117 replies to this topic

[Captain Tightpants]

Two villains can work. Christopher Nolan proved as much in THE DARK KNIGHT.

[blueman]

Two villains can work. Christopher Nolan proved as much in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Jeepers, Bond has been doing that since forever.

[Captain Tightpants]

Two villains can work. Christopher Nolan proved as much in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Jeepers, Bond has been doing that since forever.

True, but when was the last time we had two villains of equal standing (ie not the typical villain/henchman relationship) and it worked? TWINE is the only film I can think of off the top of my head that truly experimented with this format, and as much as I love the film because it was my first on the silver screen and consequently got my into the Bond films, I have to say that it didn't work. The film was very indecisive as to who was the real mastermind. Likewise, TLD is confusing as to who is really in charge out of kosko and Whittaker. FRWL is the only other one I could name, but Kronsteen and Klebb are both second to Blofeld.

[Garth007]

Well lets look at it this way with all these villians lets see how it could all pan out. Mr. White killed in first sequence Bardem be the main villian/head of quantum, escapes at then end of movie and the new mr. white type person that reports to him hmmm the possibility are endless now lol

[Matt_13]

A talented actor, and one who I wouldn't mind being involved. That said, I'd find him a bit underwhelming since he plays so many bad guys already. Nevertheless, if true, this all bodes well for the picture.

[sharpshooter]

I’m all for Fiennes. If they could get him and Bardem, that’s two first class choices. And as for Mendes pushing the film into the new generation? Bring it on. Bring on the darkness. If they’re going to go for it, don’t be half hearted. I appreciate honesty in film. If you’re going to touch upon something, flesh it out. I’m sure these guys can pull it off properly. Makes me think this could not just be a great Bond film, but a great film by itself.

[The Shark]

Great Bond film does darkness and ensemble cast not make.

[Matt_13]

Makes me think this could not just be a great Bond film, but a great film by itself.

This has me most excited.

You're right, Shark, but it can't hurt either (matter of opinion since I know what's coming).

[The Shark]

You're right, Shark, but it can't hurt either (matter of opinion since I know what's coming).

It can very easily hurt a Bond film. They need a light touch, always have, and have worked best with well cast stage actors, not a flood of Oscar-bait.

[blueman]

Last two worked pretty well. That "light touch" has produced some very forgettable Bond films IMO. Bring on the Qscar baiting!

[The Shark]

Last two worked pretty well. That "light touch" has produced some very forgettable Bond films IMO.

Yep, real stinkers like GF and OHMSS.

[jaguar007]

If I didn't know better (since they already used the story in FYEO) with both Finnes and Bardem and what we are hearing could sound like they could be looking at Risico

[SecretAgentFan]

Last two worked pretty well. That "light touch" has produced some very forgettable Bond films IMO.

Yep, real stinkers like GF and OHMSS.

OHMSS had a light touch?

[Automan]

If I didn't know better (since they already used the story in FYEO) with both Finnes and Bardem and what we are hearing could sound like they could be looking at Risico

Oh I do hope so!

[blueman]

Last two worked pretty well. That "light touch" has produced some very forgettable Bond films IMO.

Yep, real stinkers like GF and OHMSS.

Nah, I like those two, although a lot of the one-liners in OHMSS do sound awful.

I was thinking of the more spoofy later Moore/Dalton films, also the Brosnan films. Inappropriate humor is the one thing that's been most detrimental to the series IMO.

If I didn't know better (since they already used the story in FYEO) with both Finnes and Bardem and what we are hearing could sound like they could be looking at Risico

Oh I do hope so!

Yeah, that could really be a cool way for Bond to get to the top of Quantum.

[Harry Fawkes]

Risico. Sounds bloody good to me guys.

[sharpshooter]

Risico. Sounds bloody good to me guys.

Agreed. It's always been my choice. You know, Connery's third was Goldfinger...

[Kreivi von Glödä]

What´s to worry about? That BOND 23 could actually have interesting characters?

And IF not only Bardem but also Fiennes are cast then this one is already shaping up as a highly intriguing Bond film.

My thoughts exactly. I for one am really looking forward to Bond 23 especially if these rumours are true. I´m sure that with people like Sam Mendes on board a travesty like DAD is almost impossibility. Ralph Fiennes is a great actor and in fact I would have loved if he would have been chosen to play Bond in 2005.

PS. This is my first post here, but I've been reading this forum for a while.

Edited by Kreivi von Glödä, 05 February 2011 - 01:24 PM.

[The Shark]

Last two worked pretty well. That "light touch" has produced some very forgettable Bond films IMO.

Yep, real stinkers like GF and OHMSS.

OHMSS had a light touch?

There's a lot of humour in it. People in this Post-Craig often have a blinkered view of the 'classic' Bond films, believing that they were all incredibly dark, gritty and humourless. Even OHMSS.

