I would only spar with you over the new Bond being remorseful over the deaths of those he has to kill in the line of duty. I don't think Slate, the stairwell and bathroom killings in CR or the shooting of Dryden, Mitchell or the Special Branch Bodyguard mean "beans" to Bond.
Bond IS lying about Vesper meaning nothing. At that point he is trying to fool his boss. His loyality to Fields - whom "M" dismisses as a victim of Bond's ego - causes him to confront "M" and set that part of the record straight - a great moment!
As long as this much thought and effort go into the preformance of oo7 films like QOS will have a place in my heart - even though the lack of Fleming saddens me to no end!
There is still hope..... Bond 23 - Live and Let Die!
I would only spar with you over the new Bond being remorseful over the deaths of those he has to kill in the line of duty. I don't think Slate, the stairwell and bathroom killings in CR or the shooting of Dryden, Mitchell or the Special Branch Bodyguard mean "beans" to Bond.
Well, that's worth sparring over, because IMO it's a crucial part of Craig's Bond. Craig's look right after the (supposed) drowning of the target in the bathroom... Dryden's assertion (and Craig's non-denial) that that kill made Bond 'feel it'...Craig's reflection in the mirror in CR, as he takes a long swallow of bourbon, cleans his wound and stares at himself...The same with Mathis, Fields, etc. I'm not sure how you don't see remorse there.
But there you go. It's art, and I'm sure you're not alone in your opinion, which is fair enough.
As far as the Special Branch Agent...I'm not sure Bond sees him shot. All he did was let him fall off the roof :v And IMO Bond shouldn't feel the least bit bad about killing the traitor Mitchell---or Dryden, for that matter. It's his job, isn't it...But I definitely get a sense of the toll that Bond's job takes on him, and I don't think I'm alone in this. Like Fleming said in GF (the novel,) and M said in QoS (the film), regret is unprofessional...but professionals are human, and now so is Bond.
As long as this much thought and effort go into the preformance of oo7 films like QOS will have a place in my heart - even though the lack of Fleming saddens me to no end!
Looks like we'll continue to disagree about a 'lack of Fleming'...but that's art! {[]
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
It could be that we are in general agreement about Bond and simply struck on the definitions of what we see.
When DC is looking in the mirror, after the stairwell fight, I do not see "remorse" - which I would define as "feeling sorry for what happened, or Bond feeling sorry he had to kill those fellas.
What I see is Bond beginning to look at himself through Vesper's eyes - what a dirty, job he has - this scene sets up the later shower scene when Bond is confronted with the trauma and guilt that have overcome Vesper. What follows is probably the best scene in ANY oo7 film when Bond literally takes on that guilt by licking the "blood" from her fingers.
I will dismiss Bond's non reaction to Dryden's "made you feel it" crack since Dryden is trying to distract Bond. Bond's answer is to nearly literally "blow away" Dryden .... guilt remorse? I'd say ****ed off.
Now as to Mathis, Fields. I think there is remorse there, as Bond knows he is responsible for their involvement in his rogue assignment and ultimately for their deaths. This is the "soul-eating" part of Bond that drives him to drink and smoke like a chimney (too damn bad they can't get that in).
What is prehaps one of the more fascinating aspects of James Bond is that he is NOT a killer -like Donovan Grant, but a soldier. Like a soldier I don't see Bond going about groveling in guilt over those he has killed - heck that's war, cold or hot. What I do see, and DC has not had the longevity in the role to play this out, is a sadness or general depression that will eventually manifest itself when any person has a job that involves dealing in death. Fleming does address this issue in "Goldfinger", but we have yet to see it played out onscreen.
After falling in love with Vesper, Bond can look ahead and see his two choices... a normal life with Vesper - or trodding down the dirty path of a double-o. He chooses Vesper, unaware of her double deaing. Upon Vesper's death Bond swerves back to the half monk, half hitman existance of a double-o, ending forever his chance at a "normal" life. At the end of QOS, M again expresses her need for Bond. His reply "I never left." is a denial/repression of his love affair with Vesper and prehaps his affection for Mathis and Fields as well. But now Bond's path is certain ... and in order to carry on he has to drink away the remorse he has for his love and the friends he has introduced to death. I think people like Slate are not part of the equation.
