But these aren't the Swinging Sixties any longer; we now have many other Supermen and Batmen (and X-Men, and Spidermen, etc) in many other franchises, to carry that 'Ultra-Larger Than Life' banner. It just seems, to me (and me alone!), that Fleming had this all figured out a long time ago---an extraordinary (yet not superhuman!) hero, who wasn't perfect, and yet survived...by strength of will, toughness and determination... :007)
Well, I don't think Bond has ever been like a superhuman. How do I sum up all my feelings in one response? Okay, among my favourite Bond films are films which are considered to be both particularly Fleming-like as well as non Fleming-like. Of my favourite films which are Fleming-like, the first four films are my four favourite Bond films, OHMSS is seventh on my list and TWINE is twelth on my list. My concern is that CR is taking it too far. As I noted in the 'Blofeld' thread, there are certain Fleming elements which IMO are inappropiate for the films. CR, I'm afraid, has some of these elements (torture, Bond's making mistakes etc...)
I'd like to think that the times have finally caught up with Fleming's vision, and that we might now actually be treated to something more substantial.
I haven't read the script but I don't think that Bond being tortured and then betrayed is more substantial than previous Bond films. Perhaps more so that DAD but the Connerys? OHMSS? GE or TWINE? I don't think so. I just think it's darker. IMO dark does not equal substantial. Plus, even if it were more substantial, my feeling would be that it's not appropiate for a Bond film.
Loeff, I guess it comes to what we want in a Bond film. I have complete respect for Fleming, but I just don't think that alot of the things in the Fleming novels should necessarily be in the films.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I'd like to think that the times have finally caught up with Fleming's vision, and that we might now actually be treated to something more substantial.
I haven't read the script but I don't think that Bond being tortured and then betrayed is more substantial than previous Bond films. Perhaps more so that DAD but the Connerys? OHMSS? GE or TWINE? I don't think so. I just think it's darker. IMO dark does not equal substantial.
I think he means substantial in the sense that there's some emotional reasonance in there- the audience is drawn in by feeling for the character. That's the way pretty much all films of this type work now- it's just a changing medium; no better, no worse. The Sean films were just style with no substance (but that worked brilliantly); that's not the way films are made anymore, we want something beneath the surface gloss.
Only OHMSS and the films since 89 have really tried this, but always in a half-hearted way ('Pierce has said he wants to do some 'acting' in this one!' 'Quick- chuck in an old girlfriend who dies; job done!'). This one looks like they've managed to get the balance heading in the right way.
Plus, even if it were more substantial, my feeling would be that it's not appropiate for a Bond film.
But you just said the earlier films were substantial and CR couldn't possibly match their substence...? Are you saying you don't like them, or do you not like it simply because you've decided not to like this film? Because that's what it feels like sometimes.
I think he means substantial in the sense that there's some emotional reasonance in there- the audience is drawn in by feeling for the character. That's the way pretty much all films of this type work now- it's just a changing medium; no better, no worse. The Sean films were just style with no substance (but that worked brilliantly); that's not the way films are made anymore, we want something beneath the surface gloss.
Four things:
1)I don't think the Connery films were all style and no substance. If one watches scenes like the one in which he waited for and then killed Dent, or his scenes with Ali Kerim Bey or the scene in which he and Goldfinger discussed Goldfinger's plan, one can learn a lot about the character that is James Bond.
2)I'm not opposed to going beneath the surface. I'm just not happy with the way CR will do it.
3)Please don't talk for other people. I'm fully aware that you're happy with CR but you don't need to make statements like "we want something beneath the surface gloss."
4)I don't have a problem with a film being all style and no substance. As long as it's made well enough, I'll be perfectly satisfied. An example is TSWLM, one of the greatest Bond films of all time IMO.
Only OHMSS and the films since 89 have really tried this, but always in a half-hearted way ('Pierce has said he wants to do some 'acting' in this one!' 'Quick- chuck in an old girlfriend who dies; job done!'). This one looks like they've managed to get the balance heading in the right way.
I do agree that in the Brosnan films, it wasn't perfect. I thought that Brosnan's acting in these particular scenes was superb, but unlike with OHMSS, the scripts didn't really convince me to fall in love with characters like Paris and Electra. (Although I thought the killing of Electra was brilliant.) My problem with CR is that I simply have no desire to see Bond get tortured, fall in love with Vesper and then be betrayed which makes him 'the man that we all know and love.' (Or something along those lines. 8-))
But you just said the earlier films were substantial and CR couldn't possibly match their substence...?