But then does then explain the humour in Bond reading Playboy, being cheerily taken to Draco's headquarters, the 'Angels of Death' scenes, Sir Hillary Bray's introduction to Irma Blunt, Bond flirting with Moneypenny, and Q's line about reactive lint and etc...

Honestly I say yes. On the whole the film did have a light touch, despite its gravitas. Something which I think helped leverage things.

[Harry Fawkes]

Last two worked pretty well. That "light touch" has produced some very forgettable Bond films IMO.

Yep, real stinkers like GF and OHMSS.

OHMSS had a light touch?

There's a lot of humour in it. People in this Post-Craig often have a blinkered view of the 'classic' Bond films, believing that they were all incredibly dark, gritty and humourless. Even OHMSS.

But then does then explain the humour in Bond reading Playboy, being cheerily taken to Draco's headquarters, the 'Angels of Death' scenes, Sir Hillary Bray's introduction to Irma Blunt, Bond flirting with Moneypenny, and Q's line about reactive lint and etc...

Honestly I say yes. On the whole the film did have a light touch, despite its gravitas. Something which I think helped leverage things.

Not to mention 'This never happened to the other fella!'

[Zographos]

There's a lot of humour in it. People in this Post-Craig often have a blinkered view of the 'classic' Bond films, believing that they were all incredibly dark, gritty and humourless. Even OHMSS.

No, I think the problem is that a lot of fans have bought into the marketing about the Craig era being "dark" and fail to see that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace both have a great deal of (often subtle) humour.

What I loved in particular about Quantum of Solace were its playful touches that weren't simply rehashes of Maibaum throwaways - the chatty cabby, Gemma's crass disobedience to her husband, the jetlagged "seduction" of Fields because hell I've got work to do, the Gregg Beam/George Bush parody, M's thoughtless gift-giving. It never took itself as seriously as fans seem to take it - it knew how silly it was to pretend that Bond films approximate reality, and so it had fun with the incongruity of smashing the Bond universe together with the real world (witness Fields' mortification at her own name, or the typical trail of dead henchmen spinning reels of red tape).

The humour was hit and miss (par for the course), but what's key to remember is that Quantum of Solace brought the lightness it required for its own proceedings, especially given its subject matter of Bond's loss (cf. Ian Fleming's Casino Royale)

Have the Bond films retained their sense of humour? Yes, definitely. Have the Bond fans? The stultifying negativity around these parts has me worried.

[Jack Spang]

I’m all for Fiennes. If they could get him and Bardem, that’s two first class choices. And as for Mendes pushing the film into the new generation? Bring it on. Bring on the darkness. If they’re going to go for it, don’t be half hearted. I appreciate honesty in film. If you’re going to touch upon something, flesh it out. I’m sure these guys can pull it off properly. Makes me think this could not just be a great Bond film, but a great film by itself.

I'm all for darkness too but I just hope Eon don't step in and strip the character movement back and say "no we need more action, explosions and thrills!" Didn't this happen with TWINE?

I do not want A listers but seeing I can't even remember seeing a film with Bardem in it and I do like Feinnes (I don't think he is as much of an A lister as Spacey) then I am all for it. I wouldn't want anyone bigger than Feinnes though.

"What I loved in particular about Quantum of Solace were its playful touches that weren't simply rehashes of Maibaum throwaways - the chatty cabby, Gemma's crass disobedience to her husband, the jetlagged "seduction" of Fields because hell I've got work to do, the Gregg Beam/George Bush parody, M's thoughtless gift-giving."

That is one thing I liked about QOS - the subtle, more natural humour as opposed to what we got in CR. I have always campaigned for more natural humour in a Bond film that evolves from conversation instead of cheesy one liners.

Edited by Jack Spang, 05 February 2011 - 09:45 PM.

[blueman]

I’m all for Fiennes. If they could get him and Bardem, that’s two first class choices. And as for Mendes pushing the film into the new generation? Bring it on. Bring on the darkness. If they’re going to go for it, don’t be half hearted. I appreciate honesty in film. If you’re going to touch upon something, flesh it out. I’m sure these guys can pull it off properly. Makes me think this could not just be a great Bond film, but a great film by itself.

I'm all for darkness too but I just hope Eon don't step in and strip the character movement back and say "no we need more action, explosions and thrills!" Didn't this happen with TWINE?

I do not want A listers but seeing I can't even remember seeing a film with Bardem in it and I do like Feinnes (I don't think he is as much of an A lister as Spacey) then I am all for it. I wouldn't want anyone bigger than Feinnes though.

"What I loved in particular about Quantum of Solace were its playful touches that weren't simply rehashes of Maibaum throwaways - the chatty cabby, Gemma's crass disobedience to her husband, the jetlagged "seduction" of Fields because hell I've got work to do, the Gregg Beam/George Bush parody, M's thoughtless gift-giving."

