Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Back to basics?


53 replies to this topic

#1 Fiona

Fiona

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 26 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 06:27 PM

Isn't it time for a refreshing look to the bond series? Instead of doing average stories, for instance The World is not enough, after all we already have one megalomaniac owning most of the media, why not go back to Casino! Oops sorry I forgot that won't please all the petrol heads or Arnie/stallone or for that matter any action fan since the mid '80's.
I thought, as most probably a lot of people did that Brosnan would make a great bond, he would have done if Remington steele hadn't tied him up. Now his portrayal as Bond is overshadowed by lousy stories, stupid John Cleese, am I the only person to find this lanky piece of bacon not funny, and the fact that there are too many explosions and over the top stunts. Which to my mind was topped by the pre-mission on Spy.
Can't we get back to the charm and excitement of the earlier films? I don't hide the fact that Thunderball is my fave Bond in both film and print, and yes there are a plethora of gadgets, but they enhance rather than distract from the story. Now I groan at the impossble instead of applauding it.

#2 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 30 October 2002 - 07:24 PM

Granted TND is not the strongest Bond film in terms of story and plot, but I've always felt the Brosnan films, no matter how much action they may have, are able to still hold onto that class that keeps a Bond film a Bond film.

I find John Cleese incredibly funny, but thats not the point, he wasnt cast as Q to be stupid. Sure he may have acted a bit OTT in TWINE, but that was because Desmond was still around. Now that Cleese is the sole Q (RIP Desmond :)) Cleese will play Q a bit more straight this time around, honering Desmond's portrayal of the role while making the role his own.

#3 Spectre001

Spectre001

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 229 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 07:57 PM

Give Cleese a chance I say! I do agree about the getting back to basics though. Not every film needs to be topped with new gadgets and inventions to make it a great movie. I also like Thunderball, in fact the first four movies rank highly for me because of the storyline, including the mistique and adventure. I don't think Bond needs to compete with the action stars to be successful, but neither do I think he tries to.

Hey 100 posts for me :)

#4 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 30 October 2002 - 08:02 PM

Hey, congrats on the 100 posts :)

I think for a fair look into how Cleese will actually portray Q, one has to look no further than the end of TWINE. When M and the whole staff are watching Bond boink Dr. Jones, the way Cleese acts in this scene is much more held back than how he is earlier in the movie. This is how I think Cleese will play Q in the subsequent films.

#5 Spectre001

Spectre001

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 229 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 08:31 PM

Thanks Jimmy Bond. I am quite looking forward to seeing Cleese in the role. I think he will do a great job.

#6 Fiona

Fiona

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 26 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 09:02 PM

To tell the truth this is a Bond I shall probably use a 10ft barge pole on.
I haven't seen anything to make me actually want to see it. Pity since I have seen every bond at the cinema. Ok they were not always first time round, though there were not many video recorders around then anyhow. Imagine as a young girl seeing a Thunderball and Twice double bill *Yeay!!!*

#7 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 30 October 2002 - 10:09 PM

Whats a barge pole?

Can you honestly say nothing looks good to you about DAD?

What about the ice Chase, that sure looks great to me. How about the hovercraft chase at the beginning, certaintly looks fun to me. What about the emphasis on story rather than action? Sounds good to me. Or the way Brosnan plays Bond with just the right note of charm and vulnerablility? This movie is going to be the piece da resitance for Brosnan fans everywhere, and I'm going to see it twice on opening day :)

#8 Fiona

Fiona

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 26 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 10:30 PM

Nope can't say that I can!!!!

#9 Spectre001

Spectre001

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 229 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 10:36 PM

Whats your favorite Bond movie and why Fiona?

#10 Fiona

Fiona

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 26 posts

Posted 30 October 2002 - 11:31 PM

Thunderball without a doubt is my Favourite. Possibly the most thorough film of the lot. There is nothing out of place either in the action or story. Everything works! Combined with John Barry's superb soundtrack, which added tension & excitement without loosing a sense of beauty.
The locations are lavish and used wisely. If this seems too over the top I'd like to think of a criticism of Thunderball though I really can't see any faults. I even love the casual way Bond walks down the corridor in Shrublands and smashes the fire alarm with his elbow. Sorry if this doesn't quite answer the question fully for anyone though I doubt if I spent a whole day writing this I could actually come up with a startling revelation as to why I know in my little head that this is the best for me. So I'll just go back to my DVD and watch it again!
Just to add my Father named me after Fiona Volpe, Thunderball is his fave too, though I don't add that as a reason!

