140 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

Reminds me more of Nosferatu, with those strange ears of his.

[MattofSteel]

You can't believe in hollowed out volcanos, but you can believe in MI6 agents with personal vendettas.

To be honest, if they had something along the lines of a secret base inside a volcano in this film or the next Craig film I'd probably love every minute of it. It would be amazing larger-than-life 007 but with the superb style, darkness and quality of the DC Bond (with Paul Haggis on the script).

If I had to predict the next 'revolution' in the series, it would be as such.

Campbell's GoldenEye proved something about Bond films. Something I believe very firmly: those elements, however fantastical, WORK as long as the context they're presented in remains true to life, with a certain sense of realism. The problem with films like DAD is that elements such as an Ice Palace and giant space laser, as cool as they may be, are almost rendered with a hint of comic depiction. If you maintain the reality, the grittiness, the seriousness, and the class, you can play with those elements in an entertaining and yet believable way.

That, I believe, is the key to why Fleming's novels are so damned entertaining - and why a movie like Goldfinger is consistently ranked amongst the highest rated Bond films.

[DamnCoffee]

You can't believe in hollowed out volcanos, but you can believe in MI6 agents with personal vendettas.

To be honest, if they had something along the lines of a secret base inside a volcano in this film or the next Craig film I'd probably love every minute of it. It would be amazing larger-than-life 007 but with the superb style, darkness and quality of the DC Bond (with Paul Haggis on the script).

If I had to predict the next 'revolution' in the series, it would be as such.

Campbell's GoldenEye proved something about Bond films. Something I believe very firmly: those elements, however fantastical, WORK as long as the context they're presented in remains true to life, with a certain sense of realism. The problem with films like DAD is that elements such as an Ice Palace and giant space laser, as cool as they may be, are almost rendered with a hint of comic depiction. If you maintain the reality, the grittiness, the seriousness, and the class, you can play with those elements in an entertaining and yet believable way.

That, I believe, is the key to why Fleming's novels are so damned entertaining - and why a movie like Goldfinger is consistently ranked amongst the highest rated Bond films.

Well Said

[SilencedPPK]

Watching this 'behind the scenes' footage made me long for November. Clips and photos from QoS make it harder to wait... especially since it's only February.

[Daddy Bond]

Nice to see him this way. I love seeing clips like the shot of him getting out of a car with smoking tires, just laughing. Hard not to share his enthusiasm.

All this bodes well for the quality of QoS.

Noticed that as well. While it still seems like this one is going to be yet another hell of a shoot for him, he seems to be enjoying every bit of it (for as much as one can judge by viewing these videos).

Agreed. Despite some continued retractors, Craig has shown himself to be one of the best actors to portray Bond ever - some would say the best - and CR was a hit, both critically and commercially. While I'm sure there is some pressure to at least match CR's quality, he must be much more relaxed. No more, "Well, he's a blond-haired, blue-eyed wimp for wearing a lifevest, getting his teeth knocked out and not driving a stick" junk (from most people anyway).

[MattofSteel]

Oddball question: Craig's suit in the honeymoon suite entrance (w/ Arterton).

It seems to be a dark grey suit, not quite charcoal. Do we have an existing promo pic of him in the suit that's of higher quality? I'm talking about the one he's wearing when he enters beside Arterton and tosses the keys.

[VisualStatic]

You can't believe in hollowed out volcanos, but you can believe in MI6 agents with personal vendettas.

To be honest, if they had something along the lines of a secret base inside a volcano in this film or the next Craig film I'd probably love every minute of it. It would be amazing larger-than-life 007 but with the superb style, darkness and quality of the DC Bond (with Paul Haggis on the script).

If I had to predict the next 'revolution' in the series, it would be as such.

Campbell's GoldenEye proved something about Bond films. Something I believe very firmly: those elements, however fantastical, WORK as long as the context they're presented in remains true to life, with a certain sense of realism. The problem with films like DAD is that elements such as an Ice Palace and giant space laser, as cool as they may be, are almost rendered with a hint of comic depiction. If you maintain the reality, the grittiness, the seriousness, and the class, you can play with those elements in an entertaining and yet believable way.

