Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Marc Forster on Quantum of Solace; working with David Arnold


141 replies to this topic

#121 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:47 PM

If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.


I deliberately got it wrong, to emphasise the utter predictability of the script.

#122 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 24 August 2009 - 06:40 PM

Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.

#123 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 24 August 2009 - 07:01 PM

Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.


Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.

Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.

Edited by The Shark, 24 August 2009 - 07:03 PM.


#124 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:32 AM

So sappy secondary characters don't count? C'mon, sap is sap and Fleming wrote a lot of it (main character excepted, most of the time B) ).

#125 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:38 AM

So sappy secondary characters don't count? C'mon, sap is sap and Fleming wrote a lot of it (main character excepted, most of the time B) ).


Sap? No sap, pulp is the better word.

#126 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:35 AM

Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.


Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.

Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.


'Arc'?

Seriously - 'arc'?

Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?

Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.

Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.

That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.

The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.

#127 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 08:48 PM

The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.


B)

An absolutely unfair statement. I don't consider Fleming to be a "deity" at all, whether it be within his genre or otherwise, but I would like to see his work faithfully adapted for the screen, simply because I don't think that anything EON has come up with has, frankly, been better than anything in Fleming's work. That's not to say that Fleming is a brilliant writer or anything. He's not. He created a phenomenal character, but a "deity" of writing he's not. :tdown:

#128 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:03 PM

If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.


I deliberately got it wrong, to emphasise the utter predictability of the script.



What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.

#129 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:09 PM

If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.


I deliberately got it wrong, to emphasise the utter predictability of the script.



What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.


There's nothing wrong with the line in context. I'll admit, as a line in the trailer, it seems a bit over-the-top given the amount of trust issues have been brought up in the recent films, but when used in the context it's used in during the film, it's a perfectly good line that makes sense in the situation that M uses it.

#130 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:16 AM

Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.


Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.

Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.


'Arc'?

Seriously - 'arc'?

Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?

Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.


I personally disagree. Though I've no idea why you're so angry and defensive, something which is usually the hallmark of someone who can't possibly understand or come to terms with the fact that someone out shares a different or opposing view to your own.

Here's my opinion. Fleming's Bond IS changing characters throughout the novels. In the stark, minimalistic and oppressive Casino Royale, Bond is a much more violent, brutal, honest and naive blunt instrument. After Vesper's death the naivety fades away, and Bond becomes hell-bent on obliterating SMERSH, now much more aware of the deadly game of espionage - not exactly "cowboys and red Indians", but still has a much more clearer, more black and white sense of good and evil, right and wrong. His relativist post modern arguments - "when one is young etc...", are shot down by Mathis, and ultimately transforming Bond's character one step at a time.
Through the next novels, we have a subsequent progression, with Bond getting increasingly tired of his job, becomes much less healthy (increasing visits to Shrublands), becomes more cantankerous, lackadaisical, less driven etc... Also by Goldfinger, M practically dismisses the Double-O section, and believes Bond's kind to be redundant, and anachronistic - even then! At this period Fleming almost seems fine with killing him off (i.e. FRWL), and here the love/hate relationship with his creation develops.

However with the arrival of SPECTRE, Bond's resolve strengthens, regains the energy of his earlier days and is determined to stop Blofield. One can see this with the transformation of the lazy mid-period Bond, at the beginning of Thunderball, throughout the novel in which he once finds a meaning to his existence.

Still, with OHMSS Bond visits Royale-les-Eux and starts to retread the demons of his past, where he met Vesper, almost like a Greek tragedy Bond meets Tracy, with the novel almost functioning like a exponentiation of Casino Royale, on a more epic scale, this time with Bond in much darker place.

The last two novels function as the two-part coda to Bond's character arc. The first with Bond's Bond being sent on a grim mission, resulting in Bond visiting a hell on earth, and taking a lead to Vladivostok. Here, Bond is brainwashed, and sent to kill M. Bond then fails to do this, and is sent to kill Fransisco "pistols" Scaramanga, The Man With The Golden Gun. This last novel is also first featuring nu-Bond, in a new world, with changing standards, him feeling redundant. Almost as if his character has finally found redemption for his Sins. Aptly Bond chooses not to accept a Knighthood preferring anonymity, and his character is laid to rest.

Far from the 2 dimensional, undeveloped Bond you mentioned in quote. Though we all have are differing perceptions.

