63 replies to this topic

[Jackanaples]

While I haven't read the script, I have read enough of CM007's posts regarding CASINO ROYALE, the casting of Daniel Craig, etc. to know that he and I have a markedly different take on what James Bond should be. He says he doesn't like the new script? It has too much action in it? They haven't done anything new with Bond like they threatened to?

AWESOME. These were all complaints he had about CR. Which means that come November, he'll have another one he doesn't like... and I'll have one more that I love.

It's only fair. Thirty-six years is a long time to wait for James Bond to be cool again.

I should point out that if Harmsway gets a read of the script and hates it I will start to really worry.

Edited by Jackanaples, 02 February 2008 - 06:09 AM.

[Harmsway]

If the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is as over-the-top as scenes like the free-running sequence, then it's not going to sit very well with me.

It might be, it might not be. Forster's indicated that it's a bit more down-to-earth, and so did the stuntman. We'll see, though.

Regardless, a QoS with a lot of action doesn't phase me so much. What will matter is how well the action fits with the story. It could ultimately be a very organic fit, or it could be an awkward pastiche of scenes. I'm going to bet it's closer to the former with Forster involved.

[tdalton]

If the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is as over-the-top as scenes like the free-running sequence, then it's not going to sit very well with me.

It might be, it might not be. Forster's indicated that it's a bit more down-to-earth, and so did the stuntman. We'll see, though.

We'll see how it turns out, but all the news regarding QUANTUM OF SOLACE hasn't been confidence inspiring. I was very happy with the cast when it was officially announced, but as the cast members continue to reveal more and more "secrets" about the film, the worse and worse it sounds. Amalric is the only one that really has anything to say that makes it sound as though the film may be any good. He says the film is going to be very dark, which is great. The rest of them, I can't say I'm too happy about what they're saying. The film having twice as much action as CR (until they prove this statement false I have to go by it) is a very troubling statement, and many things that we're hearing doesn't do much to disprove that idea. Also, much of what the rest of the cast has been saying about the film doesn't inspire much confidence.

I think that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is going to be the crossroad movie for the Bond franchise. If they continue on with "action-hero" Bond despite the presence of the dream team of Haggis, Forster, Craig, Amalric, Dench, etc., then there will really be no way to bring the Bond character back from being nothing more than just another average action-adventure hero. Hopefully the production team is leading us very much astray from what the film is really going to be, because what they're telling us so far doesn't sound so good.

[Mavalant]

Will we go back to have the classic bond opening of the gunbarrel befor the this sequence

[Harmsway]

The film having twice as much action as CR (until they prove this statement false I have to go by it) is a very troubling statement, and many things that we're hearing doesn't do much to disprove that idea.

To be fair, the actual statement was "there's probably twice as many action sequences." And, for another point of comparison, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (a film that I'm under the impression you love) features twice as many action sequences as CASINO ROYALE does.

In my mind, the number of action sequences is largely irrelevant. It depends on the quality of the action and how well that action arises out of the story, and that's something I can imagine Forster having a good grasp on.

Also, much of what the rest of the cast has been saying about the film doesn't inspire much confidence.

I've been quite happy with their comments across the board.

If they continue on with "action-hero" Bond despite the presence of the dream team of Haggis, Forster, Craig, Amalric, Dench, etc., then there will really be no way to bring the Bond character back from being nothing more than just another average action-adventure hero.

Well, Bond isn't going to stop being an action hero, despite some new attention to character. If you're looking for that, I'm very certain you'll be disappointed with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Frankly, that doesn't bother me. At the moment, Daniel Craig's Bond is the best action hero around.

[tdalton]

If they continue on with "action-hero" Bond despite the presence of the dream team of Haggis, Forster, Craig, Amalric, Dench, etc., then there will really be no way to bring the Bond character back from being nothing more than just another average action-adventure hero.

Well, Bond isn't going to stop being an action hero, despite some new attention to character. If you're looking for that, I'm very certain you'll be disappointed with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Frankly, that doesn't bother me. At the moment, Daniel Craig's Bond is the best action hero around.