By the way Loeffelholz, I'd love you to point out the "Fleming" in this film, aside from drowning Fields in oil - a surprising and excellent reference to "Goldfinger", I must have missed the others!
A quick note. Even though Sean Connery, Moore and Brosnan have all made me wanna be like Bond....
Craig really makes me want to be Bond.
But why? I thought he was more an anti-hero: respect him, don't want to be him as he's a tortured soul really and not having fun.
Must also own up to newly violent feelings after watching QoS, feeling I want to resolve conflict in real life with a punch-up, not a good thing really. Whereas when I see a Connery film, I tend to want to be as witty as him; a bit sad saying all this I know but one tends to subconsciously emulate one's heroes.
IMO its because he is so much cooler and suaver than the rest, but please remember I am only 19 so I didn't grow up with Sean Connery. Roger Moore is still my favourite Bond (so Im not changing my avatar just yet ).
I can see past the criticisms of violence and what people dont like in CR and especially in QoS because I see what the producers are doing, and I see that we have the best Bond on our hands.
Not just yet though.... {[]
By the way Loeffelholz, I'd love you to point out the "Fleming" in this film, aside from drowning Fields in oil - a surprising and excellent reference to "Goldfinger", I must have missed the others!
Well, not being an adaptation of a Fleming novel (there won't be any more of those under the current ownership), obviously we're reduced to flagging individual elements of the picture as being rooted in 'Fleming'---many of them intangible, which gives you plenty of room to dispute them, so I don't expect to change your mind (or anyone else's!) by what follows.
The obvious ones are the presence of Mathis and Leiter, who---although significantly differing from their literary inspirations---give Bond some 'old school' in terms of his allies in the field.
You have one of the classic Fleming-inspired Bond girls in Camille: the revenge-driven edition of 'a bird with a wing down.'
You have a Bond who gets the crap beaten out of him in the course of getting his job done, rather than being the unflappable, infallible, indestructible (non-Fleming) superhero he's been for most of the films, which leads us to the obvious...
'Spirit' of Fleming, which IMO pervades both of Craig's films thus far. I know this courts a revisiting from superado for another 'drive-by' posting ( ) ), but the overall manner in which this particular Bond moves and conducts himself reminds me of the character in Fleming's novels; a man occasionally haunted by the demands of his job---a job at which he excels, but which takes a toll on him. This Bond is a tough guy with a veneer of sophistication, as opposed to a dandy or a sophisticate with fleeting moments of toughness (aided by an array of gadgets whose use is directly foreshadowed---in quite an 'on-the-nose' fashion---by the script). This approach to storytelling owes far more to the books, IMO, than to the Cinematic Tradition of Bond thus far.
Granted, in many ways this particular Bond is every bit as steeped in the demands of the cinema as each of his predecessors have been (and, like the rest, he surely takes his own liberties)...but IMRO he's been afforded more room to explore the spirit of his literary roots because of this era's focus---minus the glaring moments of incongruity and silliness which (again only my IMRO) diluted the impact of even the most "serious" prior Bond, Timothy Dalton. I don't expect an Aston Martin still driving along a frozen lake, whilst still inside a shed!, skydiving in tux and tails---or wheelie-poppin' big rigs ---in the Craig Era, and I'll be suitably disappointed if I get such things.
What I'd like, instead, is deadpan outlandishness, along the lines of the Garden of Death :v
At the risk of once again being slapped around for being naive, I think we're in the midst of a new era. The only question is, how long will it last?
I'm currently preparing an article centered on Fleming's 1964 interview with Playboy Magazine, published about three months after his death, which supports my assertion that Craig's Bond pays direct tribute to Fleming's intent...Coming Soon to an AJB front page near you!
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
Your points are valid, but I am afraid that it will take more than plucking elements of various stories to keep Fleming's Bond alive. I think that without Fleming's storylines it is too easy to morph back into DAD elements. IMO the first half of CR'06 works for me because of the way it ties in with the book inspired second half. At the same time the film could begin in Montenegro and carry on from there and I would like it just as well.
