Toby Stephens confesses to typecasting worries after 'Die Another Day'

2»

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

    I think Dominic Greene's amateurishness was part of what made him so unpredictable as the main villain - he was not a fighter per se a la Alec Trevelyan. It was a theme of QoS and I for one think that it was rather refreshing and well done. He puts the axe through his foot, for heaven's sake!

    I actually like how Bond deals with him in the end. Throwing him a can of oil and stranding him in the desert - a fate worse than death indeed. Definitely made a change to killing him in some quirky manner.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

    I think Dominic Greene's amateurishness was part of what made him so unpredictable as the main villain - he was not a fighter per se a la Alec Trevelyan. It was a theme of QoS and I for one think that it was rather refreshing and well done. He puts the axe through his foot, for heaven's sake!

    I actually like how Bond deals with him in the end. Throwing him a can of oil and stranding him in the desert - a fate worse than death indeed. Definitely made a change to killing him in some quirky manner.

    Yes, I hoped that this would be how he would have dealt with him - and Vesper's boyfriend. The QoS Bond had definitely learned something at the end of the film - he'd learned his lesson from CR, if you will.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

    I think Dominic Greene's amateurishness was part of what made him so unpredictable as the main villain - he was not a fighter per se a la Alec Trevelyan. It was a theme of QoS and I for one think that it was rather refreshing and well done. He puts the axe through his foot, for heaven's sake!

    Agreed. And we should not judge a villain necessarily on his fighting skills. Greene was not meant to be a fighter. Neither was Kronsteen, Klebb or Goldfinger. Are they bad villains because of this? You can't have more villainous than Kronsteen.

    And, while Gustav Graves was meant to be a trained army officer with psychotic tendencies, so theoretically a very capable fighter able to give it to Bond as good as he got, in the sword fight he was a petulant child throwing a tantrum and afterwards he needed a ridiculous RoboCop suit to be somewhat dangerous... which made him look more ridiculous than menacing.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

    I think Dominic Greene's amateurishness was part of what made him so unpredictable as the main villain - he was not a fighter per se a la Alec Trevelyan. It was a theme of QoS and I for one think that it was rather refreshing and well done. He puts the axe through his foot, for heaven's sake!

    Good call there. People often mistake Greene for being bland, and perhaps he was, but he was supposed to be that way. He represented the same sort of bland corporate villain that as someone who I can't recall pointed out, is the tapeworm in the digestive tract of society. These guys aren't usually tough guys either and Greene again was never supposed to be. Their influence, much like Greene's here, is subtle and calculating. This is why I expect so much more from a megalomaniac like Drax and Graves, and felt that I got much more from the likes of Curt Jurgens as Stromberg. I'd even favor Pryce as Carver to Lonnie and Stevie.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited July 2013 Posts: 18,264
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I thought Dominic Greene was the worst villain in the series. Graves at least could fight instead of swing an axe around and scream like a child in a temper tantrum.

    I think Dominic Greene's amateurishness was part of what made him so unpredictable as the main villain - he was not a fighter per se a la Alec Trevelyan. It was a theme of QoS and I for one think that it was rather refreshing and well done. He puts the axe through his foot, for heaven's sake!

    Good call there. People often mistake Greene for being bland, and perhaps he was, but he was supposed to be that way. He represented the same sort of bland corporate villain that as someone who I can't recall pointed out, is the tapeworm in the digestive tract of society. These guys aren't usually tough guys either and Greene again was never supposed to be. Their influence, much like Greene's here, is subtle and calculating. This is why I expect so much more from a megalomaniac like Drax and Graves, and felt that I got much more from the likes of Curt Jurgens as Stromberg. I'd even favor Pryce as Carver to Lonnie and Stevie.

    Yes, Greene was conceived as a slimy politician type ("...he should not be looking at me") with a royal/dictator complex. He was a mix of Tony Blair and Sarkozy and he probably never fought he would have to fight anyone at all, let alone Bond. He had his armed guards and henchmen for that...and Elvis. Greene was like a World War I General 90 miles from the frontline - he didn't want or need to get his hands dirty as he had plenty of others to do that for him. Greene was an attempt at a different kind of villain and in that I think Eon very much succeeded. Well done to them, I say.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different. That's not saying he was a standout villain, but still preferable to the likes of Graves and Drax.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different.

    Well, it didn't help that the script was in part written by director Marc Forster and star actor Daniel Craig - and writers they were not. Blame the 2008 Writer's Strike for the script deficiencies in QoS - it's the "in" thing to do, isn't it?
  • Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different.

    Well, it didn't help that the script was in part written by director Marc Forster and star actor Daniel Craig - and writers they were not. Blame the 2008 Writer's Strike for the script deficiencies in QoS - it's the "in" thing to do, isn't it?

    The problem from my point of view was the basic plot wasn't sound to begin with and even without the writer's strike I'm not sure it would have been enough to turn it into a great film. Heck, they could have had another year to work on the script and the end result may not have been much different. But I guess that's one for the "if only's" now.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Dragonpol wrote:
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different.