That, I believe, is the key to why Fleming's novels are so damned entertaining - and why a movie like Goldfinger is consistently ranked amongst the highest rated Bond films.

Although the space laser made me cringe along with the ending, the Ice Palace is actually based on some reality. I know I'll have to problem dig something up, but I remember hearing of a hotel made of ice that you could stay at, I believe I saw it on a travel show here in the states at one point. Thus giving the palace more realism then the laser or cars personally.

However, back to the clip. I'm not sure if its the music in it, but I got goosebumps...

I can't wait.

[Vauxhall]

Although the space laser made me cringe along with the ending, the Ice Palace is actually based on some reality. I know I'll have to problem dig something up, but I remember hearing of a hotel made of ice that you could stay at, I believe I saw it on a travel show here in the states at one point. Thus giving the palace more realism then the laser or cars personally.

I believe the concept of the ice palace in DIE ANOTHER DAY was loosely derived from the Ice Hotel in Jukkasj

[MattofSteel]

You're right, it was very real. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the presentation of the material, rather than the material itself.

The example was more the laser than the Ice Palace. I loved the design of the palace, it's just that the whole "air" of the film gave it such a sci-fi, almost Star Trek kind of vibe. Countered with something like GoldenEye, wherein similarly fantastic elements (Cuban Control Centre, for example) are treated with a real-world verisimilitude that is remembered as being cool.

[Jack Spang]

"Producer Michael G. Wilson reinforced comments made at the press conference that this film will feature more action that the previous uting, "In the last film, Daniel was amazing in the action work and this film has more than doubled it. There's a lot of different action sequences. He's had to do a lot more extensive training than he did in the last film".

I'll never understand Eon. Why don't they just hire Steven Seagal to play Bond? I'm sure it'll have a load of action. The action junkies are the most important section of the market to Eon. Atleast I know not to get my hopes up.

Edited by Jack Spang, 09 February 2008 - 03:49 PM.

[Leon]

"Producer Michael G. Wilson reinforced comments made at the press conference that this film will feature more action that the previous uting, "In the last film, Daniel was amazing in the action work and this film has more than doubled it. There's a lot of different action sequences. He's had to do a lot more extensive training than he did in the last film".

I'll never understand Eon. Why don't they just hire Steven Seagal to play Bond? I'm sure it'll have a load of action. The action junkies are the most important section of the market to Eon. Atleast I know not to get my hopes up.

Hmmm

I've not bothered saying anything because you just get shut-up, but this does have me concerned too. Casino Royale did have a fair chunk of action. The big free-running chase sequence, the over-the-top airport fiasco (that took aaages to conclude and I usually skip on my DVD) a number of fist fights and the rather average hullaballoo at the end in Venice.

Sure it wasn't as much as many other Bond films, as has been said so often, but it also was pretty poor quality action save for the smaller hand to hand fights.

Let's do the maths:

2 x free running sequence
2 x airport fiasco
2 x Venice hullaballoo
2 x fist fights and smaller bits of action

+ more

- 15 minutes of the overall running time

= a truckload of action and few quieter scenes of intruigue, which is what DC was best at and is what Paul Haggis is best at writing. The writing of the really big action pieces was not great.

[baerrtt]

"Producer Michael G. Wilson reinforced comments made at the press conference that this film will feature more action that the previous uting, "In the last film, Daniel was amazing in the action work and this film has more than doubled it. There's a lot of different action sequences. He's had to do a lot more extensive training than he did in the last film".

I'll never understand Eon. Why don't they just hire Steven Seagal to play Bond? I'm sure it'll have a load of action. The action junkies are the most important section of the market to Eon. Atleast I know not to get my hopes up.

But all the Bond Movies have been action films, from DN to CR. Unless you're being sarcastic that's like Star Trek fans going off on one because they hear the new film will have twice as much science fiction as the last one. Besides with Forster and co I'm not worried.