#11 freemo

freemo

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPip
  • 2995 posts
  • Location:Here

Posted 31 October 2002 - 01:34 AM

Can't we get back to the charm and excitement of the earlier films? I don't hide the fact that Thunderball is my fave Bond in both film and print


I definatly agree there, they are perhaps running just a little short on charm and glamour and whatnot at the moment, my only major gripe.

The locations are lavish and used wisely. If this seems too over the top I'd like to think of a criticism of Thunderball though I really can't see any faults.


Nope, I don't think it was over top, perfect infact, I rate the location as being as important as any aspect of the film, and the Bahamas gets an A+ from me. :)

Oops sorry I forgot that won't please all the petrol heads or Arnie/stallone or for that matter any action fan since the mid '80's.


Now there's not need to get like that about it, each to thier own I think.

PS, Cleese will be great as Q. :)

#12 Spectre001

Spectre001

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 229 posts

Posted 31 October 2002 - 01:43 AM

I don't want to get off the subject (too much) but I see you are neaing 1000 posts Freemo...well done.

#13 License To Kill

License To Kill

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1556 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.

Posted 31 October 2002 - 01:45 AM

Fiona has some points and I agree with her on some of them. I believe that this movie will fall under two paramaters: Best Ever or Worst Ever.

I have stated on previous posts that the main reason I'm disliking this movie is because of the face-changing and Halle Berry. Hey, this might be the 21st Century, but it's not M:I2 or Face-Off AND furthermore Halle Berry shows me no talent as an actress. Granted I have only seen her in Monsters Ball, The Flintstones and Executive Decision (Not really the cream of the crop movies, but I digress). Her acting seems plastic and showing no emotion whatsoever. The parts of the movies that have the most promise would be the Ice Palace/Chase scenes and the Pre-Titles. The traitor story has an ounce of intrigue and suspense, but it will depend on how it is presented on screen. That's my take.

~LTK~

#14 freemo

freemo

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPip
  • 2995 posts
  • Location:Here

Posted 31 October 2002 - 01:53 AM

I argee with you on it depending on how it will be presented on screen, fair enough. And yes, what I've heard/seen of the the pretitle scene and the ice palace are what's impressed me the most.

As for Halle Berry, yeah, I'm not really a fan either, but I think she'll be fine, they could certainly have done worse. :)

I don't want to get off the subject (too much) but I see you are neaing 1000 posts Freemo...well done.


Hmm, yes, thank you. :)

#15 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 31 October 2002 - 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Fiona
Thunderball without a doubt is my Favourite. Possibly the most thorough film of the lot. There is nothing out of place either in the action or story. Everything works! Combined with John Barry's superb soundtrack, which added tension & excitement without loosing a sense of beauty.
The locations are lavish and used wisely. If this seems too over the top I'd like to think of a criticism of Thunderball though I really can't see any faults. I even love the casual way Bond walks down the corridor in Shrublands and smashes the fire alarm with his elbow. Sorry if this doesn't quite answer the question fully for anyone though I doubt if I spent a whole day writing this I could actually come up with a startling revelation as to why I know in my little head that this is the best for me. So I'll just go back to my DVD and watch it again!
Just to add my Father named me after Fiona Volpe, Thunderball is his fave too, though I don't add that as a reason!


Blimey, Fiona.

If I hadn't been married eleven years, and if I wasn't fond of the old bag, then...

Lost for words. Finally, someone who appreciates James Bond (an unnecessarily provocative comment, but I'm frankly sick to the back teeth of the current miserable efforts).

Thunderball: art

Barge pole: big longpole used to push things away

DAD: give it a chance. It'll be OK - it'd better be...