I'm saying that simply because CR is incredibly dark, it doesn't make it more substantial than some of the previous films. I wasn't passing a judgement on wether or not being substantial is a good thing. I even said that even if were, I still wouldn't like it.
Are you saying you don't like them, or do you not like it simply because you've decided not to like this film? Because that's what it feels like sometimes.
I have always made my feelings clear. However you never seem to accept them. I don't like the idea of Bond being tortured. I don't want to see Bond make mistakes and have self-doubt. I feel that CR is taking character analysis far too far. I also feel that other Bond films got the balance right or came pretty close to doing so, such as TWINE, and this is taking it to the extreme.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
3)Please don't talk for other people. I'm fully aware that you're happy with CR but you don't need to make statements like "we want something beneath the surface gloss."
We. The Audience. All films are like this now. We like most films, otherwise we, the audience, wouldn't go and see them.
4)I don't have a problem with a film being all style and no substance. As long as it's made well enough, I'll be perfectly satisfied. An example is TSWLM, one of the greatest Bond films of all time IMO.
Neither do I. But it doesn't suit films and TV which are being made now, in the year 2006. We, the audience, have voted with our feet and proven we like films with emotional depth.
My problem with CR is that I simply have no desire to see Bond get tortured, fall in love with Vesper and then be betrayed which makes him 'the man that we all know and love.' (Or something along those lines. 8-))
That's simply a distaste for the plotline of this movie (although I have no idea why; as someone who only likes things he's seen in Bond movies before, these elements are hardly breaking new ground); not substance.
I don't want to see Bond make mistakes and have self-doubt.
You don't want any character at all? Just a dull, perfect superman? How would that ever be entertaining? Even in Goldfinger Bond makes huge mistakes all the way through the plot; take that away and I'm not even sure how you could generate any excitement in watching a character you know can't get hurt in any way.
Neither do I. But it doesn't suit films and TV which are being made now, in the year 2006. We, the audience, have voted with our feet and proven we like films with emotional depth.
Perhaps it suits me. Why do I care wether it suits some mythical audience? My view is that it would suit me just fine.
That's simply a distaste for the plotline of this movie (although I have no idea why; as someone who only likes things he's seen in Bond movies before, these elements are hardly breaking new ground); not substance.
Yes, it's a distaste for the plot. Wether it's substance or not, well, some other members who are praising CR for some much-needed substance, may disagree with you. But that's not really the point. CR may be a brilliant novel, but I don't want to see much of its plot on screen. As for only liking things I've seen in Bond movies before, that is absolute nonsence. I am not against new things. However, after seeing 20 films multiple times, I think I know what I like. It is not solely what I have seen before. However I have seen enough to know that I don't want to see alot of the things CR is promising. Why is that so controversial? Tony, Barry and several other members agree with me. Plus, it's not as if you don't have limits. I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios (perhaps a film featuring UFOs) which wouldn't exactly thrill you.
You don't want any character at all? Just a dull, perfect superman? How would that ever be entertaining? Even in Goldfinger Bond makes huge mistakes all the way through the plot; take that away and I'm not even sure how you could generate any excitement in watching a character you know can't get hurt in any way.
Do you really need to be so aggressive? I never said that I don't want any character at all. I'm also aware that Bond makes mistakes in GF. However he was not an inexperienced first time agent or rookie (or whatever you want to call it.) Bond in this film is. That's the difference.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
edited November 2006
For myself, I happen to think that more Fleming does = more substance, making CR more substantial than anything that's been served up by Eon since, well, OHMSS, which is why I've always maintained that CR is kind of a 'sister film' to that one, in many ways.
To me, the quality of CR's script alone gives it more substance than anything since 1969.
And I do think that Classic Bond, personified by Connery, was pretty much a superman---not because he had super powers, but because he was never really injured (except for a dab of blood at the corner of his mouth), and because he was never really affected by anything which happened to him---at least not beyond the requisite reaction shot/parting witticism. I realize many people prefer their Bond that way---and I loved it too---but now we're finally getting a side of the character which has been withheld for 44 years of movies...and yet it's been there all along (in the novels).