Whatever our opinions on the various nuances of QOS, I think it's safe to say that the direction in which Craig has taken the charecter is more layered and thoughtful than previous attempts. This is due to the producers allowing a new Bond to take more risks, as well as fine charecter study by Craig.
Your points are valid, but I am afraid that it will take more than plucking elements of various stories to keep Fleming's Bond alive.
If Fleming's Bond can survive the Seventies and early Eighties, IMRO he truly is indestructible, and the current era poses a significantly lesser threat than that (quite the opposite, really).
I think that without Fleming's storylines it is too easy to morph back into DAD elements.
Man, that's depressing. Naturally, due diligence by the producers needs to be the constant watchword. I guess I just have more faith in their sense of self-preservation. Still, the pendulum will swing back at some point...and then forth once again.
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
Don't worry, 7289, Loeff is correct. The pendulum will swing.
I dunno about that, I don't think it's a something that will happen just cuz, but more if we hit another swinging 70s type era... EON seems to respond to the times in that regard, IMO.
There are various reasons why the change will happen- tastes of the time, as you say, is one of them. Others would be box-office returns and changing the leading actor.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,989Quartermasters
There are various reasons why the change will happen- tastes of the time, as you say, is one of them. Others would be box-office returns and changing the leading actor.
That's it, I think. Times do change---they always have---and tastes change with them. And the template is always altered (to some degree) when somebody new puts on the tux...but it's not unusual to see shifts in direction even within a particular actor's career; one need look no further than Sean Connery.
Perhaps the point of this thread might be to wonder whether Craig's interpretation---via the darker tone and the reboot---will outlive his tenure, and affect the future of the series. It probably depends on which of two things happen first: Craigger getting bored with the role...or audiences tiring of the 'Bond who bleeds' :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
It probably depends on which of two things happen first: Craigger getting bored with the role...or audiences tiring of the 'Bond who bleeds' :007)
I have read quite a few interviews from Craig saying that he absolultlely loves playing the role and more than 4 films by contract feels likely, this compares with how I thought he felt about the role post CR.
Audiences may tire of the Bond who Bleeds, but Id say that EON will easily be able to predict this, Craigs Bond will probably always bleed and be a tough fella, but really depends on using the traditional formula or not.
Audiences may tire of the Bond who Bleeds, but Id say that EON will easily be able to predict this, Craigs Bond will probably always bleed and be a tough fella, but really depends on using the traditional formula or not.
An excellent point. I think Craig's ever-growing track record of toughness would take some of the curse off an added element of the Precious Classic FormulaTM here or there.
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
My only problem with Craig is that, to my eyes he does not look like Bond, which is more my problem than his.
I'm glad you could admit that its more your problem than Craig's Barry;) Because to me, Craig looks (and acts) more like Bond than any of his predecessors. Craig has come so much closer, in his portrayal and of the character as well as his looks (minus the Blonde hair haha) to Ian Fleming's creation-the REAL James Bond- than even Connery or Dalton. For me, Daniel Craig IS James Bond, and I'm sure he always will be. And I think that there is not even a glimmer of a chance that Craig ultimately won't be, or hasn't already been, completely accepted as the Bond for a new generation...as well as older generations who appreciate the awesomeness that is Craig's Bond.
I'm glad you could admit that its more your problem than Craig's Barry;) Because to me, Craig looks (and acts) more like Bond than any of his predecessors. Craig has come so much closer, in his portrayal and of the character as well as his looks (minus the Blonde hair haha) to Ian Fleming's creation-the REAL James Bond- than even Connery or Dalton. For me, Daniel Craig IS James Bond, and I'm sure he always will be. And I think that there is not even a glimmer of a chance that Craig ultimately won't be, or hasn't already been, completely accepted as the Bond for a new generation...as well as older generations who appreciate the awesomeness that is Craig's Bond.
Not sure how anyone who's read the novels can state - or agree with: "Fleming's Bond is not passionate, emotive or, indeed, capable of human emotion."