#16 Blue Eyes

Blue Eyes

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9976 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 31 October 2002 - 09:11 AM

At least Jim is behind Die Another Day in some way :)

Fiona, could you please do me a favour? Can you go out and see Die Another Day in the theatres and tell us what you thought about it? I'd really love to know. And if you don't want to share it with us all, please drop me a personal line about it; [email protected]

#17 1q2w3e4r

1q2w3e4r

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1336 posts

Posted 31 October 2002 - 10:41 AM

Im actually with her on this. For modern Bond films Thunderball's style is perfect. I like it and FRWL & OHMSS best. But everything clicks so well in TB the locations are awesome, the pre title is great and not a mini movie and the plot and story run along at a frantic pace.

Its got the best one liners in the series.
The women are great, Largo was a great villian, it was a faithful adaptedation of Fleming's novel and the last barring OHMSS of the "realistic" films. It also had Blofeld as the mysterious No 1.

Its a grand film, but i think it works so well because it adhears to Fleming's rule of having a story thats extrodinary but not unbelievable.

I actually think and this will really annoy a WHOLE bunch of ppl so sorry. But I've been watching the early films a lot (its all I usually watch) and recently reviewed GE again. I've come to the conclusion that even though its classified as "classic Bond" its classic in that the guy on the screen is Roger Moore's 007 from SPY. The film feels like SPY which is a great entry. But I believe Brosnan has a lot more in common with Roger in his portrayl of Bond than he does with Connery.

BUT; It seems to be due to the scope of the films, there simply to big to have anything ever top FRWL, TB, GF etc as the all time greats because the thing that made those films so much fun was that the characters were interesting.

Im hanging out for DAD but, I have no expectations of it being the best in the series. LT will have to deliver the 135min film we've heard about because otherwise the characters wont be developed enough.

I also like the little "touches" like the elbow on the fire alarm and then the "What's that?" "I don't know. Could it be the front door bell?"

But hopefully LT delivers on the idea of more characters like Draco and Kerim Bay. They're what make the early films great, and im sick of all this hype that "my character's much stronger this time. She's Bond's = this has been going on since SPY.

I think P&W can get us back to films like TB and FRWL and the feel of the early entries with exotic locations and interesting characters. Elektra in TWINE showed they have the ability to develop interesting characters . However, I do think the action should be scaled back.

The thing that really changed it all for me was the first screening of GE I ever saw and having Bond go over the edge after the plane. It was then I realised this Bond was going to have a lot more in common with Roger's that Sean's. Which isn't a bad thing. But I like Connery's, Dalton's and even old George's character's best.

I think, they really should use Brosnan's best Bond film as a building block for this idea of smaller scale films. And his best Bond film so far? The Thomas Crown Affair. The character in that film had a lot in common with the early Bond films. And the film itself was great, good characters, exotic locals, nice action and suspense and not over the top in anyway. A really good film.

So if LT doesn't want to do 21. Get John McTerrian (Sp??) Pierce's old mate and get P&W and sit down and damned well make that film like FRWL MGWilson is always saying they set out to make at the start of each new production!

#18 M_Balje

M_Balje

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Posted 31 October 2002 - 11:48 AM

Mabey i know what I and you want.
Back to the 70/80's bond style (Roger Moore) with a litle Goldeneye.
Litle more action than the 70/80's bond movie's.
Much Lesser action than The world is not enough.
The emotion as the 70's and 80's bond movie's.

for this must we have:
Directer From FYEO: John Glenn (Now 72 years old) as producer together with Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.
directer's: Martin Campbell and Lee Tamahori together
Screen writer's: Tom Mankiewicz (Live and let die) and Bruce Feirstein (Goldeneye)
The return of Michael Madsen as Cia Agent Falco with Joe Donbaker as Jack Wade Together.
1 Bond girl older than 50 (As Villian)
2 Bond girl's between 30-40
1 Bond girl chacter like Bibi Dahl (Lynn-Holly Johnson) from FYEO.
Villian like Oddjobb.
Good story.
Train
Aston Martin and BMW
Location's like: Italien,Russia,America,Norway,Denmark and The Netherland's.