[Jack Spang]

I loath the Brosnan flicks (GE is just passable I guess) that have a fair bit more action than the the others. The other Bond films I love. I enjoy watching action but for me the overall film is ruined if there is way to much of it like in the ghastly Brosnan era.

[Jack Spang]

Oh, I say GE is passable because the dialogue isn't bad in general like in the following three outings. However, GE still had to much action.

Lots of little action scenes in QOS would be okay as long as the total screen time doesn't exceed CR. I felt the Miami airport sequence went on for to long and the action that took place inside the sinking building in the Venice finale was rather dull in my opinion. CR had one to many action scenes though. I only say this because they made a genuine attempt at character movement in CR but there wasn't quite enough of it. The other films never made this attempt so I didn't mind as much. I don't call TWINE's attempt any kind of genuine effort at all.

The third Bourne installment is my least favourite because it had too much action. The first two films were great.

[Harmsway]

I loath the Brosnan flicks (GE is just passable I guess) that have a fair bit more action than the the others.

On paper, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY still has more action sequences than any of the Brosnan films (and actually, it's exactly "twice the action sequences" of CASINO ROYALE).

[Harmsway]

Sure it wasn't as much as many other Bond films, as has been said so often, but it also was pretty poor quality action save for the smaller hand to hand fights.

I think the action in CASINO ROYALE runs circles around most entries in the franchise. I'll agree that, in a few places, the scenes either go a bit OTT or overlong, but they're still rather well-put-together with lots of great cinematography and great stuntwork.

[tdalton]

Sure it wasn't as much as many other Bond films, as has been said so often, but it also was pretty poor quality action save for the smaller hand to hand fights.

I think the action in CASINO ROYALE runs circles around most entries in the franchise. I'll agree that, in a few places, the scenes either go a bit OTT or overlong, but they're still rather well-put-together with lots of great cinematography and great stuntwork.

I think that, at least for me, the reason that the action in the past five films don't work is that they feel out of place in their respective films. Most of the films, from the beginning up through LTK, the action, for the most part, felt like it fit in rather well with the film. From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark (in the Brosnan films), and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

Hopefully QoS does not have this kind of problem. More scenes like the stairwell fight in CR would be most welcome, but more scenes like the free-running or airport sequence would not, IMO.

Edited by tdalton, 09 February 2008 - 05:48 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that, at least for me, the reason that the action in the past five films don't work is that they feel out of place in their respective films. From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark, and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

Erm... Casino Royale's action sequences had no glib remarks.

[tdalton]

I think that, at least for me, the reason that the action in the past five films don't work is that they feel out of place in their respective films. From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark, and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

Erm... Casino Royale's action sequences had no glib remarks.

I was referring more to Brosnan's films with that particular remark. The rest, though, I think does apply to Casino Royale.

[Harmsway]

Most of the films, from the beginning up through LTK, the action, for the most part, felt like it fit in rather well with the film.

Well, yes, during the Brosnan era the action sequences didn't ever feel of an organic whole with the film. But we've had plenty of shoved-in-there-for-the-sake-of-it action sequences throughout Bond history, and they all feel as awkward and inappropriate as anything from the Brosnan era. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is chock full of such sequences.

From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark, and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

I agree on the Brosnan films, to an extent, but not on CASINO ROYALE... I feel in that film, the action scenes definitely feel like they belong and are part of a more coherent whole.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that, at least for me, the reason that the action in the past five films don't work is that they feel out of place in their respective films. From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark, and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

Erm... Casino Royale's action sequences had no glib remarks.

I was referring more to Brosnan's films with that particular remark. The rest, though, I think does apply to Casino Royale.

Well, the construction site chase does pertain to the story, as Bond needs to get that bomb-maker at any cost; the airplane scene was set up with that call to Le Chiffre's banker and resulted in another link in the chain being eliminated; the Venice apartment scene was set up to show a cold-blooded Bond in action, racing against time to retrieve the suitcase, flatten the villains, and either get revenge on/save Vesper.

The final sequence... well, you know the rest.

[tdalton]

From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark, and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

I agree on the Brosnan films, to an extent, but not on CASINO ROYALE... I feel in that film, the action scenes definitely feel like they belong and are part of a more coherent whole.

