Well my car got hit in the back, and no, it was knackered. Once the chassis is buckled, even a bit, the wheels won't turn.
No; that's not true. You can quite easily bend a side member and still be able to drive; that's why there are always these stories about dangerously damaged vehicles illegally driving around, cut and shuts and the like. Might have happened to you once, but that doesn't mean that exactly the same thing happened here, and the chances of a rear-damaged car driving are much higher than a front-damaged car.
Sure I know that journos can get mixed up in the action, or kidnapped even, but it's the mixing of genres I objected to. Journos make a film into The China Syndrome, and need to have a realistic context (mind you, there's always Lois Lane...) And I'm prepared to sympathise with the journo, but would rather relate to the action hero!
I don't really know what you mean; certain genres aren't allowed to feature certain jobs because they create a different genre? That's nonsense, isn't it? Like saying that Octopussy couldn't feature an anqiues expert because those are only featured in 'antiques roadshow'.
Well, we're not talking about a bit of a bump, the back of Bourne's car is mashed to bits, and he does it deliberately what's more, as if he knows it'll be okay. I don't buy it.
Sure, genres can mix it up. Personally, however, having a journo in an action adventure doesn't work for me, but it's subjective. Like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Fine mixing screwball comedy and journalism, or conspiracy theory and journalism, etc but for me thriller and journalism doesn't quite work unless it's primarily from the hack's pov.
Well, we're not talking about a bit of a bump, the back of Bourne's car is mashed to bits, and he does it deliberately what's more, as if he knows it'll be okay. I don't buy it.
Like most of the choices he has to make in the film, it's the least worse one. He doesn't know what's out of the window he jumps out of towards the end, but he knows he has more chance of survival by jumping out of it than facing the men with guns who are entering the room. He knows that if he doesn't ram the car out of the way, he will be shot. He knows that a car has more chance of running with a mashed up boot than with a mashed up bonnet. Notice that when they do it in the film, the wheels keep turning. Maybe not for long, but Bourne's taking this second by second; it is possible.
Sure, genres can mix it up. Personally, however, having a journo in an action adventure doesn't work for me, but it's subjective. Like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Fine mixing screwball comedy and journalism, or conspiracy theory and journalism, etc but for me thriller and journalism doesn't quite work unless it's primarily from the hack's pov.
Journalism isn't a genre, it's a profession. Journalists can be characters in comedy shows, thrillers, action films, monster movies, kitchen sink tragedies; whatever you like.
Sure, genres can mix it up. Personally, however, having a journo in an action adventure doesn't work for me, but it's subjective. Like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Fine mixing screwball comedy and journalism, or conspiracy theory and journalism, etc but for me thriller and journalism doesn't quite work unless it's primarily from the hack's pov.
Journalism isn't a genre, it's a profession. Journalists can be characters in comedy shows, thrillers, action films, monster movies, kitchen sink tragedies; whatever you like.
Agreed completely. A reporter is a good choice of character since the audience can find out what's going on along with the journalist.
to all the boys discussing the chase scene and whether or not a car could get that bashed up and still go get 'em...I think it's time to call in the MythBusters.
According to Empire, Bond 22 director Marc Forster has hired Dan Bradley as second-unit director (for B22). Bradley was the "action designer" on The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum; he's also second-unit directed Superman Returns, the two Spider-Man sequels and is just coming off work on Indy IV.
Great news for Bond 22, imo. Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, my search didn't find anything.
Yeah; good, innit? He replaces the Casino Royale second unit director, who they got from The Bourne Idenitity And of course, Ultimatum had the CR stunt coordinator
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Looks like the action stuff is in good hands. An editor has also been named; things are moving forward!
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
Can't wait for...er, what's the name of the new one again? Darn it, don't they have a title for Bond 22 yet? Come on now, "Die Tomorrow Twice" can't be that difficult to figure out, lol.
Having been introduced to James Bond when I was 18 back in 1962 when seeing Dr No for the first time I have to say that since Diamonds Are Forever no other Bond film has interested me.Then came The Bourne Identity film and a brilliant performance by Matt Damon who for me anyway is the modern equivilent of what I first saw back in 1962.New,exciting and with a rawness that has been missing from the Bond films in the modern era. So its Bourne not Bond for me now.