Well, Bond doesn't have to stop being an action-hero completely. He's always been that, but as of the last 5 films, he's become more of a John McClane type of action hero (for the record, I like the DIE HARD films) rather than being James Bond. I am quite certain, as you say, that I'm going to be very disappointed with QUANTUM OF SOLACE. CASINO ROYALE wasn't very good (although I credit that just as much to the overload on action as I do to the way the storyline of the novel was poorly adapted), and having more action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not a good move, IMO. I just don't understand the rationale of bringing on a director like Marc Forster to helm a wall to wall action film. If Forster is to be brought aboard, then I would think that the film should reflect his talents as a filmmaker, which is great character-driven work where acting takes the center stage. When Bond is just running, jumping, diving, swimming, (or whatever else), there's little room for that, and the film runs the risk of the second unit director really becoming the director of the film.

[Harmsway]

EDIT

[Harmsway]

CASINO ROYALE wasn't very good (although I credit that just as much to the overload on action as I do to the way the storyline of the novel was poorly adapted), and having more action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not a good move, IMO.

CASINO ROYALE had less action than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (which is one Bond film that actually does have "twice as many action sequences as CASINO ROYALE). So I don't get how that film is particularly action driven in a way that the rest of the series isn't.

I just don't understand the rationale of bringing on a director like Marc Forster to helm a wall to wall action film.

Again, Forster shaped this film into what he wanted it to be. He wanted action in his Bond film, so there's action.

If Forster is to be brought aboard, then I would think that the film should reflect his talents as a filmmaker, which is great character-driven work where acting takes the center stage.

Well, apparently he's brought that to the film. The cast has praised his ability to capture performances and bring out the characters.

Even Wilson, after making his "There's probably twice as many action sequences" comment in response to the reporter's question then made the point that the important thing about QoS isn't about what's been done with the action - it's what's been done with the characters and the story, which then makes the action worthwhile.

Is it possible QoS will have overdosed on the action and that the characters/story won't be sufficiently in place? You betcha. But it seems far too early to make that judgment call, and I don't see any real reason to start calling that into question. I haven't read the script (yet... I hope to at some point), and I haven't seen the film.

[tdalton]

If Forster is to be brought aboard, then I would think that the film should reflect his talents as a filmmaker, which is great character-driven work where acting takes the center stage.

Well, apparently he's brought that to the film. The cast has praised his ability to capture performances and bring out the characters.

We'll see. I don't really trust any praise of anyone that occurs during the shooting of a film because no matter how good or bad the filming is going, people are going to be patting each other on the back because they don't want bad press for the film.

If things continue to head down the CASINO ROYALE-route of film making, then QUANTUM OF SOLACE may very well be my last Bond film. I was very much in favor of the casting of Craig and the direction they were taking the films with the reboot because it looked like things were finally headed in the right direction, but all that we got was a Bond film like the previous four that EON wanted us to now take seriously because they finally had a serious and very well respected actor in the role. Other than that, there has been no significant change in the films. Hopefully QUANTUM OF SOLACE brings on these changes, but I'm not expecting it to.

[JP007]

While I haven't read the script, I have read enough of CM007's posts regarding CASINO ROYALE, the casting of Daniel Craig, etc. to know that he and I have a markedly different take on what James Bond should be. He says he doesn't like the new script? It has too much action in it? They haven't done anything new with Bond like they threatened to?

AWESOME. These were all complaints he had about CR. Which means that come November, he'll have another one he doesn't like... and I'll have one more that I love.

It's only fair. Thirty-six years is a long time to wait for James Bond to be cool again.

I should point out that if Harmsway gets a read of the script and hates it I will start to really worry.

I hear ya And if Harmsway does get a hold of the script an likes it I

Edited by JP007, 02 February 2008 - 12:40 PM.

[Loomis]

At first glance, it appears highly unlikely that a Bond film crafted chiefly (or so it would seem) by Paul Haggis and Marc Forster should be an out-and-out actionfest and little else.... but then that description certainly applies to one of the most critically acclaimed releases of last year, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, which was the product of critics' darlings such as Paul Greengrass and Tom Stoppard. However, ULTIMATUM has enough interesting character work and enough good performances (well, apart from Albert Finney hamming it up with an unconvincing accent) going on around the margins of the action to raise it above the level of braindead fare.

I'm sure that the same will be true of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.... although I confess that I'm not expecting a film as good as the masterpiece (sorry, tdalton ) that is CASINO ROYALE.

[JamesCraig]

Why are some complaining about the "more action"? Because it's a Bondmovie with Craig?

We haven't seen anything yet, and personally I have faith. They won't make another DAD or MR.

[Gri007]

The announcement of B22 being Quantum Of Solace I think is fantastic. I'm glad they have used a Fleming title.

