keep the films serious and realistic.

124678

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    if the tone had remained the same we would not be celebrating fifty years of bond.
    The Bond franchise is like a life form, evolving, changing, not always for the best, but sometimes brilliantly... survival of the Bondest.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    if the tone had remained the same we would not be celebrating fifty years of bond.
    The Bond franchise is like a life form, evolving, changing, not always for the best, but sometimes brilliantly... survival of the Bondest.

    absolutely mate, look at batman and superman they have endured for similar reasons the characters are often reimagined. In years to come bond will change many times again, even when i don't like some takes on bond i still love bond.
  • Posts: 12,526
    They will keep there course as it is for the time being? Alot will depend on the times we live in? What sort of other movies are around? And also who will play the part of Bond after DC steps down?
  • I agree...I want Ian Fleming Bond....his vision not Moore or Bronsan version..the realistic sole person mission to target out the villain......no army no support just him and an ally/Bond girl only.
  • I believe the films should be more like FRWL and OHMSS. A little bit of realism. As I see it, there are 2 genres: book Bond (serious, gritty) and movie Bond (more lighthearted, not to the extent of Moore's silly movies. He had a couple good ones tho).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Can't keep it serious in the movies... Dalton's two tried, box office lowered some. Even though CR is supposed a return to serious, it was really a dip into brutal, which is definitely GOOD, but the movie derailed from 'serious' for me when Bond became superhuman. Brosnan's first three were actually just a tad more serious for me than Craig's movies as far as the indestructible thing goes, however, with the exception of Connery's first four & Dalton's short run, realism & Bond are about as easily blended as oil & water IMO. That can be good or bad depending on the movie, but I fear we will never get another Bond movie very close to a Fleming novel ever again.

    My rant moment: "Why in MY day, jumping off a three story build usually resulted in a sprained ankle, nowadays EVERYONE can leap off five stories & hit the ground running... while loading a gun."
  • The reality is that reality is over-rated. There are a number of standard rants on this thread, one of the main ones being that Moore's Bonds were all silly, but with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY with a missing allied nuclear weapon computer controller we get one of the most serious of all the Bond film plots.

    Another is that Bond tackle everything on his own and that it was Moore who needed an army to help, however, in the movies THUNDERBALL, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMOND'S ARE FOREVER, Bond did need outside help from the military, secret service or even criminal (MAFIA) assistance.

    And finally the idea that Bond should be more like Bourne to compete in today's dirty bomb world, well, to be honest, Bourne isn't like Bourne as the film of THE BOURNE IDENTITY isn't a patch on Ludlum's novel, probably because Ludlum's Bourne is largely Ludlum's version of James Bond but American and with Amnesia.

    Moore did a number of good Bond films and some stinkers just like most Bond actors have. Each person and each generation has a Bond that is their favourite and although we bad-mouth each other's choices this is what makes Bond films last and has given them their longevity. Bond films aren't a genre of films, they are many film genre's, thrillers, family films, serious action adventures to low-key espionage dramas.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The reality is that reality is over-rated. There are a number of standard rants on this thread, one of the main ones being that Moore's Bonds were all silly, but with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY with a missing allied nuclear weapon computer controller we get one of the most serious of all the Bond film plots.

    Another is that Bond tackle everything on his own and that it was Moore who needed an army to help, however, in the movies THUNDERBALL, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMOND'S ARE FOREVER, Bond did need outside help from the military, secret service or even criminal (MAFIA) assistance.

    And finally the idea that Bond should be more like Bourne to compete in today's dirty bomb world, well, to be honest, Bourne isn't like Bourne as the film of THE BOURNE IDENTITY isn't a patch on Ludlum's novel, probably because Ludlum's Bourne is largely Ludlum's version of James Bond but American and with Amnesia.

    Moore did a number of good Bond films and some stinkers just like most Bond actors have. Each person and each generation has a Bond that is their favourite and although we bad-mouth each other's choices this is what makes Bond films last and has given them their longevity. Bond films aren't a genre of films, they are many film genre's, thrillers, family films, serious action adventures to low-key espionage dramas.