Myself, having been introduced to 007 when i was 8, Octopussy. The next Bond who has interested me was "The living daylight" then "Goldeneye". And i'm agree, now it's Bourne. CR is a wonderful "Die hard" but not a 007's film.It's a response to "The Bourne identity" nothing else.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Myself, having been introduced to 007 when i was 8, Octopussy. The next Bond who has interested me was "The living daylight" then "Goldeneye". And i'm agree, now it's Bourne. CR is a wonderful "Die hard" but not a 007's film.It's a response to "The Bourne identity" nothing else.
A belated welcome to AJB, Malko {[]
Many of us here would disagree with you that CR isn't a Bond film. The middle act is actually quite faithful to Ian Fleming's novel of the same name. Fleming's Bond was a much tougher, brutal fellow than has been shown in many of the films over the years. The great thing about the James Bond character is the different ways he's able to be interpreted...which is an advantage he has over Jason Bourne, in my own humble opinion.
To the extent that the Bourne films might have influenced the Bond filmmakers to go back to the literary source material for inspiration, and a less over-the-top approach...so much the better.
Again, we're very happy to have you aboard! :007)
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
The great thing about the James Bond character is the different ways he's able to be interpreted...which is an advantage he has over Jason Bourne, in my own humble opinion.
Haven't there been two quite different screen interpretations of Bourne so far?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited September 2007
Yes indeed...and that should about do it for Mr. Bourne If he's ever portrayed by another four actors, each with a distinctive flavour and interpretive style, I'll be appropriately impressed.
I'm not talking about sheer numbers of films, of course; merely varied interpretations of the character and the world he inhabits.
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 don't follow: Bourne can't be interpreted more than one way except when he has, and that he shouldn't be reinterpreted again for just that reason? Your logic is shakier than Mr Greengrass' camera, there!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I don't follow: Bourne can't be interpreted more than one way except when he has, and that he shouldn't be reinterpreted again for just that reason? Your logic is shakier than Mr Greengrass' camera, there!
Where did I say they shouldn't? When I said, "That should do it," I meant that I don't envision it happening anytime soon But nobody can see the future...
I merely said when they do, I'll be appropriately impressed They should have a go at it actually: recast Bourne, and put out another movie in a couple of years...who knows, it might be good for the franchise
emtiem, everyone!
[applause]
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 merely said when they do, I'll be appropriately impressed They should have a go at it actually: recast Bourne, and put out another movie in a couple of years...who knows, it might be good for the franchise
I wouldn't mind it; I hope they don't do a fourth in this style, to be honest. I love 'em, but I think the whole thing would be stretched too far by then.
hate to break up the conversation boys, but I think they should cut short and run. this last Bourne film was good, and my wife thought that they ended the series well...I said there could be more and we both agreed that it would be good if they didn't make anymore. if they stopped here, they ended well and it was a good trilogy. no need to stretch it out any longer.
"We have all the time in the world..."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
...I think they should cut short and run. this last Bourne film was good, and my wife thought that they ended the series well...I said there could be more and we both agreed that it would be good if they didn't make anymore. if they stopped here, they ended well and it was a good trilogy. no need to stretch it out any longer.
I agree with you, actually; that was my underlying point. The James Bond concept is geared toward multiple reinterpretation, and IMO Bourne isn't. Bourne's character had a course to run...and he has run it---quite well. If they decide to make him into a superspy who just goes out on missions, then he'll be more like James Bond...and less like the character they've established in a cracking good trilogy.
I hope they don't do a fourth in this style, to be honest. I love 'em, but I think the whole thing would be stretched too far by then.
Exactly right. Not something I'd say about Bond, given his rich (and widely varied) history
Mind you, Hollywood remakes everything eventually, so you can probably bank on it happening at some point.
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
The middle act is actually quite faithful to Ian Fleming's novel of the same name. Fleming's Bond was a much tougher, brutal fellow than has been shown in many of the films over the years.
I'm agree, but Bond has a physique described with precision in FRWL. We are accustomed to a physical representation of the character,a style 007.
Moreover the long sequence at the airport is much closer to “Die Hard” or Bourne, in my opinion.