I'd agree that there are pulp elements to Bond, not so much his character, but the action and fantastical events that he encounters. In this respect you could make parallels to the Dick Barton comic books of the 40s, but ultimately this only a one element to Fleming's Bond, and he's obviously much more than this, a lot of it owes to the sheer guile he was created with, along with the stories.

Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.


If could see how your comment would fit about 94% of EON's Bond films, but when it comes to books such dismissal as asinine at best. and often snobbish and ignorant.

Bond novels obviously aren't character studies (neither were Chandler's, le Carré's, Greene's or Ludlums), though they're not 2 dimensional comic book cut-outs either. There often were often self contained character studies within the books, and short stories (if Quantum of Solace isn't one, then I don't know what is).

That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.


Even there are some dated aspects to Fleming's novels, Fleming's creation is practically timeless - the charming, charismatic, deadly, the politically incorrect British Agent, who smokes, drinks, kills, and seduces beautiful women etc... Short of substance - Really? Obviously like I stated they aren't character studies, but there is a wealth of characterisation, one of Fleming's strengths.

The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.


I don't consider him a god, merely one of the 20th Century's top thriller writers, and has contributed a lot to pop culture across the world, and the thriller genre. I'm sure the Producers feel the same way, though are probably more reserved about showing certain aspects of Fleming's Bond onto screen.

Personally I rate the Bond novels much higher than most of the films, though I'm still a Bond fan.

Either way yes, I'd say Fleming was a brilliant writer, master of prose, and was one of the greats (deities is a bit strong eh? even for the best) of the 20th Century thriller. Clear and simple.

What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.


No, only that that element of the new Bond films feels more appropriate for Twin Peaks as opposed for Bond. Starting with TWINE, the whole M & Bond, "can I trust you", MI6 traitors, attention seeking menopausal M globe-trotting across the globe after her rogue agent who acts like a love struck or angst ridden teenager when he's really a 40 year old bloke, M needing to regain and consolidate the trust, more MI6 traitors, paranoia, "can I trust you Bond?" etc... Is becoming like a farce. Mainly due to the banality of the scripting and the fact that it's overstated.

In the context of the film, these clunky lines feel like something George Lucas would write due to their verbosity (inconsolable rage) and awkwardness.

Almost like some of the elements of the Brosnan are still hanging over the Craig era, along with David Arnold and overblown action. Once the producers get rid of these, Craig can get the Bond he film he deserves.

#131 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:16 AM

Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.


Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.

Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.


'Arc'?

Seriously - 'arc'?

Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?

Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.


I personally disagree. Though I've no idea why you're so angry and defensive, something which is usually the hallmark of someone who can't possibly understand or come to terms with the fact that someone out shares a different or opposing view to your own.

Here's my opinion. Fleming's Bond IS changing characters throughout the novels. In the stark, minimalistic and oppressive Casino Royale, Bond is a much more violent, brutal, honest and naive blunt instrument. After Vesper's death the naivety fades away, and Bond becomes hell-bent on obliterating SMERSH, now much more aware of the deadly game of espionage - not exactly "cowboys and red Indians", but still has a much more clearer, more black and white sense of good and evil, right and wrong. His relativist post modern arguments - "when one is young etc...", are shot down by Mathis, and ultimately transforming Bond's character one step at a time.
Through the next novels, we have a subsequent progression, with Bond getting increasingly tired of his job, becomes much less healthy (increasing visits to Shrublands), becomes more cantankerous, lackadaisical, less driven etc... Also by Goldfinger, M practically dismisses the Double-O section, and believes Bond's kind to be redundant, and anachronistic - even then! At this period Fleming almost seems fine with killing him off (i.e. FRWL), and here the love/hate relationship with his creation develops.

However with the arrival of SPECTRE, Bond's resolve strengthens, regains the energy of his earlier days and is determined to stop Blofield. One can see this with the transformation of the lazy mid-period Bond, at the beginning of Thunderball, throughout the novel in which he once finds a meaning to his existence.

Still, with OHMSS Bond visits Royale-les-Eux and starts to retread the demons of his past, where he met Vesper, almost like a Greek tragedy Bond meets Tracy, with the novel almost functioning like a exponentiation of Casino Royale, on a more epic scale, this time with Bond in much darker place.

The last two novels function as the two-part coda to Bond's character arc. The first with Bond's Bond being sent on a grim mission, resulting in Bond visiting a hell on earth, and taking a lead to Vladivostok. Here, Bond is brainwashed, and sent to kill M. Bond then fails to do this, and is sent to kill Fransisco "pistols" Scaramanga, The Man With The Golden Gun. This last novel is also first featuring nu-Bond, in a new world, with changing standards, him feeling redundant. Almost as if his character has finally found redemption for his Sins. Aptly Bond chooses not to accept a Knighthood preferring anonymity, and his character is laid to rest.