Especially in bits like the opening chapter of Goldfinger which, yes, also were evoked by the bar on the plane scene. The only way that scene could have been more evocative of Fleming is if Bond was instead having a panic attack in his seat over paranoid fantasies of the plane's wing breaking off.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,989Quartermasters
...bits like the opening chapter of Goldfinger which, yes, also were evoked by the bar on the plane scene. The only way that scene could have been more evocative of Fleming is if Bond was instead having a panic attack in his seat over paranoid fantasies of the plane's wing breaking off.
So true! People who've never read the original novels would probably be shocked to learn than Bond, on more than one occasion, has a quite irrational fear that the plane he's on will crash. Human emotion, indeed! I doubt any actor---Craig included---will ever bring us that much 'Fleming'
Just read that QoS is at around $509 million worldwide...looks like Eon will survive the reboot...
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
Just read that QoS is at around $509 million worldwide...looks like Eon will survive the reboot...
Well, that was never in doubt- but can I point out that after MR, a staggeringly succesful film in financial terms, EON decided to change course with FYEO? After a goldmine with a superficial non-Fleming movie, they decided to make a more down-to-earth Fleming-like caper. The reverse may be true now- they've had financial success with their Bourne rip-off, now they'll go back to James Bond.
Just read that QoS is at around $509 million worldwide...looks like Eon will survive the reboot...
Well, that was never in doubt- but can I point out that after MR, a staggeringly succesful film in financial terms, EON decided to change course with FYEO? After a goldmine with a superficial non-Fleming movie, they decided to make a more down-to-earth Fleming-like caper. The reverse may be true now- they've had financial success with their Bourne rip-off, now they'll go back to James Bond.
(And can I add... )
Yes and FYEO made $195.3m which is only $15m less that MR and $10m more than TSWLM! (all without inflation)
So EON can have their fans content and pockets happy
If the referendum is over the success of DC as Bond, I don't see any real descent at this point. If DC does go on, and from his own statements, that looks more likely, and we end up with 4 or 5 more DC oo7 capers - that could get real interesting.
I think that DC is the first Bond actor with any real clout. He may have achieved what Sean Connery demanded - a role in the overall production of his films. That is no doubt due to EON recognising that the actor who steps into the Bond charecter is as important as any other factor in the success of the franchise.
In Connery's day actor particapation in production was largely an issue of when the movie would be lensed and how much would he be paid. DC is odviously involved far deeper.
DC seems to be serious about the charecter of Bond. While he may not yet have had turn to the novels for inspiration (CR aside), should he do more than one more, he may have to look somewhere other than the pages of another Purvis and Wade script for "fresh" ideas.
It seems to me that EON is moving slowly back to a more "classic Bond, but at a slow pace ... adding elements that "work" in a story line, and not just "because". So I would not be surprised to see Moneypenny added or a Boothroyd/"Q". I would submit that if you see Tanner beyond QOS that is a sign that they are slowly restaffing MI6.
I doubt they will ever take the chance on directly adapting one of the novels, but I'll never understand how the owners of this franchise can feel that the script for QOS is better than a direct adaption of "Live and Let Die", "Moonraker" or the dreaded and forbidden "The Spy Who Loved Me".
While the "acceptance" of the DC Bond is assured. I think the real referendum on his tenure is a few films out.
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
Its funny how TSWLM has been brought up -I mean of course the novel version rather than the entertaining film in which Roger Moore stars. For me this tale reminds me of a Tarantino-esque type movie -what with the gangsters and everything -but with 007 just happening by and rescueing the damsel in distress. I personally would love to see this incorporated in some way into a larger tale. Seeing 007 walk into a situation such as this would be perfect for Craig's 007. Its too brief a story line for a whole film the parts at the motel - but it would definitely work as a section -which undoubtedly be linked to a larger plot.
Its funny how TSWLM has been brought up -I mean of course the novel version rather than the entertaining film in which Roger Moore stars. For me this tale reminds me of a Tarantino-esque type movie -what with the gangsters and everything -but with 007 just happening by and rescueing the damsel in distress. I personally would love to see this incorporated in some way into a larger tale. Seeing 007 walk into a situation such as this would be perfect for Craig's 007. Its too brief a story line for a whole film the parts at the motel - but it would definitely work as a section -which undoubtedly be linked to a larger plot.