#19 00Evan

00Evan

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 45 posts

Posted 02 November 2002 - 12:48 AM

Fiona, if you don't think anything about Die Another Day looks exciting to you...well, then I don't think you've opened your eyes while watching it. Granted, Thunderball was a classic and fantastic Bond film for its time, Die Anothery Day will be a classic and fantastic Bond film for this time. And how can you even judge John Cleese as being "stupid?" Maybe you dont like Monty Python, but at least give the chap a chance. Geesh!

#20 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 02 November 2002 - 12:20 PM

Man, it's impossible to not like something out of Die Another Day.

We've got:
Halle Berry (!)

Some of the best Bond cinematography

A good, original story

Solid villains

Some great setpieces: Hovercraft chase, Fencing fight, Ice Car Chase, Airplane fight

Throwbacks to the roots of Bond

And the best thing, in my opinion:
It's a Bond film, through and through. Regardless of what its like, it's still Bond, which means I'll probably like it to some extent (unless its worse than TMWTGG, and then I won't ever touch it again).

#21 RevolveR

RevolveR

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 02 November 2002 - 04:10 PM

Heres my view. I can understand wanting to modernize Bond, after all this is 2002. I have been very fond of Brosnan's movies and I think he defines Bond's image in my mind. But, I just don't think this movie will please me. There is somehting about the previews that I can't explain, but it just has me worried. I don't need all of you to tell me "just see the movie then make judgements." I am prejudging this movie based on two elements. One, Bond in Prison for 4 years is a good idea. Bond getting rescued by the NSA????? That is totally ridiculous. Second, I don't like Halle Berry in the role. But thats just my take.

#22 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 03 November 2002 - 08:49 AM

Sometimes I get to caught up in the hype that I forget some people are still wary of the movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. So I'll lighten up on the "see the movie first" comments :)

I dont think Bond gets "rescued" by the NSA as you put it, but thats a whole other thread altogether.

#23 mrmoon

mrmoon

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 03 November 2002 - 11:56 AM

No offence Fiona but sod your opinion, Die Another Day is going to be epic.

#24 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 03 November 2002 - 01:25 PM

Amen.

#25 Spectre001

Spectre001

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 229 posts

Posted 03 November 2002 - 10:14 PM

What I will wait with interest to find out is whether the modern films stand the test of time like, the first four movies especially. Movies like DAF and MR (and YOLT to a degree) are a bit too far fetched and have lousy fx. Will GE, TND, TWINE and DAD follow suit in another 20-30 years?

#26 Fiona

Fiona

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 26 posts

Posted 03 November 2002 - 10:35 PM

Ok! You may "Sod" my opinion, but then that's all it was but yeppers I'll go and watch it *promise*, though it probably won't be here in Aber until 2003 *giggles!* I will have to go it alone as I don't think anyone will go with me, don't worry boys I don't wory about me not having anyone to share my popcorn with as I hate eating during a film, all that munch munch it's annoying plus your partner neva gets to see the damn film!!!!
Trouble is is anyone going to pay for me to see it 'cause I don't think it's going to be worth the admission fee. Honestly though I will see it so look out for my comments soon!
Soz if this is brief I have only just got back home!!
Lots of love to you all

#27 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 03 November 2002 - 11:43 PM

Not worth the admission fee? I'm going to see it twice on opening day. I'll go to the ticke guy and say, I want two ticekts, one to the first show and one for the show right after it.

#28 Blue Eyes

Blue Eyes

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9976 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 November 2002 - 11:50 PM

That's the spirit JimmyBond :)

#29 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 04 November 2002 - 12:25 AM

Indeed. I'm only going to leave the theater to stop off in the restroom and wait till they clean the theater so I can reenter it and watch the film again. I figure on my first viewing, I'll be blown away by the film, then on my second viewing, I'll be able to judge how good of a Bond film it actually is. Cause after all, I came out of the last three Bond films all proudly proclaiming "Best Bond film ever" :)

#30 ThomasCrown76

ThomasCrown76

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 146 posts

Posted 04 November 2002 - 01:01 AM

I remember doing the same thing with TWINE back in Nov of 99. The theater people thought it was hilarious. I went and saw it 5 x and they got to know me really well. Oh, here comes the James Bond guy again.