625 replies to this topic

[MattofSteel]

Has it actually come to this? Dissecting the near-unanimous 'best Bond in years' and suggesting what they should have done in hindsight?

There is just no pleasing us fans! I think we desperately need movement on Bond 23, if for no other reason than the fact that we're turning on Casino Royale, the crown jewel of Bond films post-1964. With a possible exception in 1969.

[tdalton]

Has it actually come to this? Dissecting the near-unanimous 'best Bond in years' and suggesting what they should have done in hindsight?

There is just no pleasing us fans! I think we desperately need movement on Bond 23, if for no other reason than the fact that we're turning on Casino Royale, the crown jewel of Bond films post-1964. With a possible exception in 1969.

I'm not turning on Casino Royale. While I enjoy the film for what it is, I've long been opposed to some of the decisions that were made in the creative process of the film. For a film that was supposed to be a "reboot" of the franchise, they didn't go anywhere near far enough in rebooting the series, and opted at just about every turn (other than the casting of Craig) to go the safer route. If the changes that they had made to the novel had improved upon the novel, then I wouldn't have much of a problem with them. The changes that they made, however, are nothing more than typical mainstream Hollywood tactics that pale in comparison to what is on the page in the novel.

[The Shark]

Quite. As a great as a Casino Royale is, I personally prefer TLD, LTK and GE. And possibly with sole exception of LTK - even for their soundtracks alone.

Nobody is denouncing CR's rightfully deserved high status, but we should also be allowed to discuss its flaws. I still think, and hope, that there are better Craig Bond films to come.

[Zorin Industries]

In 2006 what else could a villain/s be involved with if not terrorism? Identity theft? Sex traffickers? Dodgy second hand car racket? It has to be villainous behaviour that translates instantly to everyone watching (terrorism is a global currency....sadly) and it has to serve the mechanics and expectations of a Bond film.

I think that the trafficking idea would have been a much more relevant topic, one that hadn't been covered over-and-over by mainstream Hollywood, and one that would have allowed the film to be much more faithful to the novel. We've seen the terrorism angle done over-and-over in films, be it Bond or otherwise, but we haven't seen anything on trafficking. In the novel, Le Chiffre's losing of money in his brothel business ventures could have been updated to be Le Chiffre being rather unsuccessful in the human trafficking trade. That would have been something we haven't seen in a Bond film before, would have been more faithful to the novel, and also would have had Bond actually paving the way in terms of going somewhere that mainstream Hollywood hasn't really ventured too many times, all while putting the spotlight on yet another world problem that doesn't get the attention that is needed to fight it.

Human trafficking has a very sad and harsh human consequence. These are James Bond films. They don't operate like that. Human trafficking is a big statement for a film to make. "Mainstream Hollywood" hasn't gone there for that very reason. And Bond films are not and never have been in the business of shedding light on global problems.

Watch EASTERN PROMISES. That is why Bond cannot go down the trafficking route as globally trafficking means sex workers / underage sex workers... and that is not the canvas of Bond.

[MattofSteel]

I'm not turning on Casino Royale. While I enjoy the film for what it is, I've long been opposed to some of the decisions that were made in the creative process of the film. For a film that was supposed to be a "reboot" of the franchise, they didn't go anywhere near far enough in rebooting the series, and opted at just about every turn (other than the casting of Craig) to go the safer route. If the changes that they had made to the novel had improved upon the novel, then I wouldn't have much of a problem with them. The changes that they made, however, are nothing more than typical mainstream Hollywood tactics that pale in comparison to what is on the page in the novel.

Quite. As a great as a Casino Royale is, I personally prefer TLD, LTK and GE. And possibly with sole exception of LTK - even for their soundtracks alone.

Nobody is denouncing CR's rightfully deserved high status, but we should also be allowed to discuss its flaws. I still think, and hope, that there are better Craig Bond films to come.

I didn't mean to imply the film is flawless and above evaluation, I just really dont' like the way we're sort of leaning on hindsight (perhaps you're not, you always felt that way, fair enough).

I was of the opinion Bond didn't necessarily need a reboot so much as a 'refocus,' so when I sat there seeing every honest attempt to make it seem like a Sean Connery film was on the screen again after 40 years, I couldn't help but but impressed. Trite 'Hollywood tactics' or not, which I don't feel they were.