IMRO, 44 years is a sufficient time to explore Bond as we've seen him thus far. If CR truly tanks,* I'm sure we'll be right back to the status quo in record time---just as they swerved back toward the light with DAF (in fact, they over-corrected into the realm of comedy...a decision which took them fifteen years down that path).
CR is a strategic course correction, and for this particular Bond fan, it's most welcome.
* I honestly don't think it will.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
IMRO, 44 years is a sufficient time to explore Bond as we've seen him thus far. If CR truly tanks,* I'm sure we'll be right back to the status quo in record time---just as they swerved back toward the light with DAF (in fact, they over-corrected into the realm of comedy...a decision which took them fifteen years down that path).
I'll be diplomatic and ignore the swipe at Moore. Why the *? Usually when people use an asterix, they include a postscript.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
edited November 2006
Post-Script added---I've not been awake long
Well, I do think the Moore movies "went too far," which you fear CR doing, albeit in the other direction. Perhaps CR will be the beginning of your Bond dark ages, as Moore's arrival heralded the beginning of mine. I shouldn't worry---as I still had a lot of fun, even during those Dark Days B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I thought you might like to know that a member named Romolo over at CBn states that Jonathan Ross mentioned on his BBC Radio 2 show that 'You Know My Name' will be released as a single in the UK on Monday 11th December.
I thought you might like to know that a member named Romolo over at CBn states that Jonathan Ross mentioned on his BBC Radio 2 show that 'You Know My Name' will be released as a single in the UK on Monday 11th December.
I heard it too - Ross was about to play it and (as if reading off a sheet) said "does that say its released 11th of the twelfth ? Thats miles off, are we allowed to play it?"
I heard it too - Ross was about to play it and (as if reading off a sheet) said "does that say its released 11th of the twelfth ? Thats miles off, are we allowed to play it?"
Thanks, ieu2d. That doesn't appear to be 100% conclusive that 'YKMN' will be released. I hope it is, I like it.
Thanks, ieu2d. That doesn't appear to be 100% conclusive that 'YKMN' will be released. I hope it is, I like it.
Although I don't care for it much (though I don't dislike it, the thought of not being able to own it as a single, or at all, is disconcerting. I sincerely hope it is released in some HARD COPY format, something to have and hold, rather than a downloadable soft version.
Have any opinions of this song changed since having seen it in its proper context, following the PTS and with the snazzy card-game styled titles?
I waited until actually seeing the film before I listened to it; and I thought it was very, very good. Infact better than any of the Brosnans (this is just personal opinion). It certainly fits in with a completely re-invented Bond.
HammerfistIn my own little worldPosts: 24MI6 Agent
I specifically stayed away from listening to the song because I wanted to hear it in the movie for the first time (same as I stayed away from anything else related to the movie, I wanted it all to hit me at once. And, believe me, it was hard to abstain, heh)
But, yeah, I like the song. I loved the powerful beginning (somewhat OHMSS-like, dont' you think?)
Although I must admit that in the first verse or so, I thought it didn't sound Bondish but once it got to the chorus I was digging it and I think it really built up to a great atmosphere by the end. So much better than DAD's theme, I think.
I do know that they accomplished what, to me, is the goal of a Bond theme song - that it is good enough that it links to the movie's atmosphere perfectly and relistening to it brings back the movie's images to mind. DAD didn't do that for me, it seemed generic to me.
I absolutly love this song. I went and bought the single it's on after seeing Bond for the second time. Brilliantly done by Mr. Cornell. Talented man. {[]
I really enjoyed the song. I know nothing of Chris Cornell's work, but David Arnold's hand is very evident in the tune - he uses the classic "Bondian" melody notes and chords: the opening figure uses the first three notes of the minor scale (la, te and do), the same three notes as Monty Norman's Bond Theme, and many other themes in the series, and the chorus uses the chord sequence minor chord I - major chord VI - major chord IV, the same as Barry's OHMSS theme, and again, this harmonic progression appears in several Bond scores.
These elements help to give the song a definite "Bond" flavour, which has been less evident in the most recent theme songs.
I find a lot of energy in You know my name, and the same was for everyone that had listen it with me, in the cinema or in the car.
I live it, because it is modern and old in the same time.
Perfect for Craig.