-{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited September 2007
Well, I think it's time to get accustomed to the new one If one chooses not to do so, there are any number of different versions of the character to enjoy in perpetuity...we have the gift of numerous, widely divergent takes on virtually everything about the character. For my own part, I think Craig is the closest, in spirit, to Fleming's Bond since Connery took off the tuxedo for the last time.
Granted, Craig's Bond is a bit shorter than his literary counterpart, and perhaps (slightly) more muscled, but it works for me, and I'll take a bit of increased upper body strength over a mere tuxedo, a wink to the audience and a couple of tossed-off double entendres any day...but that's only my own personal taste :007)
Giving up an inch or two in height, in return for an extra measure of 'whoop-ass,' is a fair trade as far as I'm concerned.
Can't disagree that the airport sequence has a bit of 'Die Hard' in it...but it's fresh enough within the context of the Bond franchise to be satisfying for me.
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
Bourne's character had a course to run...and he has run it---quite well. If they decide to make him into a superspy who just goes out on missions, then he'll be more like James Bond...and less like the character they've established in a cracking good trilogy.
I agree. If he's just a guy on a mission then Bourne becomes less interesting. What could make a sequel work though is if somebody needs his help. Say for instance the character Julia Stiles plays, or the Russian girl at the end of The Bourne Supremacy. If they were in mortal danger and Bourne was the only person that they could turn to, then I think that could make a decent follow-up.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
For my own part, I think Craig is the closest, in spirit, to Fleming's Bond since Connery took off the tuxedo for the last time.
Yes, Loeffs, for your own part, i.e., at best as far as you and those likeminded are concerned. I hope this doesn't seem as offensive as I fear it might come across since I don't mean to be, btw. I'm really convinced that your affinity for Craig's interpretation particularly in the Fleming quotient is predominantly "gut" based...though not to neccesarily say it's off.
By saying "in spirit" to describe that closeness, I'm curious to see more detailed, feature by feature correlations between Craig's Bond and the literary Bond. If anything, I can most appreciate Craig's "honest" take on the role and his counter-intuitive, deconstructionist, do the opposite of what's been done before take (reminds me of George Costanza, btw), which worked to disassociate his interpretation as something fresh and unlike what's been seen before.
Interestingly, the high-octane aspect of the series has been preserved (which is very un-Fleming, IMO), but that discussion deserves it's own post. However, on this question of "most Fleming," lets put to bed how that's gotten confused with what I'll call "Bourne intensity" (hey, that's a good title for the 4th movie!)
On pragmatic and critical terms (vs. emotional ones), Craig is not automatically "the most Fleming." I did for a moment consider that he might be the most original, but realized that Dalton deserves that credit of being the first to take the deconstructionist approach. To say it another way, Craig therefore is not original in playing it original! Again, that deserves its own thread.
IMRO, point-by-point, Dalton still holds the distinction of being the most Fleming, and based on documentation alone, that achievement is the rightful product of a carefully considered, "back to the books" preparation he undertook (which was also done in varying degrees by the other actors, but not with the same level of purpose and fidelity). So Dalton not only did something dramatically "different," but his end product consistently evidenced key Fleming hallmarks in the Bond character, sardonic, saturine, with a hint of being anti-authoritarian, etc. and not to count the physical description as well... But most relevant to this thread, Dalton's Bond, like Fleming's, was not superhuman and didn't make any pretense of being as such, so there's really no rationale to correlate the extra dose of Craig's wuppass with the quantum of Fleming (term borrowed from CBn) If anything as far as the Bourne character is concerned, that stuff (the high-octane Bourne intensity) was really in the Ludlum books to a greater extent than the Bond books ever went into.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
If he's just a guy on a mission then Bourne becomes less interesting. What could make a sequel work though is if somebody needs his help. Say for instance the character Julia Stiles plays, or the Russian girl at the end of The Bourne Supremacy. If they were in mortal danger and Bourne was the only person that they could turn to, then I think that could make a decent follow-up.
In the books I believe that 'Jason Bourne' was a real person (albeit dead) whose identity was given to Webb; there may something in the real Bourne turning up again or something (although I suppose we did the 'Bourne framed' thing in Supremacy). Also, we don't find out what drove Webb to volunteer for the programme; there may be something in that also. Family perhaps?