[Trident]

In 2006 what else could a villain/s be involved with if not terrorism? Identity theft? Sex traffickers? Dodgy second hand car racket? It has to be villainous behaviour that translates instantly to everyone watching (terrorism is a global currency....sadly) and it has to serve the mechanics and expectations of a Bond film.

I think that the trafficking idea would have been a much more relevant topic, one that hadn't been covered over-and-over by mainstream Hollywood, and one that would have allowed the film to be much more faithful to the novel. We've seen the terrorism angle done over-and-over in films, be it Bond or otherwise, but we haven't seen anything on trafficking. In the novel, Le Chiffre's losing of money in his brothel business ventures could have been updated to be Le Chiffre being rather unsuccessful in the human trafficking trade. That would have been something we haven't seen in a Bond film before, would have been more faithful to the novel, and also would have had Bond actually paving the way in terms of going somewhere that mainstream Hollywood hasn't really ventured too many times, all while putting the spotlight on yet another world problem that doesn't get the attention that is needed to fight it.

Human trafficking has a very sad and harsh human consequence. These are James Bond films. They don't operate like that. Human trafficking is a big statement for a film to make. "Mainstream Hollywood" hasn't gone there for that very reason. And Bond films are not and never have been in the business of shedding light on global problems.

Watch EASTERN PROMISES. That is why Bond cannot go down the trafficking route as globally trafficking means sex workers / underage sex workers... and that is not the canvas of Bond.

I must say, despite agreeing with the basic problematic nature human trafficking would be as a theme in Bond, I still like the idea a lot. It's not as if the entirety of the 'business' would have to be shown (it wasn't in Sanchez's Heroin trade). As a macguffin to explain the villain's actions it's as good as any and has the added advance of not being done-to-death. Actually, I must say this might even have had more potential than the 'terror-financer' background.

[Zorin Industries]

Human trafficking is indeed a contemporary scandal. And one that 'could' be tackled in a Bond film - but the films not are made, marketed, touted around the world and played out on home systems in a way that would permit that.

Yes, the heroin trade is a dirty business. But human sex trafficking is instantly personal and about the individual suffering, not the moneymen behind it.

[Trident]

Human trafficking is indeed a contemporary scandal. And one that 'could' be tackled in a Bond film - but the films not are made, marketed, touted around the world and played out on home systems in a way that would permit that.

Yes, the heroin trade is a dirty business. But human sex trafficking is instantly personal and about the individual suffering, not the moneymen behind it.

You're probably right, it's hard to imagine how the theme could have been handled and the product still remain a Bond film, no matter if 'traditional' or 'progressive'. Perhaps a better theme for a book than for the EON series.

[Zorin Industries]

Human trafficking is indeed a contemporary scandal. And one that 'could' be tackled in a Bond film - but the films not are made, marketed, touted around the world and played out on home systems in a way that would permit that.

Yes, the heroin trade is a dirty business. But human sex trafficking is instantly personal and about the individual suffering, not the moneymen behind it.

You're probably right, it's hard to imagine how the theme could have been handled and the product still remain a Bond film, no matter if 'traditional' or 'progressive'. Perhaps a better theme for a book than for the EON series.

And the Bond films have to be sold and promoted around the world. They always tread a fine and very delicate line of not being too controversial. Isthmus City was a safer fictional setting than Mexico or somewhere real and similiar because you don't want to annoy or insult the locals.

[Trident]

I must say, while I realise the reasons, I still can't get myself to like such fictional state solutions. I'd rather they'd just call it 'A State In South America' or 'Somewhere In The Himalayas' in the establishing shot. Horses for courses, I guess.

[tdalton]

Human trafficking is indeed a contemporary scandal. And one that 'could' be tackled in a Bond film - but the films not are made, marketed, touted around the world and played out on home systems in a way that would permit that.

Yes, the heroin trade is a dirty business. But human sex trafficking is instantly personal and about the individual suffering, not the moneymen behind it.