I like the song. To me it was more what a modern Bond theme should be. A little more powerfull with a nice dash of menace in the lyrics and melody. The best part IMO was how Arnold blended the theme song into the score of the film. This was even more significant because of the decision not to use the Bond theme until the end. A poor or pedestrian score w/o the Bond Theme to fall back on would have been a disaster. IMO the best Bond film score since Barry left the series.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
I didn't really care for "You Know My Name" when I first heard it. But the more I heard it (after seeing CR several time), the more it grew on me. And now I rather like it. I had the same feelings about "A View to a Kill" and "The World Is Not Enough".
I'm the same way with virtually all Bond tunes...even my lesser favourites, such as DAD. There hasn't been one yet which hasn't gotten more enjoyable with repeated exposure.
The version of YKMN I have is the first one put out on the internet; it rocks out and is a bit more 'raw' than the version in the film.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I vastly prefer the original version, with the heavy guitar. It had an edge that I felt was missing in the version played during the title sequence. Plus, I would have given anything to have heard the booming guitar intro after Craig's firing, as opposed to the string intro.
Comments
I haven't read the script but I don't think that Bond being tortured and then betrayed is more substantial than previous Bond films. Perhaps more so that DAD but the Connerys? OHMSS? GE or TWINE? I don't think so. I just think it's darker. IMO dark does not equal substantial. Plus, even if it were more substantial, my feeling would be that it's not appropiate for a Bond film.
Loeff, I guess it comes to what we want in a Bond film. I have complete respect for Fleming, but I just don't think that alot of the things in the Fleming novels should necessarily be in the films.
I think he means substantial in the sense that there's some emotional reasonance in there- the audience is drawn in by feeling for the character. That's the way pretty much all films of this type work now- it's just a changing medium; no better, no worse. The Sean films were just style with no substance (but that worked brilliantly); that's not the way films are made anymore, we want something beneath the surface gloss.
Only OHMSS and the films since 89 have really tried this, but always in a half-hearted way ('Pierce has said he wants to do some 'acting' in this one!' 'Quick- chuck in an old girlfriend who dies; job done!'). This one looks like they've managed to get the balance heading in the right way.
But you just said the earlier films were substantial and CR couldn't possibly match their substence...? Are you saying you don't like them, or do you not like it simply because you've decided not to like this film? Because that's what it feels like sometimes.
1)I don't think the Connery films were all style and no substance. If one watches scenes like the one in which he waited for and then killed Dent, or his scenes with Ali Kerim Bey or the scene in which he and Goldfinger discussed Goldfinger's plan, one can learn a lot about the character that is James Bond.
2)I'm not opposed to going beneath the surface. I'm just not happy with the way CR will do it.
3)Please don't talk for other people. I'm fully aware that you're happy with CR but you don't need to make statements like "we want something beneath the surface gloss."
4)I don't have a problem with a film being all style and no substance. As long as it's made well enough, I'll be perfectly satisfied. An example is TSWLM, one of the greatest Bond films of all time IMO.
I do agree that in the Brosnan films, it wasn't perfect. I thought that Brosnan's acting in these particular scenes was superb, but unlike with OHMSS, the scripts didn't really convince me to fall in love with characters like Paris and Electra. (Although I thought the killing of Electra was brilliant.) My problem with CR is that I simply have no desire to see Bond get tortured, fall in love with Vesper and then be betrayed which makes him 'the man that we all know and love.' (Or something along those lines. 8-))
I'm saying that simply because CR is incredibly dark, it doesn't make it more substantial than some of the previous films. I wasn't passing a judgement on wether or not being substantial is a good thing. I even said that even if were, I still wouldn't like it.
I have always made my feelings clear. However you never seem to accept them. I don't like the idea of Bond being tortured. I don't want to see Bond make mistakes and have self-doubt. I feel that CR is taking character analysis far too far. I also feel that other Bond films got the balance right or came pretty close to doing so, such as TWINE, and this is taking it to the extreme.
We. The Audience. All films are like this now. We like most films, otherwise we, the audience, wouldn't go and see them.
Neither do I. But it doesn't suit films and TV which are being made now, in the year 2006. We, the audience, have voted with our feet and proven we like films with emotional depth.
That's simply a distaste for the plotline of this movie (although I have no idea why; as someone who only likes things he's seen in Bond movies before, these elements are hardly breaking new ground); not substance.
Who said it would? It's how the repercussions of these elements are dealt with that makes it substantial.