Its funny how TSWLM has been brought up -I mean of course the novel version rather than the entertaining film in which Roger Moore stars. For me this tale reminds me of a Tarantino-esque type movie -what with the gangsters and everything -but with 007 just happening by and rescueing the damsel in distress. I personally would love to see this incorporated in some way into a larger tale. Seeing 007 walk into a situation such as this would be perfect for Craig's 007. Its too brief a story line for a whole film the parts at the motel - but it would definitely work as a section -which undoubtedly be linked to a larger plot.
If they can make a movie of The Living Daylights, then The Spy Who Loved Me is certainly a possibility...and it does fit in well with the timbre of Craig's films.
Its funny how TSWLM has been brought up -I mean of course the novel version rather than the entertaining film in which Roger Moore stars. For me this tale reminds me of a Tarantino-esque type movie -what with the gangsters and everything -but with 007 just happening by and rescueing the damsel in distress. I personally would love to see this incorporated in some way into a larger tale. Seeing 007 walk into a situation such as this would be perfect for Craig's 007. Its too brief a story line for a whole film the parts at the motel - but it would definitely work as a section -which undoubtedly be linked to a larger plot.
Sc1, keep checking the Literature Forum.
There might be a Christmas gift waiting for you...
Comments
I would only spar with you over the new Bond being remorseful over the deaths of those he has to kill in the line of duty. I don't think Slate, the stairwell and bathroom killings in CR or the shooting of Dryden, Mitchell or the Special Branch Bodyguard mean "beans" to Bond.
Bond IS lying about Vesper meaning nothing. At that point he is trying to fool his boss. His loyality to Fields - whom "M" dismisses as a victim of Bond's ego - causes him to confront "M" and set that part of the record straight - a great moment!
As long as this much thought and effort go into the preformance of oo7 films like QOS will have a place in my heart - even though the lack of Fleming saddens me to no end!
There is still hope..... Bond 23 - Live and Let Die!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Well, that's worth sparring over, because IMO it's a crucial part of Craig's Bond. Craig's look right after the (supposed) drowning of the target in the bathroom... Dryden's assertion (and Craig's non-denial) that that kill made Bond 'feel it'...Craig's reflection in the mirror in CR, as he takes a long swallow of bourbon, cleans his wound and stares at himself...The same with Mathis, Fields, etc. I'm not sure how you don't see remorse there.
But there you go. It's art, and I'm sure you're not alone in your opinion, which is fair enough.
As far as the Special Branch Agent...I'm not sure Bond sees him shot. All he did was let him fall off the roof :v
And that's not a bad thing :007)
Looks like we'll continue to disagree about a 'lack of Fleming'...but that's art! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It could be that we are in general agreement about Bond and simply struck on the definitions of what we see.
When DC is looking in the mirror, after the stairwell fight, I do not see "remorse" - which I would define as "feeling sorry for what happened, or Bond feeling sorry he had to kill those fellas.
What I see is Bond beginning to look at himself through Vesper's eyes - what a dirty, job he has - this scene sets up the later shower scene when Bond is confronted with the trauma and guilt that have overcome Vesper. What follows is probably the best scene in ANY oo7 film when Bond literally takes on that guilt by licking the "blood" from her fingers.
I will dismiss Bond's non reaction to Dryden's "made you feel it" crack since Dryden is trying to distract Bond. Bond's answer is to nearly literally "blow away" Dryden .... guilt remorse? I'd say ****ed off.
Now as to Mathis, Fields. I think there is remorse there, as Bond knows he is responsible for their involvement in his rogue assignment and ultimately for their deaths. This is the "soul-eating" part of Bond that drives him to drink and smoke like a chimney (too damn bad they can't get that in).
What is prehaps one of the more fascinating aspects of James Bond is that he is NOT a killer -like Donovan Grant, but a soldier. Like a soldier I don't see Bond going about groveling in guilt over those he has killed - heck that's war, cold or hot. What I do see, and DC has not had the longevity in the role to play this out, is a sadness or general depression that will eventually manifest itself when any person has a job that involves dealing in death. Fleming does address this issue in "Goldfinger", but we have yet to see it played out onscreen.