Far from the 2 dimensional, undeveloped Bond you mentioned in quote. Though we all have are differing perceptions.

I'd agree that there are pulp elements to Bond, not so much his character, but the action and fantastical events that he encounters. In this respect you could make parallels to the Dick Barton comic books of the 40s, but ultimately this only a one element to Fleming's Bond, and he's obviously much more than this, a lot of it owes to the sheer guile he was created with, along with the stories.

Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.


If could see how your comment would fit about 94% of EON's Bond films, but when it comes to books such dismissal as asinine at best. and often snobbish and ignorant.

Bond novels obviously aren't character studies (neither were Chandler's, le Carré's, Greene's or Ludlums), though they're not 2 dimensional comic book cut-outs either. There often were often self contained character studies within the books, and short stories (if Quantum of Solace isn't one, then I don't know what is).

That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.


Even there are some dated aspects to Fleming's novels, Fleming's creation is practically timeless - the charming, charismatic, deadly, the politically incorrect British Agent, who smokes, drinks, kills, and seduces beautiful women etc... Short of substance - Really? Obviously like I stated they aren't character studies, but there is a wealth of characterisation, one of Fleming's strengths.

The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.


I don't consider him a god, merely one of the 20th Century's top thriller writers, and has contributed a lot to pop culture across the world, and the thriller genre. I'm sure the Producers feel the same way, though are probably more reserved about showing certain aspects of Fleming's Bond onto screen.

Personally I rate the Bond novels much higher than most of the films, though I'm still a Bond fan.

Either way yes, I'd say Fleming was a brilliant writer, master of prose, and was one of the greats (deities is a bit strong eh? even for the best) of the 20th Century thriller. Clear and simple.

What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.


No, only that that element of the new Bond films feels more appropriate for Twin Peaks as opposed for Bond. Starting with TWINE, the whole M & Bond, "can I trust you", MI6 traitors, attention seeking menopausal M globe-trotting across the globe after her rogue agent who acts like a love struck or angst ridden teenager when he's really a 40 year old bloke, M needing to regain and consolidate the trust, more MI6 traitors, paranoia, "can I trust you Bond?" etc... Is becoming like a farce. Mainly due to the banality of the scripting and the fact that it's overstated.

In the context of the film, these clunky lines feel like something George Lucas would write due to their verbosity (inconsolable rage) and awkwardness.

Almost like some of the elements of the Brosnan are still hanging over the Craig era, along with David Arnold and overblown action. Once the producers get rid of these, Craig can get the Bond he film he deserves.

#132 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:17 AM

Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.


Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.

Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.


'Arc'?

Seriously - 'arc'?

Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?

Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.


I personally disagree. Though I've no idea why you're so angry and defensive, something which is usually the hallmark of someone who can't possibly understand or come to terms with the fact that someone out shares a different or opposing view to your own.

Here's my opinion. Fleming's Bond IS changing characters throughout the novels. In the stark, minimalistic and oppressive Casino Royale, Bond is a much more violent, brutal, honest and naive blunt instrument. After Vesper's death the naivety fades away, and Bond becomes hell-bent on obliterating SMERSH, now much more aware of the deadly game of espionage - not exactly "cowboys and red Indians", but still has a much more clearer, more black and white sense of good and evil, right and wrong. His relativist post modern arguments - "when one is young etc...", are shot down by Mathis, and ultimately transforming Bond's character one step at a time.
Through the next novels, we have a subsequent progression, with Bond getting increasingly tired of his job, becomes much less healthy (increasing visits to Shrublands), becomes more cantankerous, lackadaisical, less driven etc... Also by Goldfinger, M practically dismisses the Double-O section, and believes Bond's kind to be redundant, and anachronistic - even then! At this period Fleming almost seems fine with killing him off (i.e. FRWL), and here the love/hate relationship with his creation develops.

However with the arrival of SPECTRE, Bond's resolve strengthens, regains the energy of his earlier days and is determined to stop Blofield. One can see this with the transformation of the lazy mid-period Bond, at the beginning of Thunderball, throughout the novel in which he once finds a meaning to his existence.