How ever there are certain things that make me a little worried. The amount of action doesn't bother me, but if EON are trying to give the world a more realistic and down to earth Bond then, IMO I don't think a girl who Bond ends up with at the end of the movie should really be happening.

REALISTICALLY - Bond loved Vesper and said that he would quite his job for her. How more comitted or devoted can you be to say that. IF QoS is a follow to CR, then surely Bond should be greiving. He should be mourning. He should be focused on who is responsable for the organsation on who Vesper worked for. Surely if the love of your life had killed her self, you wouldn't go shagging girls left right and center several days later.

The story I'm pretty happy with apart from I can't stop myself from thinking TWINE Remake.

If the villian is after natural resources, why can't it be gas or water, instead of oil. We've already had oil. And how Mr Klienman handles the title seqeunces then the QOS (if it does have one) could well be similar to that of The World Is Not Enough.

Apart from that I have 100% faith in Haggis's polish. After watching Monsters Ball and Finding Neverland, I this Forster will do a good job.

[baerrtt]

The announcement of B22 being Quantum Of Solace I think is fantastic. I'm glad they have used a Fleming title.

How ever there are certain things that make me a little worried. The amount of action doesn't bother me, but if EON are trying to give the world a more realistic and down to earth Bond then, IMO I don't think a girl who Bond ends up with at the end of the movie should really be happening.

REALISTICALLY - Bond loved Vesper and said that he would quite his job for her. How more comitted or devoted can you be to say that. IF QoS is a follow to CR, then surely Bond should be greiving. He should be mourning. He should be focused on who is responsable for the organsation on who Vesper worked for. Surely if the love of your life had killed her self, you wouldn't go shagging girls left right and center several days later.

The story I'm pretty happy with apart from I can't stop myself from thinking TWINE Remake.

If the villian is after natural resources, why can't it be gas or water, instead of oil. We've already had oil. And how Mr Klienman handles the title seqeunces then the QOS (if it does have one) could well be similar to that of The World Is Not Enough.

Apart from that I have 100% faith in Haggis's polish. After watching Monsters Ball and Finding Neverland, I this Forster will do a good job.

Bond sleeping with girls left and right is a consequence of his job. Without love, the point that CR makes (and OHMSS) is that Bond is nothing more than a collection of vices and routine. Hopefully this will be dealt with in QOS.

Secondly oil is more relevant now than it was in 1999 when TWINE was made. Even if it screams TWINE remake we have creative talent that can likely produce a much more superior film than TWINE was.

[Sir James Moloney]

"Bond sleeping with girls left and right is a consequence of his job. Without love, the point that CR makes (and OHMSS) is that Bond is nothing more than a collection of vices and routine. Hopefully this will be dealt with in QOS"

That is a very good, very valid assessment about Bond

[Harmsway]

How ever there are certain things that make me a little worried. The amount of action doesn't bother me, but if EON are trying to give the world a more realistic and down to earth Bond then, IMO I don't think a girl who Bond ends up with at the end of the movie should really be happening.

Why not? I can easily imagine Bond throwing himself into a bunch of meaningless physical relationships in order to forget Vesper.

IF QoS is a follow to CR, then surely Bond should be greiving.

He is. According to one of the official releases, Camille actually helps him deal with the aftermath of Vesper's death.

[Sir James Moloney]

How ever there are certain things that make me a little worried. The amount of action doesn't bother me, but if EON are trying to give the world a more realistic and down to earth Bond then, IMO I don't think a girl who Bond ends up with at the end of the movie should really be happening.

Why not? I can easily imagine Bond throwing himself into a bunch of meaningless physical relationships in order to forget Vesper.

IF QoS is a follow to CR, then surely Bond should be greiving.

He is. According to one of the official releases, Camille actually helps him deal with the aftermath of Vesper's death.

Exactly, there are many ways to grieve.

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 02 February 2008 - 11:42 PM.

[sharpshooter]

I think the PTS of QoS sounds brilliant. No worries from me.

[.0.0.7.]

I am glad this is being discussed!

Yes, there are many ways to grieve. The end of Casino Royale suggests -- with the calculated, sadistic kneecapping of Mr. White, and that smug look on DC's face -- that he is choosing to stuff the sadness far down, and move on to the good old-fashioned method of seeking resolution through violence. He is resolved, in Fleming's words, to find closure by finding "the hand that holds the whip." The most tragic part of Bond is that of course he may find & kill the bad guys, but his soul becomes even more bereft and cold in the process.