I'd be all in favor of tweaking the free-running sequence. Have Bond catch up to him before they both climb up the crane, and everything would have been OK. Once they reach the top of the crane, it enters Brosnan Era territory, and it does, IMO, become immediately over the top the moment that Bond jumps onto the cargo that the crane has suspended in the air. But, as the entire sequence stands, it does not fit in with the supposed "realistic" theme that they were going for.

As far as the Miami sequence, it's just way too long. Cut half of it out, and it's a passable action sequence.

[baerrtt]

Sure it wasn't as much as many other Bond films, as has been said so often, but it also was pretty poor quality action save for the smaller hand to hand fights.

I think the action in CASINO ROYALE runs circles around most entries in the franchise. I'll agree that, in a few places, the scenes either go a bit OTT or overlong, but they're still rather well-put-together with lots of great cinematography and great stuntwork.

I think that, at least for me, the reason that the action in the past five films don't work is that they feel out of place in their respective films. Most of the films, from the beginning up through LTK, the action, for the most part, felt like it fit in rather well with the film. From GE on, however, it feels as though things are always building up towards some big action set piece, which then happens and goes on forever (and feels completely separate from the film, IMO), and then ends with Bond making some glib remark, and then it's time to return to the actual storyline of the film.

Hopefully QoS does not have this kind of problem. More scenes like the stairwell fight in CR would be most welcome, but more scenes like the free-running or airport sequence would not, IMO.

Isn't the airport sequence (or it's resolution) derived partially from the novel (sorry if i'm wrong)? Besides Bond sking on water in LTK or escaping from the police with the gadget laden Aston Martin and the cello from the police in TLD are quite frankly more out of place than anything in CR. I appreciate your opinion but the main difference from CR to the Bronsnan films (GE possibly aside) is that the action,imo, is thriling and and the producers understand that after 40 years the general public have expectations of big action sequences. Besides I must have missed the scenes in CR where Bond makes a glib remark after the airport/free-running sequences (I'm mentioning this because you've just grouped CR with the Brosnans in your criticism).

Just because the Brosnan era overdosed on the action stuff without any tension or pace doesn't mean (to my eyes) that the action in the Craig era is the same. I could argue that every single action scene in every single Bond film has been there as a showpiece and not a natural, realistic part of the narrative.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'd be all in favor of tweaking the free-running sequence. Have Bond catch up to him before they both climb up the crane, and everything would have been OK. Once they reach the top of the crane, it enters Brosnan Era territory, and it does, IMO, become immediately over the top the moment that Bond jumps onto the cargo that the crane has suspended in the air.

So, you'd've cut the crane portion of the fight? Interesting...

As far as the Miami sequence, it's just way too long. Cut half of it out, and it's a passable action sequence.

What portion of it? I'd like to hear your ideas.

[Matt_13]

I get where he's coming from, a lot of the more recent films seem to have a sort of cue, such as a phrase or music note that lets us know that an action sequence is beginning (such as that rediculous caviar factory sequence in TWINE which has barely any purpose to the plot, and still could have been handled differently). I think that if the action flows with the plot (such as the scenes in FYEO and the stairwell fight in CR) they will come across better and will make more sense in terms of story, rather than just going "well it's about time for an action scene" and throwing it in there. I don't mind the OTT action so long as its moderatley down to earth and makes sense for the plot.

[tdalton]

I get where he's coming from, a lot of the more recent films seem to have a sort of cue, such as a phrase or music note that lets us know that an action sequence is beginning (such as that rediculous caviar factory sequence in TWINE which has barely any purpose to the plot, and still could have been handled differently). I think that if the action flows with the plot (such as the scenes in FYEO and the stairwell fight in CR) they will come across better and will make more sense in terms of story, rather than just going "well it's about time for an action scene" and throwing it in there. I don't mind the OTT action so long as its moderatley down to earth and makes sense for the plot.