After falling in love with Vesper, Bond can look ahead and see his two choices... a normal life with Vesper - or trodding down the dirty path of a double-o. He chooses Vesper, unaware of her double deaing. Upon Vesper's death Bond swerves back to the half monk, half hitman existance of a double-o, ending forever his chance at a "normal" life. At the end of QOS, M again expresses her need for Bond. His reply "I never left." is a denial/repression of his love affair with Vesper and prehaps his affection for Mathis and Fields as well. But now Bond's path is certain ... and in order to carry on he has to drink away the remorse he has for his love and the friends he has introduced to death. I think people like Slate are not part of the equation.
By the way Loeffelholz, I'd love you to point out the "Fleming" in this film, aside from drowning Fields in oil - a surprising and excellent reference to "Goldfinger", I must have missed the others!
{[]
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
You may want to change your avatar!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
But why? I thought he was more an anti-hero: respect him, don't want to be him as he's a tortured soul really and not having fun.
Must also own up to newly violent feelings after watching QoS, feeling I want to resolve conflict in real life with a punch-up, not a good thing really. Whereas when I see a Connery film, I tend to want to be as witty as him; a bit sad saying all this I know but one tends to subconsciously emulate one's heroes.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I can see past the criticisms of violence and what people dont like in CR and especially in QoS because I see what the producers are doing, and I see that we have the best Bond on our hands.
Not just yet though.... {[]
"Better make that two."
Well, not being an adaptation of a Fleming novel (there won't be any more of those under the current ownership), obviously we're reduced to flagging individual elements of the picture as being rooted in 'Fleming'---many of them intangible, which gives you plenty of room to dispute them,
The obvious ones are the presence of Mathis and Leiter, who---although significantly differing from their literary inspirations---give Bond some 'old school' in terms of his allies in the field.
You have one of the classic Fleming-inspired Bond girls in Camille: the revenge-driven edition of 'a bird with a wing down.'
You have a Bond who gets the crap beaten out of him in the course of getting his job done, rather than being the unflappable, infallible, indestructible (non-Fleming) superhero he's been for most of the films, which leads us to the obvious...
'Spirit' of Fleming, which IMO pervades both of Craig's films thus far. I know this courts a revisiting from superado for another 'drive-by' posting (
Granted, in many ways this particular Bond is every bit as steeped in the demands of the cinema as each of his predecessors have been (and, like the rest, he surely takes his own liberties)...but IMRO he's been afforded more room to explore the spirit of his literary roots because of this era's focus---minus the glaring moments of incongruity and silliness which (again only my IMRO) diluted the impact of even the most "serious" prior Bond, Timothy Dalton. I don't expect an Aston Martin still driving along a frozen lake, whilst still inside a shed!, skydiving in tux and tails---or wheelie-poppin' big rigs
What I'd like, instead, is deadpan outlandishness, along the lines of the Garden of Death :v
At the risk of once again being slapped around for being naive, I think we're in the midst of a new era. The only question is, how long will it last?
I'm currently preparing an article centered on Fleming's 1964 interview with Playboy Magazine, published about three months after his death, which supports my assertion that Craig's Bond pays direct tribute to Fleming's intent...Coming Soon to an AJB front page near you!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Your points are valid, but I am afraid that it will take more than plucking elements of various stories to keep Fleming's Bond alive. I think that without Fleming's storylines it is too easy to morph back into DAD elements. IMO the first half of CR'06 works for me because of the way it ties in with the book inspired second half. At the same time the film could begin in Montenegro and carry on from there and I would like it just as well.
Whatever our opinions on the various nuances of QOS, I think it's safe to say that the direction in which Craig has taken the charecter is more layered and thoughtful than previous attempts. This is due to the producers allowing a new Bond to take more risks, as well as fine charecter study by Craig.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
If Fleming's Bond can survive the Seventies and early Eighties, IMRO he truly is indestructible,
Man, that's depressing. Naturally, due diligence by the producers needs to be the constant watchword. I guess I just have more faith in their sense of self-preservation. Still, the pendulum will swing back at some point...and then forth once again.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think you're just a tad more optimistic than I am. While I realize Mike and Barbara are not the old EON, I am having "trust" issues.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
That's it, I think. Times do change---they always have---and tastes change with them. And the template is always altered (to some degree) when somebody new puts on the tux...but it's not unusual to see shifts in direction even within a particular actor's career; one need look no further than Sean Connery.