Regarding his use of women, it seems either for the purpose of consciously furthering his objectives (e.g. gathering information), or unconsciously re-enacting his failed attempt to save the most important people in his life (his parents, and Vesper). Sex is widely acknowledged to be a classic defense against the helplessness and terror of death.

I doubt we'll get a full session on the psychoanalyst's couch with Bond, but I hope at least some of this is addressed in QoS.

[Qwerty]

Will we go back to have the classic bond opening of the gunbarrel befor the this sequence

Hasn't been confirmed yet, but it seems several Bond fans on here are wishing that to be the case.

Welcome to the CBn Forums.

[sharpshooter]

I find it rather exciting that us, the Bond fans, are still unsure if the usual expected gunbarrel trademark is even going to open the film.

As for length of the PTS, yes, the short and sharp Casino Royale PTS was a welcome return. Although, the GoldenEye PTS for instance is quite long and one of the best. I wouldn't worry too much about runtime.

[kneelbeforezod]

The film almost has to be wall to wall action to fit in all the action sequences that we're hearing about. This PTS in and of itself seems like it's going to be full of action, and could rival TWINE for the longest PTS in the franchise. Also, if there's twice as many action sequences in QoS as there was in CR, with a running time that's supposedly going to be almost a half hour shorter than CR, then that takes away from the character exposition that I was really looking forward to. I've had my fill of the action hero Bond. I got that with the Brosnan films and Casino Royale. With the dream team of talent assembled for this film, I'm expecting something more than The World Is Not Enough: Part II.

It's disappointing that every time there appears to be some reason to believe that this film might actually turn out decent, information like this information about the PTS comes out and dashes those hopes.

Yup. What a shame. I too was hoping for a half decent film, but I now know that isn't going to happen. Another Brosnan style film. Who'd have thought it? Ah well, time to forget about this one and start thinking about Bond 23.

[kneelbeforezod]

While I haven't read the script, I have read enough of CM007's posts regarding CASINO ROYALE, the casting of Daniel Craig, etc. to know that he and I have a markedly different take on what James Bond should be. He says he doesn't like the new script? It has too much action in it? They haven't done anything new with Bond like they threatened to?

AWESOME. These were all complaints he had about CR. Which means that come November, he'll have another one he doesn't like... and I'll have one more that I love.

Indeed... I remember CM007 too I think... wasn't he the guy that claimed to have seen a very early screening of Casino Royale before everyone else here, but never revealed anything that couldn't have been worked out by any of us... and then said the film wasn't very good?

And now he's read what is presumably one of the most well guarded scripts in Hollywood has he? And... shock horror... it isn't very good?!

He's starting early this time round. I might as well be the first to say it:

BULL.

[dinovelvet]

While I haven't read the script, I have read enough of CM007's posts regarding CASINO ROYALE, the casting of Daniel Craig, etc. to know that he and I have a markedly different take on what James Bond should be. He says he doesn't like the new script? It has too much action in it? They haven't done anything new with Bond like they threatened to?

AWESOME. These were all complaints he had about CR. Which means that come November, he'll have another one he doesn't like... and I'll have one more that I love.

Indeed... I remember CM007 too I think... wasn't he the guy that claimed to have seen a very early screening of Casino Royale before everyone else here, but never revealed anything that couldn't have been worked out by any of us... and then said the film wasn't very good?

And now he's read what is presumably one of the most well guarded scripts in Hollywood has he? And... shock horror... it isn't very good?!

He's starting early this time round. I might as well be the first to say it:

BULL.

Yes, that sounds about right. If I'm remembering him right, he was moaning for months about how CR would flop and Craig would be terrible in it, then he saw the film early and said Craig was great. Then he claimed to have seen the film thirty times, and hated it. I know I always like to watch films I hate at least thirty times, just to make absolutely sure.

[Jackanaples]

Yes, that sounds about right. If I'm remembering him right, he was moaning for months about how CR would flop and Craig would be terrible in it, then he saw the film early and said Craig was great. Then he claimed to have seen the film thirty times, and hated it. I know I always like to watch films I hate at least thirty times, just to make absolutely sure.

He's the one. I took the time to go through his posts before making mine of the other day.

CM007 (and others, like Gravity's Silhouette, etc.) made all sorts of dire assessments and predictions about Daniel Craig, CR, the screenplay, etc. And as it turned out, they were wrong. And not merely wrong; astronomically, catastrophically, devastatingly wrong. We're talking a full-on Neville Chamberlain "I believe it is peace in our time" kind of wrong, if you get my meaning.