    Well, it didn't help that the script was in part written by director Marc Forster and star actor Daniel Craig - and writers they were not. Blame the 2008 Writer's Strike for the script deficiencies in QoS - it's the "in" thing to do, isn't it?

    The problem from my point of view was the basic plot wasn't sound to begin with and even without the writer's strike I'm not sure it would have been enough to turn it into a great film. Heck, they could have had another year to work on the script and the end result may not have been much different. But I guess that's one for the "if only's" now.

    Well, yes the plot is not "crystal clear water" if you will, quite apart from anything else.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different.

    Well, it didn't help that the script was in part written by director Marc Forster and star actor Daniel Craig - and writers they were not. Blame the 2008 Writer's Strike for the script deficiencies in QoS - it's the "in" thing to do, isn't it?

    The problem from my point of view was the basic plot wasn't sound to begin with and even without the writer's strike I'm not sure it would have been enough to turn it into a great film. Heck, they could have had another year to work on the script and the end result may not have been much different. But I guess that's one for the "if only's" now.

    Well, yes the plot is not "crystal clear water" if you will, quite apart from anything else.

    It's why I'm pleased to see a three year gap between films. I know we all want the next film to be released ASAP but I'd rather have an additional year added to production if it means getting the story and script right. Nothing more disappointing than looking forward to a new film only for it to be fail your expectations.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different.

    Well, it didn't help that the script was in part written by director Marc Forster and star actor Daniel Craig - and writers they were not. Blame the 2008 Writer's Strike for the script deficiencies in QoS - it's the "in" thing to do, isn't it?

    The problem from my point of view was the basic plot wasn't sound to begin with and even without the writer's strike I'm not sure it would have been enough to turn it into a great film. Heck, they could have had another year to work on the script and the end result may not have been much different. But I guess that's one for the "if only's" now.

    Well, yes the plot is not "crystal clear water" if you will, quite apart from anything else.

    It's why I'm pleased to see a three year gap between films. I know we all want the next film to be released ASAP but I'd rather have an additional year added to production if it means getting the story and script right. Nothing more disappointing than looking forward to a new film only for it to be fail your expectations.

    Well, Skyfall and your personal favourite The Spy Who Loved Me certainly benefited from this, so I agree. It will at least be worth the wait. No need to rush this time around.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I'm suprised Gustav Graves didn't do this before he was about to jump out the plane at the end

  • Dragonpol wrote:
    A few more scenes with Greene could have only helped, such as him directing the capture and death of Fields. It would have further illustrated that he was calling the shots and leaving his dirty work to others. His scene fighting Bond shows he is not a fighter, but a character much like a Goldfinger who fights out of desperation when they have no other option. I was very entertained by the reckless abandon he displayed with the axe, hell, I was entertained period by QOS from the moment Bond and Camille arrived back at the hotel. I fully understood what Greene's character was supposed to be and what was missing that could make him better. Definitely not Amalric's fault his character was damaged by the lack of missed opportunities the script failed to provide, I found him perfectly slimy and calculating for what they gave him and liked that he was different.

    Well, it didn't help that the script was in part written by director Marc Forster and star actor Daniel Craig - and writers they were not. Blame the 2008 Writer's Strike for the script deficiencies in QoS - it's the "in" thing to do, isn't it?

    Oh, the list of QOS' faults go past the scripting, I found the flash cutting even worse and mostly because it wasn't even original plus antithetical to how a Bond movie should be filmed. I completely understand why people thoroughly enjoy parts of QOS and skip over other parts. In QOS' case it would have been better to regroup and have an extra year, but if Forster hadn't decided to throw out P&W's script and change the angle from going after Kabira first rather than last, they could have easily worked around the strike. That's not to speak in favor of a 3 year gap creatively, as when you are writing ahead of the filming with a purpose and goal in mind as Logan has been doing, the extra year isn't necessary. It obviously didn't work for DAD. WHY we're waiting the extra year is nothing more to me than the logistics and desires of those in charge to have it that way.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm suprised Gustav Graves didn't do this before he was about to jump out the plane at the end


    That would have been the perfect end to the perfect movie.


    Yes, that was sarcasm.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Well they all have that fear don't they? The Bond's themselves, Leading ladies, so why not the villains too?
  • Dragonpol wrote:
    Things were very underwritten in DAD, but Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for this - on the other films they had co-writers. Bond films should always be written by committee as Cubby Broccoli had done on TSWLM. There have been some exceptions, but most writers have worked with someone else - it adds a bit of polish to the dialogue and script, if nothing else.

    I disagree on that. I can very well imagine that the original script by P&W was better than the actual film. In an interview they recently said that DAD was 'grittier on the page'. Tamahori wanted many changes. The tsunami-surfing was his idea, for example. The whole showdown was changed, too.

    I also think that a good writer can solely write a good script. If you trust the one vision of only one director, why not trust the artistic vision of one writer? Tom Mankiewicz wrote LALD alone for example, and it's a good script.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Things were very underwritten in DAD, but Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for this - on the other films they had co-writers. Bond films should always be written by committee as Cubby Broccoli had done on TSWLM. There have been some exceptions, but most writers have worked with someone else - it adds a bit of polish to the dialogue and script, if nothing else.