Perhaps the point of this thread might be to wonder whether Craig's interpretation---via the darker tone and the reboot---will outlive his tenure, and affect the future of the series. It probably depends on which of two things happen first: Craigger getting bored with the role...or audiences tiring of the 'Bond who bleeds' :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have read quite a few interviews from Craig saying that he absolultlely loves playing the role and more than 4 films by contract feels likely, this compares with how I thought he felt about the role post CR.
Audiences may tire of the Bond who Bleeds, but Id say that EON will easily be able to predict this, Craigs Bond will probably always bleed and be a tough fella, but really depends on using the traditional formula or not.
"Better make that two."
An excellent point. I think Craig's ever-growing track record of toughness would take some of the curse off an added element of the Precious Classic FormulaTM here or there.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm glad you could admit that its more your problem than Craig's Barry;) Because to me, Craig looks (and acts) more like Bond than any of his predecessors. Craig has come so much closer, in his portrayal and of the character as well as his looks (minus the Blonde hair haha) to Ian Fleming's creation-the REAL James Bond- than even Connery or Dalton. For me, Daniel Craig IS James Bond, and I'm sure he always will be. And I think that there is not even a glimmer of a chance that Craig ultimately won't be, or hasn't already been, completely accepted as the Bond for a new generation...as well as older generations who appreciate the awesomeness that is Craig's Bond.
Excellent. {[]
"Better make that two."
:007)
Especially in bits like the opening chapter of Goldfinger which, yes, also were evoked by the bar on the plane scene. The only way that scene could have been more evocative of Fleming is if Bond was instead having a panic attack in his seat over paranoid fantasies of the plane's wing breaking off.
So true! People who've never read the original novels would probably be shocked to learn than Bond, on more than one occasion, has a quite irrational fear that the plane he's on will crash. Human emotion, indeed!
Just read that QoS is at around $509 million worldwide...looks like Eon will survive the reboot...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, that was never in doubt- but can I point out that after MR, a staggeringly succesful film in financial terms, EON decided to change course with FYEO? After a goldmine with a superficial non-Fleming movie, they decided to make a more down-to-earth Fleming-like caper. The reverse may be true now- they've had financial success with their Bourne rip-off, now they'll go back to James Bond.
(And can I add...
Yes and FYEO made $195.3m which is only $15m less that MR and $10m more than TSWLM! (all without inflation)
So EON can have their fans content and pockets happy
Yes you may add
"Better make that two."
You mean Bond will go back to seducing women with more than just... stationary? 8-)
Well it's about time...
I think that DC is the first Bond actor with any real clout. He may have achieved what Sean Connery demanded - a role in the overall production of his films. That is no doubt due to EON recognising that the actor who steps into the Bond charecter is as important as any other factor in the success of the franchise.
In Connery's day actor particapation in production was largely an issue of when the movie would be lensed and how much would he be paid. DC is odviously involved far deeper.
DC seems to be serious about the charecter of Bond. While he may not yet have had turn to the novels for inspiration (CR aside), should he do more than one more, he may have to look somewhere other than the pages of another Purvis and Wade script for "fresh" ideas.
It seems to me that EON is moving slowly back to a more "classic Bond, but at a slow pace ... adding elements that "work" in a story line, and not just "because". So I would not be surprised to see Moneypenny added or a Boothroyd/"Q". I would submit that if you see Tanner beyond QOS that is a sign that they are slowly restaffing MI6.
I doubt they will ever take the chance on directly adapting one of the novels, but I'll never understand how the owners of this franchise can feel that the script for QOS is better than a direct adaption of "Live and Let Die", "Moonraker" or the dreaded and forbidden "The Spy Who Loved Me".
While the "acceptance" of the DC Bond is assured. I think the real referendum on his tenure is a few films out.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
If they can make a movie of The Living Daylights, then The Spy Who Loved Me is certainly a possibility...and it does fit in well with the timbre of Craig's films.
Sc1, keep checking the Literature Forum.
There might be a Christmas gift waiting for you...