    Good post. The phrase 'reality' is just a mis-nomer. I hate when people talk about 'gritty realism', what a load of BS. It's funny when people say they want movies like FRWL and OHMSS, ignoring 20 other films in a franchise. Surely the appeal of Bond is it's ability to diversify. I'll watch FRWL and TND and enjoy them equally for what they do.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Question: is From Russia With Love the only 'realistic' espionage film in the Bond franchise? Or the one closest to it?
    I mean, wasn't Bond designed by Fleming to be sort of the Heavy Metal magazine version of spy characters & stories? And didn't the movies magnify that mostly (except the sex)?
    To me, 'realism' is like, The Constant Gardener or something...
    That said.... as much as I liked The Constant Gardener, I've seen it only once, and most Bond movies I'm on my 15th view of by now (or higher)...
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,593
    chrisisall wrote:
    Question: is From Russia With Love the only 'realistic' espionage film in the Bond franchise? Or the one closest to it?
    I find FRWL is as realistic as it gets when it comes to Bond, with QoS closely tailing and FYEO not too far behind that. TLD is probably up there somewhere, too- apart from the Aston's gadgets.
  • The thing about all the down to earth Bond films is that they gave us substance, character depth, a story to tell us...i.e. QOS, CR,OHMSS....Vesper's death is.isn't really all that avenged yet and Yusef is the symbol of Bond's vulnerability in being professional or volatile in his work. I could picture this guy laughing while being interrogated. I think Bond started finging solace when the Corrine thanked Bond for warning her but I got so upset at Yusef for asking Bond to "make it quick"...didn't u?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited January 2013 Posts: 14,593
    Yusef meant he wanted Bond to make his death quick- not the conversation preceding it (although I'm sure he wouldn't want that dragged out either!)
  • Lol. I was referring to how it's upsetting that this guy causes Bond's separation of life from Vesper and he still wants a quick death...didn't that upset u?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,593
    I never thought about that before, but true- it was a bit selfish, considering he just heard Bond say "He gave it to a friend of mine, someone very close to me." If Yusef had any kind of conscience of understanding, he'd reply with something like "I see now that Vesper meant a lot to you. Torture me until you feel we're even." :))
  • Maybe u should make a video called How QOS should have ended!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Maybe u should make a video called How QOS should have ended!
    The ending is perfect, one of the top in the franchise (for scenes as well)!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The thing about all the down to earth Bond films is that they gave us substance, character depth, a story to tell us...i.e. QOS

    CR and OHMSS tell us stories. QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue and a slice of redemption shoe-horned in at the end. There are some good moments but in terms of story, it has nothing like the weight of a CR or OHMSS. Yeah, the scene with Yusef is good, but the film as a whole had so much unexplored potential. It's the only opportunity outside of OHMSS, where they had the chance to make a genuine sequel and they dropped the ball. I like QoS in part, but to suggest it's the best it could have been is way wide of the mark. It had the potential to be the best film in the franchise.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    The thing about all the down to earth Bond films is that they gave us substance, character depth, a story to tell us...i.e. QOS

    CR and OHMSS tell us stories. QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue and a slice of redemption shoe-horned in at the end. There are some good moments but in terms of story, it has nothing like the weight of a CR or OHMSS. Yeah, the scene with Yusef is good, but the film as a whole had so much unexplored potential. It's the only opportunity outside of OHMSS, where they had the chance to make a genuine sequel and they dropped the ball. I like QoS in part, but to suggest it's the best it could have been is way wide of the mark. It had the potential to be the best film in the franchise.
    What revenge? You mean Camille getting Medrano?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    The thing about all the down to earth Bond films is that they gave us substance, character depth, a story to tell us...i.e. QOS

    CR and OHMSS tell us stories. QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue and a slice of redemption shoe-horned in at the end. There are some good moments but in terms of story, it has nothing like the weight of a CR or OHMSS. Yeah, the scene with Yusef is good, but the film as a whole had so much unexplored potential. It's the only opportunity outside of OHMSS, where they had the chance to make a genuine sequel and they dropped the ball. I like QoS in part, but to suggest it's the best it could have been is way wide of the mark. It had the potential to be the best film in the franchise.
    What revenge? You mean Camille getting Medrano?

    I didn't say anything about revenge? All though, on the subject, QoS should have been an out and out revenge flick.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    The thing about all the down to earth Bond films is that they gave us substance, character depth, a story to tell us...i.e. QOS

    CR and OHMSS tell us stories. QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue and a slice of redemption shoe-horned in at the end. There are some good moments but in terms of story, it has nothing like the weight of a CR or OHMSS. Yeah, the scene with Yusef is good, but the film as a whole had so much unexplored potential. It's the only opportunity outside of OHMSS, where they had the chance to make a genuine sequel and they dropped the ball. I like QoS in part, but to suggest it's the best it could have been is way wide of the mark. It had the potential to be the best film in the franchise.
    What revenge? You mean Camille getting Medrano?

    I didn't say anything about revenge? All though, on the subject, QoS should have been an out and out revenge flick.

    Sorry, I meant to type redemption. It wouldn't work as a revenge film. Apologies for the confusion.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2013 Posts: 10,512
    It wouldn't work as a revenge film.