IMRO, point-by-point, Dalton still holds the distinction of being the most Fleming, and based on documentation alone, that achievement is the rightful product of a carefully considered, "back to the books" preparation he undertook (which was also done in varying degrees by the other actors, but not with the same level of purpose and fidelity). So Dalton not only did something dramatically "different," but his end product consistently evidenced key Fleming hallmarks in the Bond character, sardonic, saturine, with a hint of being anti-authoritarian, etc. and not to count the physical description as well... But most relevant to this thread, Dalton's Bond, like Fleming's, was not superhuman and didn't make any pretense of being as such, so there's really no rationale to correlate the extra dose of Craig's wuppass with the quantum of Fleming (term borrowed from CBn) If anything as far as the Bourne character is concerned, that stuff (the high-octane Bourne intensity) was really in the Ludlum books to a greater extent than the Bond books ever went into.
I think you're probably right- in my heart of hearts I can't say that I think Craig's Bond (so far) is the most Fleming; it probably would have to be Dalton, although oddly Lazenby feels right to me also because he's such a blank canvas- and Fleming's Bond was never the most richly detailed literary character so that feels about right.
Craig scores over Dalton for me by being in a more Fleming-feel environment (although with added 21st century touchy-feeliness) with the proper brutality that Fleming wrote of, which Dalton wasn't allowed near. Fleming's Bond is really determined by the environment and story he's in, rather than his character which rarely has any effect on the stories. But one character point Craig does score on is that he has the arrogance, self-confidence and charisma that Bond should have, and Dalton seems lacking in that regard; almost hesitant at times.
I don't think that Craig is the closest screen incarnation of Bond we've seen, but he is close enough (it's easier to read a Fleming and imagine his Bond starring than it is to, say, imagine Brosnan in there for me) and also the character seems a lttle more interesting more now- they've added to Fleming and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Also, we don't find out what drove Webb to volunteer for the programme; there may be something in that also. Family perhaps?
Didn't Nicky hint that they knew each other before? Stiles has the line, "You think it was easy for me," (or something similar). That seemed to imply that they had a close relationship. It wouldn't surprise me if Damon has a couple of films that don't do so well as the box-office, that we see Bourne again. He's a smart guy and knows how the game works. At the level he's at it's all about bankability. Bourne would be a handy thing to turn to if his price begins to drop.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
...oddly Lazenby feels right to me also because he's such a blank canvas...
Yes, I very much agree! From a desire to see the literary Bond onscreen, Lazenby's short tenure and attempt to caricaturize the Bond character portrayed so far (Brosnan had the advantage with more past references for this approach, but all Lazenby had to that point was Connery) resulted in that blank canvas, which is why OHMSS to me is the most Fleming in flavor.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I have been to see The Bourne Ultimatum and it is a very good movie. But not as good as Casino Royale. The storyline is not as clear in Ultimatum, and when you look closely at the stunts they are rather standard but made to look good by very good camera work and editing. I have really enjoyed the Bourne movies and see no reason why you can't like Bourne and Bond at the same time, but James Bond has a style and class that Jason Bourne will never have and somehow I don't think we will still be going to see Jason Bourne movies in 45 years.
Also, we don't find out what drove Webb to volunteer for the programme; there may be something in that also. Family perhaps?
Didn't Nicky hint that they knew each other before? Stiles has the line, "You think it was easy for me," (or something similar). That seemed to imply that they had a close relationship.
Yes; I love that bit. It suddenly becomes clear through one line and one look what their backstory is. It doesn't need spelling out and actually treats the audience with intelligence; just like most of the choices of camera shot in the action scenes, you're given exactly what you need to understand what's happening and nothing more. Excellent economy in this films; nothing is overstated.
It wouldn't surprise me if Damon has a couple of films that don't do so well as the box-office, that we see Bourne again. He's a smart guy and knows how the game works. At the level he's at it's all about bankability. Bourne would be a handy thing to turn to if his price begins to drop.
Well it saved him first time around and he's quite vocal about that. He had a couple of massive flops (Bagger Vance? Was that him?) and Bourne brought him back; I don't think he's ashamed of playing Bourne.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
For my own part, I think Craig is the closest, in spirit, to Fleming's Bond since Connery took off the tuxedo for the last time.