I think that it could be something that is tackled in a Bond film if it were done ina way that was similar to how it was done in TAKEN. Granted, having trafficking as the villain's scheme now might seem a bit like a rip-off of TAKEN, but had they done it in 2006 as the background to CASINO ROYALE in a similar way, I think that it would have worked. There wasn't really anything explicit in TAKEN, and the entire concept of the crime was mainly hidden in the background. We knew what Liam Neeson's character was going after, but other than that one scene towards the end of the film, we never actually saw it in action. I'm not saying that Bond should be on a mission to find a long lost daughter or something like that (as was the case in TAKEN), but the approach that the filmmakers on that film took in terms of displaying the crime of trafficking would have been a possible approach for CASINO ROYALE, in terms of keeping it at the forefront of the audience's mind, but keeping it also enough in the shadows that the film didn't turn into something too graphic.

[SecretAgentFan]

I must say that I found the idea that the money from the poker game was supposed to be funding terrorism quite magnificent. It sent a clear message to the audience that Bond´s enemies are no longer living in a fantasy world.

Also, although a horrible atrocity, human trafficking does not affect the whole world (as harsh as that statement may sound). Terrorism, however, affects everyone. Therefore it was the right way to link it with Le Chiffre, IMO.

[tdalton]

I must say that I found the idea that the money from the poker game was supposed to be funding terrorism quite magnificent. It sent a clear message to the audience that Bond´s enemies are no longer living in a fantasy world.

Also, although a horrible atrocity, human trafficking does not affect the whole world (as harsh as that statement may sound). Terrorism, however, affects everyone. Therefore it was the right way to link it with Le Chiffre, IMO.

I think that they could have managed to link Le Chiffre with trafficking (which is much closer to the original plot of the novel) and show him struggling with that as a business in terms of paying off his debts to Quantum, who would be making much more money off of other ventures. Ultimately, I think that Quantum is a terrorist group, and that while it appears as though they either have very wealthy operatives and/or make a ton of money off of their activities, whereas someone like Le Chiffre could have been sitting on the outskirts of the organization, struggling to make it financially based on his trafficking activities.

With that premise, I think that EON could have set up Quantum as a terrifying organization on its own, and that they're sort of looking to cut their losses by "cutting ties" with Le Chiffre because they see their investment in him and his trafficking activities to be going down the drain so to speak. I think that this would help to demonstrate the desperate nature of Le Chiffre's decision to set up the card game, which I don't think came over so well in the film, as well as help the film stick closer to the source material while also establishing Quantum a bit more in the context of CASINO ROYALE rather than waiting to give us more information about them in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[MattofSteel]

With that premise, I think that EON could have set up Quantum as a terrifying organization on its own, and that they're sort of looking to cut their losses by "cutting ties" with Le Chiffre because they see their investment in him and his trafficking activities to be going down the drain so to speak. I think that this would help to demonstrate the desperate nature of Le Chiffre's decision to set up the card game, which I don't think came over so well in the film, as well as help the film stick closer to the source material while also establishing Quantum a bit more in the context of CASINO ROYALE rather than waiting to give us more information about them in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

That's exactly what they did, albeit if you feel it was underdone you're perfectly entitled to think so.

I for one love the fact that we're getting nuggets of information in each film about Quantum - I didn't want to know more in Casino Royale. That's not what the movie is about. I'm a huge fan of the fact it's been written to keep them murky, it's a great mindset to consider longer-term implications of the story and a welcome change. Keeps the mystery alive!

[Zorin Industries]

With that premise, I think that EON could have set up Quantum as a terrifying organization on its own, and that they're sort of looking to cut their losses by "cutting ties" with Le Chiffre because they see their investment in him and his trafficking activities to be going down the drain so to speak. I think that this would help to demonstrate the desperate nature of Le Chiffre's decision to set up the card game, which I don't think came over so well in the film, as well as help the film stick closer to the source material while also establishing Quantum a bit more in the context of CASINO ROYALE rather than waiting to give us more information about them in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

That's exactly what they did, albeit if you feel it was underdone you're perfectly entitled to think so.

I for one love the fact that we're getting nuggets of information in each film about Quantum - I didn't want to know more in Casino Royale. That's not what the movie is about. I'm a huge fan of the fact it's been written to keep them murky, it's a great mindset to consider longer-term implications of the story and a welcome change. Keeps the mystery alive!

Agreed!