Still, with OHMSS Bond visits Royale-les-Eux and starts to retread the demons of his past, where he met Vesper, almost like a Greek tragedy Bond meets Tracy, with the novel almost functioning like a exponentiation of Casino Royale, on a more epic scale, this time with Bond in much darker place.

The last two novels function as the two-part coda to Bond's character arc. The first with Bond's Bond being sent on a grim mission, resulting in Bond visiting a hell on earth, and taking a lead to Vladivostok. Here, Bond is brainwashed, and sent to kill M. Bond then fails to do this, and is sent to kill Fransisco "pistols" Scaramanga, The Man With The Golden Gun. This last novel is also first featuring nu-Bond, in a new world, with changing standards, him feeling redundant. Almost as if his character has finally found redemption for his Sins. Aptly Bond chooses not to accept a Knighthood preferring anonymity, and his character is laid to rest.

Far from the 2 dimensional, undeveloped Bond you mentioned in quote. Though we all have are differing perceptions.

I'd agree that there are pulp elements to Bond, not so much his character, but the action and fantastical events that he encounters. In this respect you could make parallels to the Dick Barton comic books of the 40s, but ultimately this only a one element to Fleming's Bond, and he's obviously much more than this, a lot of it owes to the sheer guile he was created with, along with the stories.

Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.


If could see how your comment would fit about 94% of EON's Bond films, but when it comes to books such dismissal as asinine at best. and often snobbish and ignorant.

Bond novels obviously aren't character studies (neither were Chandler's, le Carré's, Greene's or Ludlums), though they're not 2 dimensional comic book cut-outs either. There often were often self contained character studies within the books, and short stories (if Quantum of Solace isn't one, then I don't know what is).

That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.


Even there are some dated aspects to Fleming's novels, Fleming's creation is practically timeless - the charming, charismatic, deadly, the politically incorrect British Agent, who smokes, drinks, kills, and seduces beautiful women etc... Short of substance - Really? Obviously like I stated they aren't character studies, but there is a wealth of characterisation, one of Fleming's strengths.

The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.


I don't consider him a god, merely one of the 20th Century's top thriller writers, and has contributed a lot to pop culture across the world, and the thriller genre. I'm sure the Producers feel the same way, though are probably more reserved about showing certain aspects of Fleming's Bond onto screen.

Personally I rate the Bond novels much higher than most of the films, though I'm still a Bond fan.

Either way yes, I'd say Fleming was a brilliant writer, master of prose, and was one of the greats (deities is a bit strong eh? even for the best) of the 20th Century thriller. Clear and simple.

What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.


No, only that that element of the new Bond films feels more appropriate for Twin Peaks as opposed for Bond. Starting with TWINE, the whole M & Bond, "can I trust you", MI6 traitors, attention seeking menopausal M globe-trotting across the globe after her rogue agent who acts like a love struck or angst ridden teenager when he's really a 40 year old bloke, M needing to regain and consolidate the trust, more MI6 traitors, paranoia, "can I trust you Bond?" etc... Is becoming like a farce. Mainly due to the banality of the scripting and the fact that it's overstated.

In the context of the film, these clunky lines feel like something George Lucas would write due to their verbosity (inconsolable rage) and awkwardness.

Almost like some of the elements of the Brosnan are still hanging over the Craig era, along with David Arnold and overblown action. Once the producers get rid of these, Craig can get the Bond he film he deserves.


Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.


Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.

Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.


'Arc'?

Seriously - 'arc'?

Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?

Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.


I personally disagree. Though I've no idea why you're so angry and defensive, something which is usually the hallmark of someone who can't possibly understand or come to terms with the fact that someone out shares a different or opposing view to your own.

Here's my opinion. Fleming's Bond IS changing characters throughout the novels. In the stark, minimalistic and oppressive Casino Royale, Bond is a much more violent, brutal, honest and naive blunt instrument. After Vesper's death the naivety fades away, and Bond becomes hell-bent on obliterating SMERSH, now much more aware of the deadly game of espionage - not exactly "cowboys and red Indians", but still has a much more clearer, more black and white sense of good and evil, right and wrong. His relativist post modern arguments - "when one is young etc...", are shot down by Mathis, and ultimately transforming Bond's character one step at a time.
Through the next novels, we have a subsequent progression, with Bond getting increasingly tired of his job, becomes much less healthy (increasing visits to Shrublands), becomes more cantankerous, lackadaisical, less driven etc... Also by Goldfinger, M practically dismisses the Double-O section, and believes Bond's kind to be redundant, and anachronistic - even then! At this period Fleming almost seems fine with killing him off (i.e. FRWL), and here the love/hate relationship with his creation develops.