Yes, Loeffs, for your own part, i.e., at best as far as you and those likeminded are concerned. I hope this doesn't seem as offensive as I fear it might come across since I don't mean to be, btw. I'm really convinced that your affinity for Craig's interpretation particularly in the Fleming quotient is predominantly "gut" based...
No question about it. My support for The New GuyTM has been "gut" based since the very moment he was offically announced---and, happily, I feel my gut feeling has been redeemed by the final product.
[I won't spend much time on this here, since it's utterly OT and I'm frankly bored to tears with the 'Bourne vs Bond' thing]
Bond, to me, is (or ought to be) more than just an actor. He's a cohesion of actor and material...and the union of these two factors is the 'spirit' I referenced in your quote of my post. Therefore, 'for my own part,'* the two best Bonds (thus far) are Connery and his First Four, and Craig and his debut---in that order. All others have their moments (some quite brilliant), but they don't quite 'make it,' as far as my own personal tastes are concerned.
There's no doubt that Dalton certainly "looks" more like Fleming's Bond, and at times renders him quite well. Unfortunately, however, IMRO a great deal of his 'Fleming preparation' was wasted, given the unbalanced scripts with which he was forced to work, which dissipated (in my opinion) his effectiveness in the role.
Craig, to me, benefits from material with a unity of intent, and it therefore plays to his strengths. At the end of CR, I thought he effectively captured the sense of betrayal, heartbreak and renewed purpose that Bond displays at the end of Fleming's novel---which solidifies him as Bond, in my mind, as no one since...well...(see signature below).
The great irony is that CR, as done in 2006, would have been a perfect vehicle for Timothy Dalton, IMRO.
I can't dispute that Lazenby, in OHMSS can be reasonably argued as the "Most Fleming Bond Ever," given the 'blank canvas factor' you and emtiem have articulated so well---and his final scene was dynamite---but his lack of prowess as an accomplished professional actor hurts him elsewhere in the piece.
So, mark your calendars! This particular Flemingist's opinion is that The Most Fleming Bond Ever isn't necessarily The Best Bond Ever... B-)
* repeated for emphasis
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
Comments
No; that's not true. You can quite easily bend a side member and still be able to drive; that's why there are always these stories about dangerously damaged vehicles illegally driving around, cut and shuts and the like. Might have happened to you once, but that doesn't mean that exactly the same thing happened here, and the chances of a rear-damaged car driving are much higher than a front-damaged car.
I don't really know what you mean; certain genres aren't allowed to feature certain jobs because they create a different genre? That's nonsense, isn't it? Like saying that Octopussy couldn't feature an anqiues expert because those are only featured in 'antiques roadshow'.
Sure, genres can mix it up. Personally, however, having a journo in an action adventure doesn't work for me, but it's subjective. Like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Fine mixing screwball comedy and journalism, or conspiracy theory and journalism, etc but for me thriller and journalism doesn't quite work unless it's primarily from the hack's pov.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Like most of the choices he has to make in the film, it's the least worse one. He doesn't know what's out of the window he jumps out of towards the end, but he knows he has more chance of survival by jumping out of it than facing the men with guns who are entering the room. He knows that if he doesn't ram the car out of the way, he will be shot. He knows that a car has more chance of running with a mashed up boot than with a mashed up bonnet. Notice that when they do it in the film, the wheels keep turning. Maybe not for long, but Bourne's taking this second by second; it is possible.
Journalism isn't a genre, it's a profession. Journalists can be characters in comedy shows, thrillers, action films, monster movies, kitchen sink tragedies; whatever you like.
Agreed completely. A reporter is a good choice of character since the audience can find out what's going on along with the journalist.
http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=5332
Seems they're currently tied up!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Great news for Bond 22, imo. Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, my search didn't find anything.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
A belated welcome to AJB, Malko {[]
Many of us here would disagree with you that CR isn't a Bond film. The middle act is actually quite faithful to Ian Fleming's novel of the same name. Fleming's Bond was a much tougher, brutal fellow than has been shown in many of the films over the years. The great thing about the James Bond character is the different ways he's able to be interpreted...which is an advantage he has over Jason Bourne, in my own humble opinion.
To the extent that the Bourne films might have influenced the Bond filmmakers to go back to the literary source material for inspiration, and a less over-the-top approach...so much the better.