[Trident]

With that premise, I think that EON could have set up Quantum as a terrifying organization on its own, and that they're sort of looking to cut their losses by "cutting ties" with Le Chiffre because they see their investment in him and his trafficking activities to be going down the drain so to speak. I think that this would help to demonstrate the desperate nature of Le Chiffre's decision to set up the card game, which I don't think came over so well in the film, as well as help the film stick closer to the source material while also establishing Quantum a bit more in the context of CASINO ROYALE rather than waiting to give us more information about them in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I must say, that black guy with the bushwhacker, whose name escapes me, whenever I write about him, and who threatened leChiffrè to help himself to a piece of his lady's upper extremeties (as opposed to her lower regions), anyways, that guy made the extent of leChiffré's desperation pretty clear to me. Good, could have been earlier, but it worked nonetheless perfectly well at the moment he chose to pay his funds a visit in Montenegro. Actually, I wouldn't have liked seeing that guy on my front door, with or without bushwhacker.

[Panavision]

Maybe, but IMO like saying it's the worst player in the hall of fame.

The reasoning apparently being that the ending of CR's novel wasn't considered overly cinematic, which I'd agree with easily.

What's not cinematic about Bond discovering Vesper's body (perhaps in the shower), and gently holding her body, with the allusion to the earlier scene?

The one in the film is much more interesting and visually exciting. Vesper in the shower works in the novel but in the film the Venice showdown is just more interesting to watch -- Start with a bang and end with an Earthquake. Haggis said that the Purvis and Wade script didn't really have a third act -- I guess he means that the script ended abruptly like the novel.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm curious to see what Morgan Purvis and Wade will do with bond 23 perhaps Smuggling will be the villainous scheme.

[Panavision]

I want more humour and wit. Tom Mankiewicz excelled with the one liners, "Plenty O' Toole" "Named after your father, perhaps?"

[SecretAgentFan]

I want more humour and wit. Tom Mankiewicz excelled with the one liners, "Plenty O' Toole" "Named after your father, perhaps?"

Was that Mankiewicz or Connery himself?

[jaguar007]

I want more humour and wit. Tom Mankiewicz excelled with the one liners, "Plenty O' Toole" "Named after your father, perhaps?"

Was that Mankiewicz or Connery himself?

You may be right. When I had lunch with Mankiewicz I think he mentioned that Connery came up with that line.

[Quantumofsolace007]

i'm hoping for a simple but brilliant plot for bond 23 similar to Casino Royale Quantum of solace

[MattofSteel]

You may be right. When I had lunch with Mankiewicz I think he mentioned that Connery came up with that line.

Lunched with Mank? Neat. Still funny, insightful, and full of good stories I'd imagine?

[DamnCoffee]

i'm hoping for a simple but brilliant plot for bond 23 similar to Casino Royale Quantum of solace

So you've said. A million times. I don't even see why you would post this anyway? It's quite a random thing to say, considering the discussion going on before hand.

You're like a broken record, so stop trying to up your post count with the same thing.

[Quantumofsolace007]

i'm hoping for a simple but brilliant plot for bond 23 similar to Casino Royale Quantum of solace

So you've said. A million times. I don't even see why you would post this anyway? It's quite a random thing to say, considering the discussion going on before hand.

You're like a broken record, so stop trying to up your post count with the same thing.

actually i was trying to bring the topic back to what it should be on as talking about diamonds are forever belongs in a different thread.


Mharkin i don't have problem with you yet stop trying to have a problem with me it's petty annoying and quite stupid.

[Zorin Industries]

You're like a broken record, so stop trying to up your post count with the same thing.

There is an element of that.

[Quantumofsolace007]

You're like a broken record, so stop trying to up your post count with the same thing.

There is an element of that.

i disagree

[Zorin Industries]

There is a bit of repetition young sir. Just saying. It doesn't matter either way, but there is a lot of repetition.

Sod it, do I need to tell you about BOND 23 to shut you up?!! ;o)

[Quantumofsolace007]

There is a bit of repetition young sir. Just saying. It doesn't matter either way, but there is a lot of repetition.

Sod it, do I need to tell you about BOND 23 to shut you up?!! ;o)

I know you already have the script and you already know on page 32 Bond says the classic line "My name is Bond James Bond" while playing Texas hold em against the villain in a casino in France. and man the action sequence on page 46-47 WOW


I think we will stop getting on each others nerves once we have something to talk about and Mark strong wanting to be a bond villain isn't enough lol

[Skudor]

Oh, Mark Strong is going to be a Bond villain? WOW. He's excellent.