However with the arrival of SPECTRE, Bond's resolve strengthens, regains the energy of his earlier days and is determined to stop Blofield. One can see this with the transformation of the lazy mid-period Bond, at the beginning of Thunderball, throughout the novel in which he once finds a meaning to his existence.

Still, with OHMSS Bond visits Royale-les-Eux and starts to retread the demons of his past, where he met Vesper, almost like a Greek tragedy Bond meets Tracy, with the novel almost functioning like a exponentiation of Casino Royale, on a more epic scale, this time with Bond in much darker place.

The last two novels function as the two-part coda to Bond's character arc. The first with Bond's Bond being sent on a grim mission, resulting in Bond visiting a hell on earth, and taking a lead to Vladivostok. Here, Bond is brainwashed, and sent to kill M. Bond then fails to do this, and is sent to kill Fransisco "pistols" Scaramanga, The Man With The Golden Gun. This last novel is also first featuring nu-Bond, in a new world, with changing standards, him feeling redundant. Almost as if his character has finally found redemption for his Sins. Aptly Bond chooses not to accept a Knighthood preferring anonymity, and his character is laid to rest.

Far from the 2 dimensional, undeveloped Bond you mentioned in quote. Though we all have are differing perceptions.

I'd agree that there are pulp elements to Bond, not so much his character, but the action and fantastical events that he encounters. In this respect you could make parallels to the Dick Barton comic books of the 40s, but ultimately this only a one element to Fleming's Bond, and he's obviously much more than this, a lot of it owes to the sheer guile he was created with, along with the stories.

Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.


If could see how your comment would fit about 94% of EON's Bond films, but when it comes to books such dismissal as asinine at best. and often snobbish and ignorant.

Bond novels obviously aren't character studies (neither were Chandler's, le Carré's, Greene's or Ludlums), though they're not 2 dimensional comic book cut-outs either. There often were often self contained character studies within the books, and short stories (if Quantum of Solace isn't one, then I don't know what is).

That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.


Even there are some dated aspects to Fleming's novels, Fleming's creation is practically timeless - the charming, charismatic, deadly, the politically incorrect British Agent, who smokes, drinks, kills, and seduces beautiful women etc... Short of substance - Really? Obviously like I stated they aren't character studies, but there is a wealth of characterisation, one of Fleming's strengths.

The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.


I don't consider him a god, merely one of the 20th Century's top thriller writers, and has contributed a lot to pop culture across the world, and the thriller genre. I'm sure the Producers feel the same way, though are probably more reserved about showing certain aspects of Fleming's Bond onto screen.

Personally I rate the Bond novels much higher than most of the films, though I'm still a Bond fan.

Either way yes, I'd say Fleming was a brilliant writer, master of prose, and was one of the greats (deities is a bit strong eh? even for the best) of the 20th Century thriller. Clear and simple.

What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.


No, only that that element of the new Bond films feels more appropriate for Twin Peaks as opposed for Bond. Starting with TWINE, the whole M & Bond, "can I trust you", MI6 traitors, attention seeking menopausal M globe-trotting across the globe after her rogue agent who acts like a love struck or angst ridden teenager when he's really a 40 year old bloke, M needing to regain and consolidate the trust, more MI6 traitors, paranoia, "can I trust you Bond?" etc... Is becoming like a farce. Mainly due to the banality of the scripting and the fact that it's overstated.

In the context of the film, these clunky lines feel like something George Lucas would write due to their verbosity (inconsolable rage) and awkwardness.

Almost like some of the elements of the Brosnan are still hanging over the Craig era, along with David Arnold and overblown action. Once the producers get rid of these, Craig can get the Bond he film he deserves.

#133 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:56 AM

Is there a reason why you did this three time over? B)

By the way, just because we're all arguing bitterly about the nature of Bond and Fleming's novels doesn't mean some of us are true Bond fans and others are not; it's a big church, you know. :tdown:

#134 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:01 AM

Is there a reason why you did this three time over?


Sorry, the gateway kept timing out. Unfortunately can't delete posts on this site.

#135 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:02 AM

Is there a reason why you did this three time over? B)


Cut him some slack on that. There's a error on the board that times out when someone submits a post. Not knowing that the post got submitted the user will hit refresh to try to get the page back. Each time they hit refresh the post is submitted over and over again. That's why there are a lot more instances of multiple posting around here than in the past.