Exactly. This is the point that I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to make. As you say, there's always some cue that says "drop everything, we're going into an action sequence", whether it be ominous music that begins to play, or something like that. Actually, a lot of recent action sequences could be made slightly better if there wasn't music blaring over every aspect of it. Sometimes the best way to score a film is to just let the sound effects do their work.

Although I'd still cut the crane sequence out of the free-running scene, imagine how cool it would have been to have Bond just take off after Mollaka without the music blaring so loud that it's distracting.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Although I'd still cut the crane sequence out of the free-running scene, imagine how cool it would have been to have Bond just take off after Mollaka without the music blaring so loud that it's distracting.

As for the Miami sequence, what would you cut out of it?

[tdalton]

Although I'd still cut the crane sequence out of the free-running scene, imagine how cool it would have been to have Bond just take off after Mollaka without the music blaring so loud that it's distracting.

As for the Miami sequence, what would you cut out of it?

I'd just trim a lot of it out. Exactly which shots I'd cut, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm watching the film at some point today, so I'll revisit this when I've seen the film again.

[Jackanaples]

"Producer Michael G. Wilson reinforced comments made at the press conference that this film will feature more action that the previous uting, "In the last film, Daniel was amazing in the action work and this film has more than doubled it. There's a lot of different action sequences. He's had to do a lot more extensive training than he did in the last film".

I'll never understand Eon. Why don't they just hire Steven Seagal to play Bond? I'm sure it'll have a load of action. The action junkies are the most important section of the market to Eon. Atleast I know not to get my hopes up.

But all the Bond movies have been action films, from DN to CR. Unless you're being sarcastic that's like Star Trek fans going off on one because they hear the new film will have twice as much science fiction as the last one. Besides with Forster and co I'm not worried.

Agreed. The Bond movies (even those of 1960s) have always been action films. Having action in a film doesn't immediately dumb it down any more than dialogue is the hallmark of intelligence. It all has to do with the emotional content of the scene, it's context in the story, and the consequences of the action.

I guess when some watch CR's free running sequence it all looks like so much mindless action to them; "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". I see a smart sequence that perfectly depicts Bond's personality and character through action. It's showing, not telling.

At the beginning of CR we are in a sense meeting Bond again for the very first time. Bond's objective is to capture Mollakka, an opponent with a skill set that hopelessly outclasses him. We're repeatedly shown Bond's iron determination to win, his temper, and his resourcefulness and ability to improvise on the spot. At the end of it we see his impulsiveness toward the occasional rash decision when he storms a foreign embassy and shoots Mollakka in full view rather than letting him get away.

I think all the action in CR is like that. It has consequences, it's used for more than just something exciting to look at as has been the case in most previous Bond movies. Here Bond is a killer and he pays a physical, mental, and emotional price for that. But he also takes more pleasure in the victory of cheating death one more time than I've seen previously.

When Wilson says "QOS has twice as much action as the last movie" what he's really saying is "QOS has twice as much violence and danger for Bond as the last movie". He doesn't say violence because that word's an emotional hot button for most people who certainly like violence in their movies thank you very much but don't like to think they're that sort of moviegoer.

In QOS we know Bond is moving up the food chain on this secret organization he's trying to destroy. He's getting ever closer to finding the individual or individuals behind it. They are not going to just go have a nice lie down and forget it. They're going to put the pressure on and step up their efforts to kill him. It only makes perfect sense. So in that case bring on the action I say.

Edited by Jackanaples, 09 February 2008 - 06:30 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

I think the crux of the issue here is that an action film these days is a very different animal to an action film made a quarter of a century ago.

Perhaps something like For Your Eyes Only does have twice as much action as Casino Royale. But the action in that film is relatively light, compared to the high-octane, in-yer-face, action we're seeing nowadays (with an accompanying soundtrack blasting out at ten million decibels). As a result, the action in something like Casino Royale feels a lot more overpowering than the type of action we saw in the older films. Even if there is less of it. Doubling that type of action could be too much. Which is obviously what's concerning some people.

But I wouldn't make any judgements about this film just yet. Not on the basis of a couple of behind-the-scenes clips, and some off-the-cuff comments, anyway.