    Haggis' original drafts were revenge based, and I bet they were a damn sight better than what we actually got. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike QoS, my biggest problem is that it had the potential to be infinitely better than it was. I think it receives more love than it probably deserves. Hidden behind the beautiful cinematography and production design, is a film that doesn't know what it is, or what it's trying to achieve. It has neat 'moments', as evidenced by all the comments re. Tosca, Yusef etc but as a whole, it just isn't cohesive.

    There was a subtlety about the Vesper arc in QoS, but it was masked by a paper thin plot about natural resources and bunch of redundant action scenes, mostly used to get us from A-B. I found I was ambivalent towards Greene and Quantum. There was nothing even remotely interesting, just a mcguffin couched in real world politics, which when done well (see SF agent leak) can make an impact, but it's much harder to care, when the organisation you are supposed to fear, are in the market of controlling water supply. In the real world it's quite scary, but for the purposes of a Bond film it lacks gravitas.

    I can imagine if they'd saved that notion for SF - we have Bond returning to London, only to find Quantum have taken over 'Thames Water', with Elvis manning the switchboard.

  • To some extent, in many films we don't find out what the plot is until the final reel, so maybe they figured it wouldn't matter with QoS that the plot is a dud, it' s just a McGuffin. And actually, it wouldn't matter perhaps, were it not for the fact that there is little real tension between Bond and the villain, Greene is a bit of a no mark and the actor isn't given much to do. I think they were going for Chinatown or something, didn't work.

    It's a dog if you get in a writer to do a draft and then just jettison it (Haggis wanted Vesper to turn out to have a child, who Bond would have ulitmately left to someone else in care or something), better to have a rough idea first then hone it, a lot of time wasted there.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    maybe they figured it wouldn't matter with QoS that the plot is a dud, it' s just a McGuffin.

    I'm pretty sure this is what happened. The problem is, unlike SF, the character work wasn't good enough for you to forgive them.
  • Posts: 1,492
    RC7 wrote:
    QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue

    You have just described the Brosnan era.

  • edited January 2013 Posts: 12,837
    actonsteve wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue

    You have just described the Brosnan era.

    But nobody is saying the Brosnan films are anything else. They're slick popcorn films held together by action and cool moments, that's generally accepted. QOS is praised as this masterpiece with a great story on this site. Saying that though I think GE and TWINE have better stories and TNDs isn't brilliant but it does have a nice theme (media gone bad) which is still pretty relevant.

    Although I like it much more than I used to, I still think Quantum is a bit overrated on here. I think @RC7 described it perfectly.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2013 Posts: 10,512
    actonsteve wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    QoS doesn't really do much in the way of story. It's some action set-pieces linked by a bit of dialogue

    You have just described the Brosnan era.

    Not sure what this has to do with Brosnan, but in any event I'd say GE's story was a lot clearer, and a lot better. I'd actually say the themes in TND are also much more interesting, not executed as well as they could have been, but all the same, strong.

    QoS begins well, the chase is snappy and a decent opener IMO. After this, we have Bond chasing Mitchell through Siena. Why chase Mitchell? Because a roof-top chase would be fun? Surely Mitchell is infinitely more traceable than White, yet White is left to escape, all IMO to facilitate an unnecessary chase. Then we have the boat sequence, again, why? Because Forster thought he'd be a bit clever and have chases represent the elements of earth, fire, water, air. LALD's boat chase makes it look decidedly mediocre. The same goes for the plane sequence, it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, other than to move the story from A to B in a really clunky way. It lacks neither the originality or reality of something such as the Necros fight in TLD. The end is a decent enough sequence, but again, just another fight. It sorely lacks dialogue between Greene and Bond, all we get is the same old crap about the Tierra project with Medrano.

    All in all, I don't dislike the film but those who judge it as a masterpeice, are either what we call 'awkward sods', or have very strange views on how you quantify 'masterpeice'.
  • I was being sarcastic. Q
    Maybe u should make a video called How QOS should have ended!
    The ending is perfect, one of the top in the franchise (for scenes as well)!

  • In other words you all don't want to see another campy Bond movie i.e. Batman Forvever which was a huge advertisement thru the whole film and family friendly. QoS had some somber scenes: the whole walk thru the desert with Camille.And even the cemetery scene by the railroad made viewers feel emptiness that Bond experienced. David Arnold deserves more credit or maybe Marc Forster for working closely to make the score right. Anyone else feel like the new spin on the 007 theme before and during the Kazan scene was a nice modern take which could be reused?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Quantum is better than Casino IMO. Lean & no nonsense.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    IMHO, Forster was the problem with QoS. He focused on the four elements and fancy typefonts between scenes, not on the actual script. He fired Kleinman. He hired Zetumer (who was not hired back for SF). And most damningly, as the director, he is ultimately responsible for the shoddy editing of his film.
Sign In or Register to comment.