    I disagree on that. I can very well imagine that the original script by P&W was better than the actual film. In an interview they recently said that DAD was 'grittier on the page'. Tamahori wanted many changes. The tsunami-surfing was his idea, for example. The whole showdown was changed, too.

    I also think that a good writer can solely write a good script. If you trust the one vision of only one director, why not trust the artistic vision of one writer? Tom Mankiewicz wrote LALD alone for example, and it's a good script.

    Yes, indeed. I stand corrected. It seems Lee Tamahori was more to blame - he of the dreaded codename theory!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    The first film I saw him in after DAD was Severance and that was nothing like DAD, nor was his part any similar to that of Gustav.
  • Posts: 6,396
    DarthDimi wrote:
    The first film I saw him in after DAD was Severance and that was nothing like DAD, nor was his part any similar to that of Gustav.

    I like Severance, despite the presence of Danny 'Facking' Dyer. (If you haven't heard Mark Kermode's impersonation of him, it's sublime).
  • Posts: 11,189
    Don't you imitate that impression or Mr Dyer will put something across your bleeping canister ;)
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2013 Posts: 10,512
    I also think that a good writer can solely write a good script. If you trust the one vision of only one director, why not trust the artistic vision of one writer? Tom Mankiewicz wrote LALD alone for example, and it's a good script.

    Hollywood hates screenwriters, but loves directors. That's why there are so many crap films. You write a bad film and you don't work for years, if at all. You direct a bad film and you blame it on the screenwriter. Direct a good film however and it's all down to your creative genius and nothing to do with the writer who slaved away in a darkened room for the best part of a year. It seems to be changing but it's still much easier for a hot-shot music video director, or visual effects artist to blag their way to a directing gig, than it is for a talented writer to get a single line in a script.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    RC7 wrote:
    I also think that a good writer can solely write a good script. If you trust the one vision of only one director, why not trust the artistic vision of one writer? Tom Mankiewicz wrote LALD alone for example, and it's a good script.

    Hollywood hates screenwriters, but loves directors. That's why there are so many crap films. You write a bad film and you don't work for years, if at all. You direct a bad film and you blame it on the screenwriter. Direct a good film however and it's all down to your creative genius and nothing to do with the writer who slaved away in a darkened room for the best part of a year. It seems to be changing but it's still much easier for a hot-shot music video director, or visual effects artist to blag their way to a directing gig, than it is for a talented writer to get a single line in a script.

    I think you may be onto something there, but James Bond films, as I said earlier on this forum are very much written by committee - scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors etc.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dragonpol wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I also think that a good writer can solely write a good script. If you trust the one vision of only one director, why not trust the artistic vision of one writer? Tom Mankiewicz wrote LALD alone for example, and it's a good script.

    Hollywood hates screenwriters, but loves directors. That's why there are so many crap films. You write a bad film and you don't work for years, if at all. You direct a bad film and you blame it on the screenwriter. Direct a good film however and it's all down to your creative genius and nothing to do with the writer who slaved away in a darkened room for the best part of a year. It seems to be changing but it's still much easier for a hot-shot music video director, or visual effects artist to blag their way to a directing gig, than it is for a talented writer to get a single line in a script.

    I think you may be onto something there, but James Bond films, as I said earlier on this forum are very much written by committee - scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors etc.

    Oh certainly, I forgot my note to say that my comment wasn't necessarily a defence of P+W ;)

    I was always fascinated, and still am, at the process of making a Bond during the Cubby and Harry era.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,264
    RC7 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I also think that a good writer can solely write a good script. If you trust the one vision of only one director, why not trust the artistic vision of one writer? Tom Mankiewicz wrote LALD alone for example, and it's a good script.

    Hollywood hates screenwriters, but loves directors. That's why there are so many crap films. You write a bad film and you don't work for years, if at all. You direct a bad film and you blame it on the screenwriter. Direct a good film however and it's all down to your creative genius and nothing to do with the writer who slaved away in a darkened room for the best part of a year. It seems to be changing but it's still much easier for a hot-shot music video director, or visual effects artist to blag their way to a directing gig, than it is for a talented writer to get a single line in a script.

    I think you may be onto something there, but James Bond films, as I said earlier on this forum are very much written by committee - scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors etc.

    Oh certainly, I forgot my note to say that my comment wasn't necessarily a defence of P+W ;)

    I was always fascinated, and still am, at the process of making a Bond during the Cubby and Harry era.

    Yes, TSWLM was a Bond film written by committee like none other!
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 533
    I had no problems with his portrayal of Gustav Graves. But . . . it's been almost 11 years since "DIE ANOTHER DAY". What the hell is he worried about?




    The problem from my point of view was the basic plot wasn't sound to begin with and even without the writer's strike I'm not sure it would have been enough to turn it into a great film. Heck, they could have had another year to work on the script and the end result may not have been much different. But I guess that's one for the "if only's" now.


    There was nothing wrong with the plot for "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". I found it twenty times better than that piece of crap called "SKYFALL". My problem with "QoS" is that the running time was too short and the pacing was too fast in the movie's first half.
Sign In or Register to comment.