That is one thing I liked about QOS - the subtle, more natural humour as opposed to what we got in CR. I have always campaigned for more natural humour in a Bond film that evolves from conversation instead of cheesy one liners.

Yep, and makes a lot of sense, gotta keep current or the series will die (let Austin Powers do the retro spoofing).

[byline]

I do not want A listers but seeing I can't even remember seeing a film with Bardem in it

I haven't seen many of his films, but the two that I have seen -- "The Sea Inside" and "No Country for Old Men" -- are permanently etched in my mind. Both characters played by Bardem are among the most memorable I can recall.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I've seen VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA, but... Penélope Cruz appears to be more deadlier than Bardem in that film.

[The Shark]

The humour was hit and miss (par for the course), but what's key to remember is that Quantum of Solace brought the lightness it required for its own proceedings, especially given its subject matter of Bond's loss (cf. Ian Fleming's Casino Royale)

I don't agree with that at all. The humour was far too dry for me, as dry as the Atacama Desert. And as you say, most of it was hit and miss, unlike the Maibaum, Raven and Mankewitz screenplays, which were loaded with gags, most of which happened to work. Not only due to their intrinsic wit, but the light touch of Connery.
Craig unfortunately lacks that. There isn't the same mischievous playfulness (that even Brosnan had in GOLDENEYE). That levity, self-awareness and sense of the irony of the situation. The contradictions and double-meanings. They're written and delivered too earnestly, too full on. Not to mention, one real clunker - 'Could you help me find the stationary' - Quite possibly the most pathetic, and geeky one-liner in the franchise.

The only lines that work for me, is the 'cheap wine' gag, M stating she doesn't 'give a about the CIA', and the 'teachers on sabbatical.'

Over all, to me, QUANTUM is a relentless, morose and portentous picture, with very little humour, subtlety and breathing space. It feels like a rough-draft and a rough-cut. A demo.

As for ROYALE? I found it its humour too over-written, not natural enough. Pompous too. Though what do you expect when you hire the writer, producer and director of CRASH?

[blueman]

I don't agree with that at all. The humour was far too dry for me, as dry as the Atacama Desert. And as you say, most of it was hit and miss, unlike the Maibaum, Raven and Mankewitz screenplays, which were loaded with gags, most of which happened to work. Not only due to their intrinsic wit, but the light touch of Connery.

Yeah, I enjoy those Bond films too, but I also recognize them as being not anything like what Fleming wrote, and even working against a thriller (what Fleming wrote) grain when they stick out that much. QOS hit on a great Fleming balance IMO, hope they keep it.

[Captain Tightpants]

Bring on the Qscar baiting!

This isn't aimed at you, but I don't understand why people do this. They demand that EON make better films, but when EON hire people who a proven track record of producing quality films, everyone accuses them of "Oscar-baiting". It's like they want a better-quality film, but they don't want a superior-quality film. I don't get that. It's like an Olympic athlete who has a string of bronze medals decides one day that "Whoa, a gold medal is good and all, but maybe it's a little too good, so I think I'll try and get a silver instead".

[blueman]

Bring on the Qscar baiting!

This isn't aimed at you, but I don't understand why people do this. They demand that EON make better films, but when EON hire people who a proven track record of producing quality films, everyone accuses them of "Oscar-baiting". It's like they want a better-quality film, but they don't want a superior-quality film. I don't get that. It's like an Olympic athlete who has a string of bronze medals decides one day that "Whoa, a gold medal is good and all, but maybe it's a little too good, so I think I'll try and get a silver instead".

Similar issue: they should hire a good action director. Huh? Most action films are mindless dreck, the better ones being directed by "slumming" auteurs (ala Forster/QOS)! Even a high-end action director like Tony Scott I wouldn't want anywhere near BOnd as it would end up looking like the dreck (IMHO) he turns out.

Forster was a great choice, made an awesome Bond thriller, hopefully Mendes does the same.

[The Shark]

I don't agree with that at all. The humour was far too dry for me, as dry as the Atacama Desert. And as you say, most of it was hit and miss, unlike the Maibaum, Raven and Mankewitz screenplays, which were loaded with gags, most of which happened to work. Not only due to their intrinsic wit, but the light touch of Connery.

Yeah, I enjoy those Bond films too, but I also recognize them as being not anything like what Fleming wrote, and even working against a thriller (what Fleming wrote) grain when they stick out that much. QOS hit on a great Fleming balance IMO, hope they keep it.

'Not anything like Fleming wrote' is a largely empty black and white statement, particularly if you're defending QOS. I'd say yes, they were very similar to Fleming in tone, colour, atmosphere and pulp comic strip sensibility. The added a bit of humour to the material, but not much.

Personally I don't want to see an ad verbatim Fleming adaptation. It would not only be anachronistic and backward-looking for the franchise, but probably heavy going to watch, too.

What works well in novel-form, doesn't necessary work on screen, without artistic license on behalf of the screenwriters.