Again, we're very happy to have you aboard! :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Haven't there been two quite different screen interpretations of Bourne so far?
I'm not talking about sheer numbers of films, of course; merely varied interpretations of the character and the world he inhabits.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Where did I say they shouldn't?
I merely said when they do, I'll be appropriately impressed
emtiem, everyone!
[applause]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I wouldn't mind it; I hope they don't do a fourth in this style, to be honest. I love 'em, but I think the whole thing would be stretched too far by then.
Eh? Feels a little patronising; I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
I agree with you, actually; that was my underlying point. The James Bond concept is geared toward multiple reinterpretation, and IMO Bourne isn't. Bourne's character had a course to run...and he has run it---quite well. If they decide to make him into a superspy who just goes out on missions, then he'll be more like James Bond...and less like the character they've established in a cracking good trilogy.
Exactly right. Not something I'd say about Bond, given his rich (and widely varied) history
Mind you, Hollywood remakes everything eventually, so you can probably bank on it happening at some point.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm agree, but Bond has a physique described with precision in FRWL. We are accustomed to a physical representation of the character,a style 007.
Moreover the long sequence at the airport is much closer to “Die Hard” or Bourne, in my opinion.
-{
Granted, Craig's Bond is a bit shorter than his literary counterpart, and perhaps (slightly) more muscled, but it works for me, and I'll take a bit of increased upper body strength over a mere tuxedo, a wink to the audience and a couple of tossed-off double entendres any day...but that's only my own personal taste :007)
Giving up an inch or two in height, in return for an extra measure of 'whoop-ass,' is a fair trade as far as I'm concerned.
Can't disagree that the airport sequence has a bit of 'Die Hard' in it...but it's fresh enough within the context of the Bond franchise to be satisfying for me.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree. If he's just a guy on a mission then Bourne becomes less interesting. What could make a sequel work though is if somebody needs his help. Say for instance the character Julia Stiles plays, or the Russian girl at the end of The Bourne Supremacy. If they were in mortal danger and Bourne was the only person that they could turn to, then I think that could make a decent follow-up.
Yes, Loeffs, for your own part, i.e., at best as far as you and those likeminded are concerned. I hope this doesn't seem as offensive as I fear it might come across since I don't mean to be, btw. I'm really convinced that your affinity for Craig's interpretation particularly in the Fleming quotient is predominantly "gut" based...though not to neccesarily say it's off.
By saying "in spirit" to describe that closeness, I'm curious to see more detailed, feature by feature correlations between Craig's Bond and the literary Bond. If anything, I can most appreciate Craig's "honest" take on the role and his counter-intuitive, deconstructionist, do the opposite of what's been done before take (reminds me of George Costanza, btw), which worked to disassociate his interpretation as something fresh and unlike what's been seen before.
Interestingly, the high-octane aspect of the series has been preserved (which is very un-Fleming, IMO), but that discussion deserves it's own post. However, on this question of "most Fleming," lets put to bed how that's gotten confused with what I'll call "Bourne intensity" (hey, that's a good title for the 4th movie!)
On pragmatic and critical terms (vs. emotional ones), Craig is not automatically "the most Fleming." I did for a moment consider that he might be the most original, but realized that Dalton deserves that credit of being the first to take the deconstructionist approach. To say it another way, Craig therefore is not original in playing it original! Again, that deserves its own thread.
IMRO, point-by-point, Dalton still holds the distinction of being the most Fleming, and based on documentation alone, that achievement is the rightful product of a carefully considered, "back to the books" preparation he undertook (which was also done in varying degrees by the other actors, but not with the same level of purpose and fidelity). So Dalton not only did something dramatically "different," but his end product consistently evidenced key Fleming hallmarks in the Bond character, sardonic, saturine, with a hint of being anti-authoritarian, etc. and not to count the physical description as well... But most relevant to this thread, Dalton's Bond, like Fleming's, was not superhuman and didn't make any pretense of being as such, so there's really no rationale to correlate the extra dose of Craig's wuppass with the quantum of Fleming (term borrowed from CBn) If anything as far as the Bourne character is concerned, that stuff (the high-octane Bourne intensity) was really in the Ludlum books to a greater extent than the Bond books ever went into.