You don't want any character at all? Just a dull, perfect superman? How would that ever be entertaining? Even in Goldfinger Bond makes huge mistakes all the way through the plot; take that away and I'm not even sure how you could generate any excitement in watching a character you know can't get hurt in any way.
Yes, it's a distaste for the plot. Wether it's substance or not, well, some other members who are praising CR for some much-needed substance, may disagree with you. But that's not really the point. CR may be a brilliant novel, but I don't want to see much of its plot on screen. As for only liking things I've seen in Bond movies before, that is absolute nonsence. I am not against new things. However, after seeing 20 films multiple times, I think I know what I like. It is not solely what I have seen before. However I have seen enough to know that I don't want to see alot of the things CR is promising. Why is that so controversial? Tony, Barry and several other members agree with me. Plus, it's not as if you don't have limits. I'm sure there are plenty of scenarios (perhaps a film featuring UFOs) which wouldn't exactly thrill you.
Well, obviously, however I was making an observation within a response (to Loeff.) Nonetheless my observation is still correct.
Do you really need to be so aggressive? I never said that I don't want any character at all. I'm also aware that Bond makes mistakes in GF. However he was not an inexperienced first time agent or rookie (or whatever you want to call it.) Bond in this film is. That's the difference.
To me, the quality of CR's script alone gives it more substance than anything since 1969.
And I do think that Classic Bond, personified by Connery, was pretty much a superman---not because he had super powers, but because he was never really injured (except for a dab of blood at the corner of his mouth), and because he was never really affected by anything which happened to him---at least not beyond the requisite reaction shot/parting witticism. I realize many people prefer their Bond that way---and I loved it too---but now we're finally getting a side of the character which has been withheld for 44 years of movies...and yet it's been there all along (in the novels).
IMRO, 44 years is a sufficient time to explore Bond as we've seen him thus far. If CR truly tanks,* I'm sure we'll be right back to the status quo in record time---just as they swerved back toward the light with DAF (in fact, they over-corrected into the realm of comedy...a decision which took them fifteen years down that path).
CR is a strategic course correction, and for this particular Bond fan, it's most welcome.
* I honestly don't think it will.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, I do think the Moore movies "went too far," which you fear CR doing, albeit in the other direction. Perhaps CR will be the beginning of your Bond dark ages, as Moore's arrival heralded the beginning of mine. I shouldn't worry---as I still had a lot of fun, even during those Dark Days B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Can anyone back this up?
http://debrief.commanderbond.net/index.php?showtopic=35375
I heard it too - Ross was about to play it and (as if reading off a sheet) said "does that say its released 11th of the twelfth ? Thats miles off, are we allowed to play it?"
Thanks, ieu2d. That doesn't appear to be 100% conclusive that 'YKMN' will be released. I hope it is, I like it.
I waited until actually seeing the film before I listened to it; and I thought it was very, very good. Infact better than any of the Brosnans (this is just personal opinion). It certainly fits in with a completely re-invented Bond.
But, yeah, I like the song. I loved the powerful beginning (somewhat OHMSS-like, dont' you think?)
Although I must admit that in the first verse or so, I thought it didn't sound Bondish but once it got to the chorus I was digging it and I think it really built up to a great atmosphere by the end. So much better than DAD's theme, I think.
I do know that they accomplished what, to me, is the goal of a Bond theme song - that it is good enough that it links to the movie's atmosphere perfectly and relistening to it brings back the movie's images to mind. DAD didn't do that for me, it seemed generic to me.
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
These elements help to give the song a definite "Bond" flavour, which has been less evident in the most recent theme songs.
'You Know My Name' is the third highest new entry in this weeks official UK singles chart, coming in at number 12.
I live it, because it is modern and old in the same time.
Perfect for Craig.
I'm the same way with virtually all Bond tunes...even my lesser favourites, such as DAD. There hasn't been one yet which hasn't gotten more enjoyable with repeated exposure.
The version of YKMN I have is the first one put out on the internet; it rocks out and is a bit more 'raw' than the version in the film.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The lyrics are very interesting to me as well
"If you take a life do you know what you'll gain?"
"Odds are you won't like what it is."
Speaks volumes about Bonds first kills.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I believe it is "do you know what you'll give?"
I forgive you. I didn't find your comment pedantic. I found it donnish and erudite but certainly not pedantic.
Maybe it is "give," but even with the slight change in verbage the spirit of the phrase is still there.