#136 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:03 AM

Is there a reason why you did this three time over? B)

Cut him some slack on that. There's a error on the board that times out when someone submits a post. Not knowing that the post got submitted the user will hit refresh to try to get the page back. Each time they hit refresh the post is submitted over and over again. That's why there are a lot more instances of multiple posting around here than in the past.

Will it be fixed soon?

#137 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:12 AM

Almost like some of the elements of the Brosnan are still hanging over the Craig era, along with David Arnold and overblown action. Once the producers get rid of these, Craig can get the Bond he film he deserves.

Just a thought, but why in the world would EON deviate from their current formula incarnation, when it's making them such boatlaods of money? Might not be your cup of Bond tea, but seems to be getting the job done just fine. B) I never have the expectation EON makes any creative decision except that it's to make money (very sensible IMO).

#138 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:23 AM

Multiple postings aside, I agree with The Shark's analysis unreservedly.

#139 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 26 August 2009 - 02:46 AM

I'm very happy with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (and that's from someone who loves Moonraker & Brosnan).

I can't wait for Bond 23. Maybe a little more fun is needed but otherwise, carry on as you were, please!

#140 Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

Donovan Mayne-Nicholls

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 381 posts
  • Location:Santiago, Chile

Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:18 AM

'I wanted to create that opening to be very disorientating...'

Well, you succeeded but I don't think it's anything to be proud of.

I totally agree. This further cements my thinking that Marc Forster is one of the worst directors of the series (only Michael Apted is worse) and simultaneously makes me a little more accepting of Dan Bradley as a second unit director. The shaky cam, super-quick editing was a terrible decision. It's hard to like a film when you can't see or follow what the hell is going on. I don't see how anyone can't understand that.

Forster did have a couple of good ideas such as keeping David Arnold and having the footchase end with the characters falling through the ceiling and battling on ropes; but his negative contributions to the film such as the aforementioned editing and hiring MK12 instead of Daniel Kleinman, not to mention the Elvis fiasco, completely overshadow them.


I wouldn't go as far as saying it was his idea to keep Arnold. I've the feeling MGW & BB must have drawn the line regarding replacing DA for somebody more suitable to MF's "artistic" vision. It took forever to find a new stable composer rather than a temporary replacement.
I keep playing the soundtrack regularly (I stop the disc before the bloody title "song" closes it, though) and find it easily the best aspect of the film. For all the criticism about DA's originality, etc, his music spells BOND. Had Arnold been replaced along with Lamont, Hemming, Kleinman, etc, QOS would no longer have been a Bond film at all.

#141 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:08 PM

I keep playing the soundtrack regularly (I stop the disc before the bloody title "song" closes it, though) and find it easily the best aspect of the film. For all the criticism about DA's originality, etc, his music spells BOND. Had Arnold been replaced along with Lamont, Hemming, Kleinman, etc, QOS would no longer have been a Bond film at all.


Some of it does spell Bond, very good tracks like Inside Man, Night at the Opera and Time to Get Out, however when the rest of the score is mainly filler. I'd say for the most part his music spells BROSNAN ERA, and that's a slate that needs to be wiped clean.

Just a thought, but why in the world would EON deviate from their current formula incarnation, when it's making them such boatlaods of money? Might not be your cup of Bond tea, but seems to be getting the job done just fine. wink.gif I never have the expectation EON makes any creative decision except that it's to make money (very sensible IMO).


By that logic, why the hell would EON deviate from Die Another Day? That made buckets of money, sold lots of merchandise to tie in with the anniversary, and MGM was strongly supporting EON to continue in this path.

It works both was Blueman. B)

#142 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:34 PM

I keep playing the soundtrack regularly (I stop the disc before the bloody title "song" closes it, though) and find it easily the best aspect of the film. For all the criticism about DA's originality, etc, his music spells BOND. Had Arnold been replaced along with Lamont, Hemming, Kleinman, etc, QOS would no longer have been a Bond film at all.


Some of it does spell Bond, very good tracks like Inside Man, Night at the Opera and Time to Get Out, however when the rest of the score is mainly filler. I'd say for the most part his music spells BROSNAN ERA, and that's a slate that needs to be wiped clean.


Stop the presses! I agree with The Shark!!! B)

But seriously, you're right. Aside from a few good tracks (which you mentioned) Arnold is still overscoring. I wish the producers would move on. I know it's attractive to some people that we finally have a regular composer on the series, but I feel there are people out there who could do so much better, and I wish they'd have a chance.