs, bludgeoning and burns. It's his willpower alone that keeps him going.

    LTK's finale shows a battle worn Bond well, but in comparison to QoS where he's covered in blood, sweat and dirt for over half of it, it doesn't compare. LTK also wasn't the first movie to show a beat up or bruising Bond, as the Connery era had gone there before.

    The token ending on LTK doesn't bother me at all, because the rest of the film is so perfect. I can even live with the winking fish.... ;)

    The action scenes in QoS show Bond dirty and torn, yet we never see Craig physically look hurt at any moment, not like we did in CR. But my biggest gripe is the sinkhole freefall, where Bond is right as rain 2 seconds later. This for me brought the film back into Brosnan territory.

    As for Connery covered in blood - I don't recall this in any Bond film. He looked tattered and a bit dirty in Dr. No during the tunnel scenes, but that was it.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2017 Posts: 28,694
    @jetsetwilly, you mistake my words. I don't mean LTK's climax, I mean it's ending. The meek, inconsequential one where Bond never faces M for what he's done, Felix is downright giddy after the murder and rape of his wife, and Pam and Lupe are further diluted as schoolgirls contending for Bond's heart in the most sophomoric of ways. It's all too much in its artificialness, and with an improved ending the film would improve immeasurably.

    QoS doesn't show us a superhuman Bond, either. We see him in every major scene of action (car chase, Siena chase, Slate fight, dogfight/free fall, hotel raid, etc) take brutal amounts of damage. In each scene the cuts of the previous scrap at caked over by all the fresh gashes, with sweat ever trickling from every bit of cracked skin were the protective layer has been peeled back by punches, kicks, stabs, bludgeoning and burns. It's his willpower alone that keeps him going.

    LTK's finale shows a battle worn Bond well, but in comparison to QoS where he's covered in blood, sweat and dirt for over half of it, it doesn't compare. LTK also wasn't the first movie to show a beat up or bruising Bond, as the Connery era had gone there before.

    The token ending on LTK doesn't bother me at all, because the rest of the film is so perfect. I can even live with the winking fish.... ;)

    The action scenes in QoS show Bond dirty and torn, yet we never see Craig physically look hurt at any moment, not like we did in CR. But my biggest gripe is the sinkhole freefall, where Bond is right as rain 2 seconds later. This for me brought the film back into Brosnan territory.

    As for Connery covered in blood - I don't recall this in any Bond film. He looked tattered and a bit dirty in Dr. No during the tunnel scenes, but that was it.

    I see hurt in Dan in QoS, but even if he didn't show it the argument doesn't really hold up for Dalton in LTK either. Bond is torn to shreds in the finale and is right as rain days after at the party as Sanchez's, nary a scratch on him. At the very least you can see the scars Dan's Bond carries with him. And Dan's Bond is also by and far the strongest and most durable of the Bonds, so there's also that. He's not going to fall to pain like Dalton's would, for example, who wasn't a great fighter or accompanied with a high pain tolerance.

    As for Sean, he's got busted over bleeding knuckles in DN, get all kinds of beat in FRWL and in TB there's a minor moment where he bleeds from the mouth. Young didn't want to go overboard with blood, but he did like to show Bond taking a bit of a beating while being affected by the danger he was facing. Outside of blood, Young's Bond always showed wear and tear on his suits as well, instead of some films that simply have Bond swap suits when one gets ruined.
Sign In or Register to comment.