82 replies to this topic

[Slaezenger]

I'm very fond of DIE ANOTHER DAY (for some reason - don't think I don't understand all the criticisms of it), but I feel my fandom slipping away.

...If you are fond of DAD with Brosnan -- there is a great chance you will enjoy 21 with whomever. Who knows? You may be very pleasantly surprised.

Edited by Athena007, 22 September 2004 - 03:41 PM.

[Loomis]

Some good points there, Slaezenger, but I'm starting to view the post-Cubby Bond films in the same way as I view the STAR WARS prequels, i.e. as not quite the real deal.

A new Bond actor would be one of the things needed to get me excited about BOND 21 (by "excited", I mean "genuinely looking forward to", as opposed to thinking, "Oh, here's another Bond flick, I must see it out of a sense of fan duty"), but, please, not Purefoy. Maybe I'm being too harsh - I've nothing against the guy, and who knows? Perhaps he'd be a splendid 007. But I'm just so fixated on the idea of Owen as Bond that I can't really picture anyone else cutting the mustard.

But I'm holding out hope for a decent director. I'd be delighted if Frears landed the gig, since he has some quality films on his CV: THE HIT, MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE, PRICK UP YOUR EYES, SAMMY AND ROSIE GET LAID, DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, the TV movie "The Deal"....

[zencat]

We've never NOT had official news by now, and it's starting to mutate into an incestuous fan world were suddenly some guy on the AJB boards who claims to be an insider is now our "official" spokesman. It's ridiculous.

LOL ............... We will all be logging onto WWW.CBnAJBMKKBBMI6. COM soon

Or maybe www.Pierce-B.com

[Qwerty]

Some good points there, Slaezenger, but I'm starting to view the post-Cubby Bond films in the same way as I view the STAR WARS prequels, i.e. as not quite the real deal.

Maybe they can pull out all the stops and really deliver with Bond 21. If it's a new Bond, why not try something new.

[Janus Assassin]

If filming starts in April, then hopefully it will be more down to earth than DAD was. If it takes less time to film, thats good. This Probably doesn't sound logical to y'all though.

[Arrant]

I agree with you Zencat. I've decided to hold back on debating any more rumours ( although I'll still be checking them out, of course.)

I think if things REALLY are on schedule we must be due some announcements soon.
If not, and they have decided a new merger is a good time to revitalise the series, and they want to take time out to get it right........Hell, why not just say so. I can live with that.

( In fact I can live with anything that involves replacing Purvis and Waid.)

[Qwerty]

If filming starts in April, then hopefully it will be more down to earth than DAD was. If it takes less time to film, thats good. This Probably doesn't sound logical to y'all though.

I think I get what you're trying to point out. Shorter and more clear cut production schedule equals down to earth, good film. I don't think it has to be that exact way though.

[Janus Assassin]

I think I get what you're trying to point out. Shorter and more clear cut production schedule equals down to earth, good film. I don't think it has to be that exact way though.

That's exactly the point I'm tryin to make. If anybody can pull a Bond movie out in 7 months. They can. I'm putting my trust in them to make a good film, and if Pierce is in it, I hope he will go out with a bang unlike Moore and Connery.

[Qwerty]

I think I get what you're trying to point out. Shorter and more clear cut production schedule equals down to earth, good film. I don't think it has to be that exact way though.

That's exactly the point I'm tryin to make. If anybody can pull a Bond movie out in 7 months. They can. I'm putting my trust in them to make a good film, and if Pierce is in it, I hope he will go out with a bang unlike Moore and Connery.

Hmm, no matter if it's a bit longer, they can still make a great film.

[Loomis]

They haven't made a great film since the 1960s.

[Qwerty]

They haven't made a great film since the 1960s.

I beg to differ. I know many fans consider the Connery era, maybe minus Diamonds Are Forever to be the area were we had great films. But I would also say such films as The Spy Who Loved Me, or The Living Daylights as great ones also.

[Loomis]

But I would also say such films as The Spy Who Loved Me, or The Living Daylights as great ones also.

I'd say they're very good films, but not great ones. All the classics - the true classics, I mean - come from the '60s.

[DLibrasnow]

yeah CASINO ROYALE (1967) was such a "great" movie Loomis

[Loomis]

I didn't state that all the '60s films were classics. I wrote: "All the classics - the true classics, I mean - come from the '60s."

And for the record, I don't consider CASINO ROYALE a proper Bond film.

[Qwerty]

But I would also say such films as The Spy Who Loved Me, or The Living Daylights as great ones also.

I'd say they're very good films, but not great ones. All the classics - the true classics, I mean - come from the '60s.

All the classics...maybe. I find it difficult to choose. But looking on them purely as great, good, fair, poor etc.. I think there are more than just the official 60's films.

[Arrant]

I agree with you Loomis.

What's old is new again.

The films after the early, Bonds DO have their merits, particularly as cinematic entertainment, and action cinema would not be where it is today without them, but for Bond films that work on a number of levels, and retain an integrity toward the character of Bond, then the films of the 60,s stand head and shoulders above the others.

Perhaps thats the problem. They got it SO right the fist time round.

[Roebuck]

If filming starts in April, then hopefully it will be more down to earth than DAD was. If it takes less time to film, thats good. This Probably doesn't sound logical to y'all though.

I think I get what you're trying to point out. Shorter and more clear cut production schedule equals down to earth, good film. I don't think it has to be that exact way though.

I could see that working. The last couple of Bond's have been bloated, lumbering affairs and a leaner, sharper, pacier film might be a change for the better. Can't imagine Eon being able to pull it off though. They're not set up for that kind of guerrilla film making, so they'd have to hire a director who was and (more importantly) trust his or her instincts. And the script would have to be a darn sight less flabby than the usual Purvis and Wade offal.

Where's Tarantino when you need him, eh?

[SnakeEyes]

True James Bond starts and ends with DrNo. We (all too) briefly revisit 'properness' with the likes of FRWL, OHMSS and to some extent TLD.
If you really want hardcore Fleming Bond then you have no other options.

That's why I like the books.


Except Goldfinger.

[Arrant]

Absolutely Roebuck !!!

(I WAS typing a couple of comments, then this post turned into a MooMoo style rant ( NOT that I have anything against MooMoo,s commitment to Bond.. but forgive me for the deviation.)

(On reflection the best I can say is it's ended up a rambling open letter to Sony/ Eon.)
( Which they will never read and even if they did......well they have the money and the franchise, not me!)

So back to my original post..

Bloated and lumbering... adjectives that could be applied to a number of modern films, but particularly the last Bond movie.

It was like filming by numbers, from the so called "homage" to Dr No (i.e. We can,t think of an original way to introduce the heroine so we'll stick her in a bikini, have her walk out of the sea, and call it a "homage").

- Of course it will have NONE of the suspense and carefully contrived macho environment that precedes Ursula Andress' completely unexpected introduction in Dr No, and makes it so dramaticly sensual, but what does a modern MTV audience know about what makes a scene so memorable.

.... Then we'll steal from Star Wars. For god's sake it's the most successful film ever.... it's GOT to work. We

[Bryce (003)]

News, rumours, news, rumours....



I think I've posted in about every Bond 21 thread since February.

I've made my points - The who, when, how, what stuff...

I know what I want.

Bond 21.

Until there's an official announcement of something tangible and confirmed (AP, UPI, THR, IMDB, EON, CSI....) it's just getting crazy and this constant "Flavour of the week for the new Bond" crap....I'm done.

Not with CBn (too much fun in other forum topics), but echoing many of the posts above, until Eon comes out swinging and announcing something real, I don't bloody care if the Olsen twins are in talks to be the next Bond until I hear it from Sony or the family.

I'm keeping my own channels open, but Eon needs to make some sort of statement before Nov. 18th 2004 - They did it with a half-page in Variety on Nov. 22nd 2001 - 1 years notice for the 40th anniversary Bond....

Given all this fuss, they need to do the same again.

*pours Guinness*

[Qwerty]

If filming starts in April, then hopefully it will be more down to earth than DAD was. If it takes less time to film, thats good. This Probably doesn't sound logical to y'all though.

I think I get what you're trying to point out. Shorter and more clear cut production schedule equals down to earth, good film. I don't think it has to be that exact way though.

I could see that working. The last couple of Bond's have been bloated, lumbering affairs and a leaner, sharper, pacier film might be a change for the better. Can't imagine Eon being able to pull it off though. They're not set up for that kind of guerrilla film making, so they'd have to hire a director who was and (more importantly) trust his or her instincts. And the script would have to be a darn sight less flabby than the usual Purvis and Wade offal.

Where's Tarantino when you need him, eh?

Yes, it is indeed an interesting idea. If they can make a taut, exciting thriller with less production time then go for it.

[Slaezenger]

Some good points there, Slaezenger, but I'm starting to view the post-Cubby Bond films in the same way as I view the STAR WARS prequels, i.e. as not quite the real deal.

A new Bond actor would be one of the things needed to get me excited about BOND 21 (by "excited", I mean "genuinely looking forward to", as opposed to thinking, "Oh, here's another Bond flick, I must see it out of a sense of fan duty"), but, please, not Purefoy. Maybe I'm being too harsh - I've nothing against the guy, and who knows? Perhaps he'd be a splendid 007. But I'm just so fixated on the idea of Owen as Bond that I can't really picture anyone else cutting the mustard.

But I'm holding out hope for a decent director. I'd be delighted if Frears landed the gig, since he has some quality films on his CV: THE HIT, MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE, PRICK UP YOUR EYES, SAMMY AND ROSIE GET LAID, DIRTY PRETTY THINGS, the TV movie "The Deal"....

...Loomis, I offer the following in an entirely non-critical way, so no need for Tums or Painkillers. Your perdicament may be due to a two possibilities: First, that your interest in the genre has waned. Second, the direction the series has taken. Let's consider several possible layers that may account for your lack of interest:

1. Brosnan as an actor or personality. Is he as innately interesting an actor to watch as someone like Connery was?

2. PC Bond: Is the character written the way it was during the hey day? Connery's Bond was a bit of a sexist pig bastard. Today's Bond plays on that, but seldom draws on it. When the new M delivered the line about his being a sexist mysognist dinosaur -- the brass signaled that the character has changed. Is the character James Bond really that interesting as written today?

3. Given # 2, does it really make any difference who plays Bond so long as the character is written as it is today? Would Owen or Purefoy have any more fertile soil to till so long as the character is walking the PC straight and narrow? Put another way, would Brosnan be more appealing if the Bond of 2004 were to be written like that of 1964?

4. The sounds. Is the music of David Arnold as melodically memorable as someone like Barry -- who wrote melodies you'd exit a theater humming?

5. The women. The sight of Denise Richards cleavage does not accomplish what Terence Young managed so well -- to create sexual tension between two characters -- and manage to make it amusing.

6. The direction. There was more going on in Sean Connery's facial expressions alone during the Aston capture/escape scenes in GF than in almost any scene in a Brosnan film outside of the DAD fencing sequence. Is this Brosnan's fault or the directors?

7. The writing. Say what one will about Maibaum, but he had the advantage of imprinting upon and adapting the writings of Fleming, so the scripts had the underlying mindsight of Fleming -- and a screenwriter dialed into the original Bond concept -- rather than the faded carbon over several decades.

For you to have fun again, you need a director like Young who knew how to establish the mood, and create suspense, thrills, sensuality, sexuality and humor across these and other areas -- and get what he wanted with the actors, writers, etc. The current Bonds don't really make a play for Young's turf. You imprinted on Bonds that made more engaging plays for your attention than the pictures of today. Whereas 60s youth were dialed into Playboy and consumeristic sexuality -- today's kids are into the banal realm of 007 video games. The expectations are different -- and so are the products made to satiate those tastes. No wonder you are suffering from ennui...

Slaezenger

Edited by Slaezenger, 23 September 2004 - 03:54 AM.

[Slaezenger]

True James Bond starts and ends with DrNo. We (all too) briefly revisit 'properness' with the likes of FRWL, OHMSS and to some extent TLD.
If you really want hardcore Fleming Bond then you have no other options.

That's why I like the books.


Except Goldfinger.

...It would have been interesting if Broccoli & Saltzman had said "yes" to Feldman's overtures for Casino Royale with Sean Connery. Connery was willing to do it for a million & a cut of the gross as I recall (quote in Look mag?)...

I don't think you can draw the line at DN since Fleming reviewd the scripts for the next two and contributed bits. They were made under his nose...

[Slaezenger]

STOP taking Bond for granted... Because people are NOT going to show up much longer, based on a COOL poster and some happy memories..... just because they enjoyed a couple of Bond movies ten years ago!!! isn't enough to support a franchise in todays market.

You know it. We know it... How much longer are you goung to keep chancing your hand?


You want my money!....Earn it!

...Do writers just go out and dream things up on their own for producers? Or do producers have a vision -- and do writers delivere what they are asked to deliver?

[Bon-san]

Just give me a Bond movie asap.

I don't need Shakespeare, or Kurosawa.

007, a few hot babes, and some nice action set pieces will sate me. Then when the dvd comes out, I can scrutinize and analyze. Then in 20 years, when there's some proper perspective, I can philosophize about it's place in the pantheon.

For now though, I really just want a Bond fix.

[Genrewriter]

News, rumours, news, rumours....



I think I've posted in about every Bond 21 thread since February.

I've made my points - The who, when, how, what stuff...

I know what I want.

Bond 21.

Until there's an official announcement of something tangible and confirmed (AP, UPI, THR, IMDB, EON, CSI....) it's just getting crazy and this constant "Flavour of the week for the new Bond" crap....I'm done.

Not with CBn (too much fun in other forum topics), but echoing many of the posts above, until Eon comes out swinging and announcing something real, I don't bloody care if the Olsen twins are in talks to be the next Bond until I hear it from Sony or the family.

I'm keeping my own channels open, but Eon needs to make some sort of statement before Nov. 18th 2004 - They did it with a half-page in Variety on Nov. 22nd 2001 - 1 years notice for the 40th anniversary Bond....

Given all this fuss, they need to do the same again.

*pours Guinness*

Well put, 003. We seem to be of a similar mindset as far as this subject goes.

Cool!

[Loomis]

[quote]
1. Brosnan as an actor or personality. Is he as innately interesting an actor to watch as someone like Connery was?
[/quote]

No. However, this probably isn't entirely his fault. Many Bond fans have commented that his performances in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR and THE TAILOR OF PANAMA are far closer to what they want for the 007 films than are his performances in the 007 films themselves - darker, more interesting, more stylish, sexier and, well, more Bondian. I'd agree with this. Perhaps Brosnan's Bond is to a large extent let down by the material, and by the producers.

[quote]
2. PC Bond: Is the character written the way it was during the hey day?
[/quote]

No.

[quote]
Connery's Bond was a bit of a sexist pig bastard. Today's Bond plays on that, but seldom draws on it. When the new M delivered the line about his being a sexist mysognist dinosaur -- the brass signaled that the character has changed.
[/quote]

I think that what it was meant to signal - well, what it should have signalled, IMO - was that the world had changed, not Bond. It's a pity they saw fit to change the character too, though.

[quote]
Is the character James Bond really that interesting as written today?
[/quote]

No. Then again, Brosnan has tried his best and has occasionally set the screen on fire (see GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY). But the answer to the question remains "no".

[quote]
3. Given # 2, does it really make any difference who plays Bond so long as the character is written as it is today?
[/quote]

No.

[quote]
Would Owen or Purefoy have any more fertile soil to till so long as the character is walking the PC straight and narrow?
[/quote]

No.

[quote]
Put another way, would Brosnan be more appealing if the Bond of 2004 were to be written like that of 1964?
[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]
Is the music of David Arnold as melodically memorable as someone like Barry -- who wrote melodies you'd exit a theater humming?
[/quote]

No. Arnold is the Raymond Benson to Barry's Ian Fleming - good, but not the Master. At least Eric Serra gave us something new (new for the series, anyway).

[quote]
The sight of Denise Richards cleavage does not accomplish what Terence Young managed so well -- to create sexual tension between two characters -- and manage to make it amusing.
[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]
There was more going on in Sean Connery's facial expressions alone during the Aston capture/escape scenes in GF than in almost any scene in a Brosnan film outside of the DAD fencing sequence. Is this Brosnan's fault or the directors?
[/quote]

Neither, IMO - it's the producers' fault. They hire talented directors, but they keep them on a very short leash and won't allow them to take many risks.

[quote]
Say what one will about Maibaum, but he had the advantage of imprinting upon and adapting the writings of Fleming, so the scripts had the underlying mindsight of Fleming -- and a screenwriter dialed into the original Bond concept -- rather than the faded carbon over several decades.
[/quote]

Yes, but Maibaum still had to come up with a lot of original material, and more often than not he managed to make it fairly fresh and interesting, and reasonably intelligent. Looking at today's Bond flicks, one wonders whether the writers are actively trying to write badly. Is it a Mel Brooks PRODUCERS-type deal? Are they hoping for a bomb in order to cash in?

[quote]
For you to have fun again, you need a director like Young who knew how to establish the mood, and create suspense, thrills, sensuality, sexuality and humor across these and other areas -- and get what he wanted with the actors, writers, etc. The current Bonds don't really make a play for Young's turf. You imprinted on Bonds that made more engaging plays for your attention than the pictures of today. Whereas 60s youth were dialed into Playboy and consumeristic sexuality -- today's kids are into the banal realm of 007 video games. The expectations are different -- and so are the products made to satiate those tastes. No wonder you are suffering from ennui...

[Loomis]

Just give me a Bond movie asap.

I don't need Shakespeare, or Kurosawa.

007, a few hot babes, and some nice action set pieces will sate me.  Then when the dvd comes out, I can scrutinize and analyze.  Then in 20 years, when there's some proper perspective, I can philosophize about it's place in the pantheon. 

For now though, I really just want a Bond fix. 

So any old rubbish will do, then, just as long as it features James Bond and is delivered ASAP? You're surely not saying that.... are you?

You just want "007, a few hot babes, and some nice action set pieces" in November 2005? You don't really care whether the film is superb, good, so-so or dire - all you want is some more "product" of some kind, opening with that famous gunbarrel animation?

[Bon-san]

No rubbish wanted, nor expected. All my trips to the cinema to see James Bond, have been rewarding experiences (even AVTAK). I've enjoyed some films more than others, of course. And I certainly have my pet 007 predilections, which are often not in line with what the films present, but I remain a very satisfied Bond customer. The films are often flawed, but my 007 appetite gets sated every time.

And I'm hungry.

I have faith that the production team will offer me up a tasty feast.

For what it's worth, I'd like to see Brosnan in a Casino Royale that's both faithful to the source material, and embellished to provide additional thrills. I was a big fan of the Tarantino idea. But I'd be very pleased to hear Martin Campbell was helming.

I'd also be quite happy to hear that Owen was starring.

Or Jackman.

Or Butler.

Just give me some Bond, baby! ASAP.

[Slaezenger]

Connery's Bond was a bit of a sexist pig bastard. Today's Bond plays on that, but seldom draws on it. When the new M delivered the line about his being a sexist mysognist dinosaur -- the brass signaled that the character has changed.

I think that what it was meant to signal - well, what it should have signalled, IMO - was that the world had changed, not Bond. It's a pity they saw fit to change the character too, though.

...I agree Loomis. The character has changed as it has passed from actor to actor. By the time Brosnan arrived, they dissed the Connery-era character, branding it a "dinosaur" and subjecting Bond to a guilt trip at the hands of his woman. This is a far cry from Young's self-confident "Superman" who used to dismiss similar efforts with off handed one-liners. So how are you supposed to have "fun" with a Bond wracked with agita and guilt? The context of Bond and women should remain a function of his job: they serve his mission -- some jollies along the way -- and no more -- until the job is over & he isn't "on company time." Brosnan-era women have been too cold, remote, angry, -- and lately so much his equal that no tension is created. No interest, no passion -- and no fun.

Do the producers have the vision necessary to restore what's been lost? Do they really want to? They don't seem to know what to really do with him. I agree with you: bring on the Thomas Crown Bond. I would only add to that: resurrect the sensibilities of Terence Young. Bond can't be fun if he isn't interesting again. The character needs to be conceived, written and directed that way.

Edited by Slaezenger, 24 September 2004 - 04:36 AM.