My point is this: For some people, maybe prediction just isn't their gig. I think the experience of having one's judgment prove to be so wide of the mark should give one pause and reconsider before entering the same situation again.

And if I can sound a little arrogant for a moment: Writing is a tricky thing. It's something that everyone thinks they understand, but in my experience very few really do. (It's why Dan Brown sells millions of copies for unreadable crap while most people have yet to hear of Joe R. Lansdale.)

With movie scripts that can be doubly true. In most there's no indication of how a line should be read or how a scene will be directed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it might have been Harmsway (a good judge of these things IMO) who said that when he first read the torture scene in the CR screenplay he was a little worried. Seeing how it played out on-screen, he was surprised and delighted at how it turned out.

Edited by Jackanaples, 03 February 2008 - 09:49 AM.

[Solex Agitator]

Let's look to optimism. If all of this supposed action is justified and drives the story in an organic way then bring it on. I cannot imagine that Forster and Craig would sign-off on a script that is filled with unjustified and by-the -clock action sequences ala TWINE. If this double the action promise of MGW is true (and I do feel that he was playing it up a bit as a salesman at the press conference) then perhaps it is organic in such a way that it is like dominoes tumbling one upon an another. Action begets action. Action and reaction...

[Jackanaples]

I agree. Even if there were less action, I'd expect a movie producer to say that there was more, more, MORE! One thing to point out though is that with fewer gadgets (or just the minor realistic ones that I expect in the Craig era films) the movies give Bond more "business" to perform i.e. sneaking into hotel security offices as in CR, etc. This could broadly be defined as "action" as well.

As good as I thought CR was (the best Bond movie since OHMSS), I think we have every reason to expect QOS to be even better. The problem with the series for decades is that it lacked creative direction or purpose. It was constantly running to catch up with whatever was popular at the moment.

The CR reboot has brought everything that people loved about Bond back into sharp focus and opened up a wealth of new possibilities. They're drawing A-List talent to work on the new films, and until proven otherwise --I'm certain it's not because they were dying to make a garden variety Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan type Bond movie.

Edited by Jackanaples, 03 February 2008 - 04:14 PM.

[Harmsway]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it might have been Harmsway (a good judge of these things IMO) who said that when he first read the torture scene in the CR screenplay he was a little worried. Seeing how it played out on-screen, he was surprised and delighted at how it turned out.

Yeah, that was me. I read some dialogue and knew it was questionable, but I also knew it was up to delivery (and thankfully, a few extra one-liners were cut out of the script, and one of the sillier lines from the torture sequence was gone by the time they filmed the scene). The torture scene dialogue was really dangerous. If it had been delivered by anyone who wasn't a great actor (Brosnan even), it would have fallen entirely flat.

Another area where script readers were a bit off was when they claimed that Le Chiffre was a vacant villain. I said there wasn't much given to the part in the script, but given a great performance, the character would be very compelling. Again, I think I was justified... Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is an excellent foe, full of vulnerability, desperation, and menace.

[Vauxhall]

Just to add to what Harmsway said, when I first read the CASINO ROYALE script there were some lines that immediately stood out to some of us as being particularly weak (or even silly). Despite some fantastic dialogue, there were some anomalies. Trying to think of some examples off the top of my head, these "problems" ceased to problematic by the time the movie was released.

The first example I would give is the fight between Mollaka and Bond at the top of the crane in Madagascar. There was initially a line (probably left over from Purvis and Wade) that Bond said "Learn to count" when Mollaka's gun failed to fire. By cutting this line, it ultimately made the scene more dramatic, not to mention realistic, in my opinion. There was also some fairly clunky dialogue cut just before Bond blasted away Mollaka at the embassy.

Secondly, one of the pieces of dialogue that I initially cringed at reading CASINO ROYALE was Bond's response to Solange querying "Why can't nice guys be more like you?", to which he replied "Because then they'd be... bad". On paper, it read as terribly cheesy, but Craig's delivery of the line saved it from being particularly poor. This was also the same case with the torture sequence previously alluded to.

Basically my point is that no matter what problems there may be in the shooting script for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, I'm confident that in this modern Bond era, editing or the strength of Craig's performance will hopefully iron out any problems with the dialogue.

[Matt_13]

BOURNE ULTIMATUM had many action scenes as well, but they all worked within the story. I'm sure everything will work perfectly.