In the books I believe that 'Jason Bourne' was a real person (albeit dead) whose identity was given to Webb; there may something in the real Bourne turning up again or something (although I suppose we did the 'Bourne framed' thing in Supremacy). Also, we don't find out what drove Webb to volunteer for the programme; there may be something in that also. Family perhaps?
I think you're probably right- in my heart of hearts I can't say that I think Craig's Bond (so far) is the most Fleming; it probably would have to be Dalton, although oddly Lazenby feels right to me also because he's such a blank canvas- and Fleming's Bond was never the most richly detailed literary character so that feels about right.
Craig scores over Dalton for me by being in a more Fleming-feel environment (although with added 21st century touchy-feeliness) with the proper brutality that Fleming wrote of, which Dalton wasn't allowed near. Fleming's Bond is really determined by the environment and story he's in, rather than his character which rarely has any effect on the stories. But one character point Craig does score on is that he has the arrogance, self-confidence and charisma that Bond should have, and Dalton seems lacking in that regard; almost hesitant at times.
I don't think that Craig is the closest screen incarnation of Bond we've seen, but he is close enough (it's easier to read a Fleming and imagine his Bond starring than it is to, say, imagine Brosnan in there for me) and also the character seems a lttle more interesting more now- they've added to Fleming and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Didn't Nicky hint that they knew each other before? Stiles has the line, "You think it was easy for me," (or something similar). That seemed to imply that they had a close relationship. It wouldn't surprise me if Damon has a couple of films that don't do so well as the box-office, that we see Bourne again. He's a smart guy and knows how the game works. At the level he's at it's all about bankability. Bourne would be a handy thing to turn to if his price begins to drop.
Yes, I very much agree! From a desire to see the literary Bond onscreen, Lazenby's short tenure and attempt to caricaturize the Bond character portrayed so far (Brosnan had the advantage with more past references for this approach, but all Lazenby had to that point was Connery) resulted in that blank canvas, which is why OHMSS to me is the most Fleming in flavor.
Yes; I love that bit. It suddenly becomes clear through one line and one look what their backstory is. It doesn't need spelling out and actually treats the audience with intelligence; just like most of the choices of camera shot in the action scenes, you're given exactly what you need to understand what's happening and nothing more. Excellent economy in this films; nothing is overstated.
Well it saved him first time around and he's quite vocal about that. He had a couple of massive flops (Bagger Vance? Was that him?) and Bourne brought him back; I don't think he's ashamed of playing Bourne.
No question about it. My support for The New GuyTM has been "gut" based since the very moment he was offically announced---and, happily, I feel my gut feeling has been redeemed by the final product.
[I won't spend much time on this here, since it's utterly OT and I'm frankly bored to tears with the 'Bourne vs Bond' thing]
Bond, to me, is (or ought to be) more than just an actor. He's a cohesion of actor and material...and the union of these two factors is the 'spirit' I referenced in your quote of my post. Therefore, 'for my own part,'* the two best Bonds (thus far) are Connery and his First Four, and Craig and his debut---in that order. All others have their moments (some quite brilliant), but they don't quite 'make it,' as far as my own personal tastes are concerned.
There's no doubt that Dalton certainly "looks" more like Fleming's Bond, and at times renders him quite well. Unfortunately, however, IMRO a great deal of his 'Fleming preparation' was wasted, given the unbalanced scripts with which he was forced to work, which dissipated (in my opinion) his effectiveness in the role.
Craig, to me, benefits from material with a unity of intent, and it therefore plays to his strengths. At the end of CR, I thought he effectively captured the sense of betrayal, heartbreak and renewed purpose that Bond displays at the end of Fleming's novel---which solidifies him as Bond, in my mind, as no one since...well...(see signature below).
The great irony is that CR, as done in 2006, would have been a perfect vehicle for Timothy Dalton, IMRO.
I can't dispute that Lazenby, in OHMSS can be reasonably argued as the "Most Fleming Bond Ever," given the 'blank canvas factor' you and emtiem have articulated so well---and his final scene was dynamite---but his lack of prowess as an accomplished professional actor hurts him elsewhere in the piece.
So, mark your calendars! This particular Flemingist's opinion is that The Most Fleming Bond Ever isn't necessarily The Best Bond Ever... B-)
* repeated for emphasis
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM