113 replies to this topic

[captnash2]

the parkour scene, like the vicious pre credit fight, was a statement of intent, introducing a more physical, bruising kind of action scene to the bond films.

MC did a great job making bond cool again and i thank him for it.

[Loomis]

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

"Story deadwood"? But the sequence sets Bond up as a hothead who shoots first and asks questions later, and who still has much to learn about "the bigger picture" and operating as a shrewd and effective agent. It shows Bond's initial status quo and the beginning of his character arc. At this point in the story, we learn that he thinks the bad guys are easily identifiable and that all problems can be solved with bullets and brawn. Subconsciously, we realise that, by the end of the film, he will have changed into a slightly different 007.

Without the parkour sequence, there would be no reason for M to give Bond a bollocking, and consequently viewers would have the impression that she thought his work performance was 100% fine and indeed that Bond was already a mature, seasoned agent.

My screenwriting gurus inform me that character change across the course of a movie for its protagonist (or at least some kind of series of events that alter him or her in some way) is an absolute must. And that one has to show the "before" picture at the start so that the "after" image is clear at the end. Well, the parkour sequence is surely Bond's "before" snapshot. Now, maybe the Miami sequence could have served in its stead, but Bond doesn't up in it, as he does in Madagascar.

[sharpshooter]

^ Absolutely Loomis. You hit the nail right on the head.

And even if the action scenes serve no narrative purpose, I don't particularly care. They're damned well done, and that goes a long way for me. The parkour especially. Take that away and you take away an all time great Bond moment.

[Zorin Industries]

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

"Story deadwood"? But the sequence sets Bond up as a hothead who shoots first and asks questions later, and who still has much to learn about "the bigger picture" and operating as a shrewd and effective agent. It shows Bond's initial status quo and the beginning of his character arc. At this point in the story, we learn that he thinks the bad guys are easily identifiable and that all problems can be solved with bullets and brawn. Subconsciously, we realise that, by the end of the film, he will have changed into a slightly different 007.

Without the parkour sequence, there would be no reason for M to give Bond a bollocking, and consequently viewers would have the impression that she thought his work performance was 100% fine and indeed that Bond was already a mature, seasoned agent.

My screenwriting gurus inform me that character change across the course of a movie for its protagonist (or at least some kind of series of events that alter him or her in some way) is an absolute must. And that one has to show the "before" picture at the start so that the "after" image is clear at the end. Well, the parkour sequence is surely Bond's "before" snapshot. Now, maybe the Miami sequence could have served in its stead, but Bond doesn't up in it, as he does in Madagascar.

But M will ALWAYS give BOND a bollocking. And BOND is always a hot-head in a tailored suit. I don't need a stuntman's showcase to tell me that.

As I have said elsewhere recently, I don't think ROYALE is quite the character reboot some feel it is. It is no more a reboot than LIVE AND LET DIE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, OHMSS or THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is - four films which tackle how the new boy carries himself as much as ROYALE does.

[Automan]

^ Absolutely Loomis. You hit the nail right on the head.

And even if the action scenes serve no narrative purpose, I don't particularly care. They're damned well done, and that goes a long way for me. The parkour especially. Take that away and you take away an all time great Bond moment.

I for one agree, the scene is fantastic. Form it we get a good take on Bond's motivation. Straight ahead no deviation; shoot first ask questions later. Through the film we see he does "Have a plan" and that brings out his other skills.

The bottom line is did we enjoy MC's dirtive style; for me yes!

[Trident]

As I have said elsewhere recently, I don't think ROYALE is quite the character reboot some feel it is. It is no more a reboot than LIVE AND LET DIE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, OHMSS or THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is - four films which tackle how the new boy carries himself as much as ROYALE does.

Can't really agree there. ROYALE to me definitely shows a side of Bond that's never been there before. Not just because of Vesper, whose importance is paralleled at least by Tracy. What makes me see ROYALE as a completely new start is Bond giving up the Service for Vesper. Not just going AWOL to avenge a sacrificial death. He's basically saying here 'Sod them, they can give that ridiculous double-0, that stupid gun and all the other toys to some poor fool and leave me well alone. There's a life to live out there!' This is entirely new to Bond.

[plankattack]

I do get what Zorin is saying. Is CR a reboot or an origin for the character? To a point what it is exactly is probably semantics a little, no?

The film itself though is definitely a re-boot. And for that MC does get credit. Both CR and GE reek of 60s EON, the former more deeply than the latter, which is coated perhaps in some superficial nostalgia. CR (obviously with Fleming at its core) moves with the pace of the early Bonds, relying on its character and plot (and the strength of the lead) more so than the spectacle.

As so many have said, MC does "get" Bond. I don't know enough about the film-making process to deem him a great director or not, but I know enough about the Bond-experience to agree that Campbell has proved that he gets those intangibles and atmosphere that make a Bond film the unique franchise entry that it is.

[Loomis]

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

"Story deadwood"? But the sequence sets Bond up as a hothead who shoots first and asks questions later, and who still has much to learn about "the bigger picture" and operating as a shrewd and effective agent. It shows Bond's initial status quo and the beginning of his character arc. At this point in the story, we learn that he thinks the bad guys are easily identifiable and that all problems can be solved with bullets and brawn. Subconsciously, we realise that, by the end of the film, he will have changed into a slightly different 007.

Without the parkour sequence, there would be no reason for M to give Bond a bollocking, and consequently viewers would have the impression that she thought his work performance was 100% fine and indeed that Bond was already a mature, seasoned agent.

My screenwriting gurus inform me that character change across the course of a movie for its protagonist (or at least some kind of series of events that alter him or her in some way) is an absolute must. And that one has to show the "before" picture at the start so that the "after" image is clear at the end. Well, the parkour sequence is surely Bond's "before" snapshot. Now, maybe the Miami sequence could have served in its stead, but Bond doesn't up in it, as he does in Madagascar.

But M will ALWAYS give BOND a bollocking.

Yes, but there are bollockings and then there are bollockings. I think we're meant to take the bollocking in M's apartment rather more seriously than the usual perfunctory dressing-down by M. It's much better-written and -acted than the standard "Oh, grow up, 007!" or "Come on, Bond!" or "Don't be such a sexist , 007!" schtick, and Dench is genuinely enraged. When she shouts "You were supposed to question him, not kill him!", we've never seen the character so angry.

It's my guess that the filmmakers intended it as a very important scene in the film, defining the "before" picture of the Bond and M relationship, and if one is going to have a scene like that then it needs to be set up - the bollocking can't just come out of thin air for events that occurred offscreen. Hence the need for the whole Madagascar sequence.

Or would you also have cut this Bond/M confrontation on the grounds that it doesn't serve the story?

[Zorin Industries]

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

"Story deadwood"? But the sequence sets Bond up as a hothead who shoots first and asks questions later, and who still has much to learn about "the bigger picture" and operating as a shrewd and effective agent. It shows Bond's initial status quo and the beginning of his character arc. At this point in the story, we learn that he thinks the bad guys are easily identifiable and that all problems can be solved with bullets and brawn. Subconsciously, we realise that, by the end of the film, he will have changed into a slightly different 007.

Without the parkour sequence, there would be no reason for M to give Bond a bollocking, and consequently viewers would have the impression that she thought his work performance was 100% fine and indeed that Bond was already a mature, seasoned agent.

My screenwriting gurus inform me that character change across the course of a movie for its protagonist (or at least some kind of series of events that alter him or her in some way) is an absolute must. And that one has to show the "before" picture at the start so that the "after" image is clear at the end. Well, the parkour sequence is surely Bond's "before" snapshot. Now, maybe the Miami sequence could have served in its stead, but Bond doesn't up in it, as he does in Madagascar.

But M will ALWAYS give BOND a bollocking.

Yes, but there are bollockings and then there are bollockings. I think we're meant to take the bollocking in M's apartment rather more seriously than the usual perfunctory dressing-down by M. It's much better-written and -acted than the standard "Oh, grow up, 007!" or "Come on, Bond!" or "Don't be such a sexist , 007!" schtick, and Dench is genuinely enraged.

It's my guess that the filmmakers intended it as a very important scene in the film, defining the "before" picture of the Bond and M relationship, and if one is going to have a scene like that then it needs to be set up - the bollocking can't just come out of thin air for events that occurred offscreen. Hence the need for the whole Madagascar sequence.

Or would you also have cut this Bond/M confrontation on the grounds that it doesn't serve the story?

The scene in M's apartment is a great one. But it could have come after the Miami Airport scenes and still held the same importance.

I would have combined the Parkour stuff into the airport and had a wee move around of the events. The slight problem ROYALE gives itself is the rookie BOND motif and the trail of LE CHIFFRE - they are not good bedfellows and both (sometimes!) seem a tad shoehorned, especially the rookie BOND stuff. Though it has been a while since I have seen the fillum and I am nitpicking at what is overall a very good film. It just has two mis-beats - the Parkour and Venice. Both can be justified in the wider picture but both are bookends to a story that works very well without two set pieces that can be read as a bit of overspill from the Bonds of old.

[Loomis]

As I have said elsewhere recently, I don't think ROYALE is quite the character reboot some feel it is. It is no more a reboot than LIVE AND LET DIE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, OHMSS or THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is - four films which tackle how the new boy carries himself as much as ROYALE does.

Here's where we differ. In those other films you mention, Bond (while undeniably played by a new actor) is a seasoned agent with many major missions and world-saving accomplishments under his belt. In CASINO ROYALE, he's definitely a rookie.

[Zorin Industries]

As I have said elsewhere recently, I don't think ROYALE is quite the character reboot some feel it is. It is no more a reboot than LIVE AND LET DIE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, OHMSS or THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is - four films which tackle how the new boy carries himself as much as ROYALE does.

Here's where we differ. In those other films you mention, Bond (while undeniably played by a new actor) is a seasoned agent with many major missions and world-saving accomplishments under his belt. In CASINO ROYALE, he's definitely a rookie.

Yes, but there is an unspoken awareness that the new actor IS the rookie and had better pull up their socks and get their act together - why else would you have M visit BOND's pad in LET DIE and SELENA (?) be assessing BOND's aptitude at the opening of GOLDENEYE? It's part of the unspoken poetic licence of the new "fella". And I don't see ROYALE as any different - though it makes more of a dramatic stance (vie the likes of Judi Dench) to achieve that.

[Loomis]

I would have combined the Parkour stuff into the airport and had a wee move around of the events.

Well, if I had to choose between those two sequences, I'd have dropped Miami, because A. Madagascar is by far the superior action episode and B. it also shows Bond flubbing things a lot more, thus justifying the bollocking more than Miami would.

(Although, obviously, Miami could have been rewritten to incorporate more mistakes by 007. No reason why he couldn't have shot the bomb-maker M wanted to question in Miami. Still, Madagascar is a much more original action sequence - Miami basically just revisits DIE HARD 2.)

[Zorin Industries]

I would have combined the Parkour stuff into the airport and had a wee move around of the events.

Well, if I had to choose between those two sequences, I'd have dropped Miami, because A. Madagascar is by far the superior action episode and B. it also shows Bond flubbing things a lot more, thus justifying the bollocking more than Miami would.

(Although, obviously, Miami could have been rewritten to incorporate more mistakes by 007. No reason why he couldn't have shot the bomb-maker M wanted to question in Miami. Still, Madagascar is a much more original action sequence - Miami basically just revisits DIE HARD 2.)

But there is more narrative consequence with the airport scenes - the global unveiling / Quantum's shares etc.

[Loomis]

Couldn't Madagascar and its surrounding scenes have been rewritten to incorporate those things, though?

[Zorin Industries]

Couldn't Madagascar and its surrounding scenes have been rewritten to incorporate those things, though?

Of course. An unfinished airport terminal building could have been the climbing frame for the Parkour agent etc. But that is Bolivian water under the bridge. I have just always felt that the Madagascar stuff is a bit hamfisted, as great and as fresh and as now iconic as that start to ROYALE is.

[Loomis]

Yes, but there is an unspoken awareness that the new actor IS the rookie and had better pull up their socks and get their act together - why else would you have M visit BOND's pad in LET DIE and SELENA (?) be assessing BOND's aptitude at the opening of GOLDENEYE? It's part of the unspoken poetic licence of the new "fella".

I don't agree. The shrink isn't sent to assess Bond in GOLDENEYE because he's a rookie (heck, the movie has by that point made clear that he has at least nine years' experience as a Double-O!), but because the new M suspects he's a clapped-out old dinosaur.

Similarly, I don't get the impression that M visits Bond's flat in LIVE AND LET DIE because he wants to keep an eye on the wet-behind-the-ears new guy. I think the filmmakers felt it would make a nice change to see Bond at home and collapsed the briefing scene into it.

ETA: I do realise that you're not claiming that Bond is literally a rookie in those other films - you mention unspoken poetic licence. But my point is that CASINO ROYALE makes explicit what those other films (if you like) left unsaid. Like it or not, it is a reboot.

[Zorin Industries]

Like it or not, it is a reboot.

Yes, and so were THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, GOLDENEYE and OHMSS. These films don't "reboot". They refocus.

[Judo chop]

I still think Parkour for the sake of Parkour, and a chase for the sake of a chase, is well within Bond’s legal limits and requires no justification, but if we must go down that road of argumentation, I agree that the Parkour chase which leads to M’s bollocking (first time I’ve used that word!) of Bond is more solidly connected to Bond’s antics and more compelling than ever before. Though I do still think that Dench’s performance ain’t at all what it could have been. Her presence is dwarfed by Craig who says far less in the scene. Dench is a fine actress, but I don’t think she is or ever will be “M”.

But I’m only barely holding on to what the argument here is anymore. The crime is that the Parkour chase is ‘excessive’, with ZI as the prosecuting attorney and Loomis at the defense? If so, sign me up as a witness for the defense.

Bond spots his bad guy. He chases his bad guy. He kills his bad guy. M tears him a new one.
Throwing all the beginnings elements to the curb and taking character arc out of it, how is this excessive? I mean, in the universe of Bond cinema, how is this excessive? It’s entirely, completely, totally, par for the course, if not a birdie.

[Lachesis]

Her presence is dwarfed by Craig who says far less in the scene. Dench is a fine actress, but I don’t think she is or ever will be “M”.

But I’m only barely holding on to what the argument here is anymore. The crime is that the Parkour chase is ‘excessive’, with ZI as the prosecuting attorney and Loomis at the defense? If so, sign me up as a witness for the defense.

I am with you on Dench's 'M' I thought she worked well against Brosnan's Bond but seems very out of place/step with Craig.

As for the Parkour incident I will side with the prosecution, in the same way that gadgets came to dominate and later humour came to intrude, so action can be gratuitous and excessive and as a result be just as detrimental to the overall experience. That particular sequence is imo contrived and overblown.

Although the frequency of action sequences is something I have issue with in QoS the upside of that film is that individually they don't outstay their welcome (clarity arguments aside) or escalate to a point where they become ludicrous.

Its often about balance and restraint in the Bond films, too often its lacking and while the result can still be a lot of fun you just sometimes wish they hadn't gone quite that far etc.

Edited by Lachesis, 17 June 2010 - 03:33 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

There is no court trial here. Just an expression of viewpoints. I have no beef with Loomis and I am sure he would say likewise.

[The Shark]

I'd concur that the Parkour sequence is not only story deadwood, but also unintentionally and subversively - character deadwood.

Yes, I'm fully aware that intention is to show Bond as a vulnerable, callous, impulsive, and mistake-prone, man-child (despite being nearly 40 years old), but he comes off as more of an indestructible, unstoppable machine in the execution of the sequence. The idea behind it backfires, at least for me.

The longer this over-bloated set-piece draws on (which more and more outlandish feats being accomplished by Bond and the bomber), the less we care or relate to this Donkey Kong character, and one forgets even why this chase began in the first. They are just performing a cool sequence to attract the ADD teenagers to the box office, in order to the placate the Brosnan generation - expecting over-saturated action from modern Bond films by default.

[zencat]

I'd concur that the Parkour sequence is not only story deadwood, but also unintentionally and subversively - character deadwood.

Man, I couldn't disagree more.

[Trident]

I'd concur that the Parkour sequence is not only story deadwood, but also unintentionally and subversively - character deadwood.

Yes, I'm fully aware that intention is to show Bond as a vulnerable, callous, impulsive, and mistake-prone, man-child (despite being nearly 40 years old), but he comes off as more of an indestructible, unstoppable machine in the execution of the sequence. The idea behind it backfires, at least for me.

The longer this over-bloated set-piece draws on (which more and more outlandish feats being accomplished by Bond and the bomber), the less we care or relate to this Donkey Kong character, and one forgets even why this chase began in the first. They are just performing a cool sequence to attract the ADD teenagers to the box office, in order to the placate the Brosnan generation - expecting over-saturated action from modern Bond films by default.

Have to say I largely agree there. A less action-oriented sequence would have had much more effect character-wise IMO. At that point we've had a phantastic PTS cutting the suspense-scene of the office against the dirty action of the loo. Compared to that the parcours chase is lacking somewhat and I'd have preferred a chase where no outsiders realise what goes on, building up to Bond secretly killing the bomber in the embassy.

[doublenoughtspy]

Yes, but there is an unspoken awareness that the new actor IS the rookie and had better pull up their socks and get their act together - why else would you have M visit BOND's pad in LET DIE and SELENA (?) be assessing BOND's aptitude at the opening of GOLDENEYE? It's part of the unspoken poetic licence of the new "fella".

I don't agree. The shrink isn't sent to assess Bond in GOLDENEYE because he's a rookie (heck, the movie has by that point made clear that he has at least nine years' experience as a Double-O!), but because the new M suspects he's a clapped-out old dinosaur.

To paraphrase Steven Seagal, you're both wrong.

The evaluation scene in GE is them re-evaluating Bond to insure he was fit to return after he went rogue in LTK.

And I was told this by a person very close to the GE scripting process.

[dodge]

To give Campbell credit and criticism in equal measure... GOLDENEYE is really badly directed. Far too many shots are dull mid shots, it looks really pallid, the basic blocking is quite awkward and it is not as stylised or nuanced as it thinks it is.

But ROYALE was a revelation. I think that is partly because the quality of writing elevated the whole show (no director can go wrong with that train scene for instance.). But ROYALE had a dignity that Bond films need from time to time. There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

I disagree entirely but will limit my counter to the parkour chase seen. I was narratively needed because it was fresh--almost no one had even heard of parkour before then--and it was a welcome revelation to see a younger, fit Bond in full action mode...while actually mistaking mistakes and learning, shall we say, on the run. My only wish is that it had been filmed more straightforwardly so that we could see each component of the chase in its full glory.

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

My point was not that it hadn't been done in a Bond film, but that parkour was largely unknown to moviegoers period. The intent was to show a hipper, more happening Bond in a hipper, more happening Bond film. The sequence did that fine, imo, and thus cannot be deadwood.

[Loomis]

There is no court trial here. Just an expression of viewpoints. I have no beef with Loomis and I am sure he would say likewise.

Indeed.

Like it or not, it is a reboot.

Yes, and so were THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, GOLDENEYE and OHMSS. These films don't "reboot". They refocus.

The distinction I'm drawing is that only CASINO ROYALE explicitly deals with a rookie Bond on one of his first missions. It is therefore a reboot. We cannot say that it is just another new actor's debut when that is clearly not how the script sets out its stall. I suspect that most critics and viewers would also call CASINO ROYALE a reboot.

Which does not mean that CASINO ROYALE is somehow not part of the Bond series. For me, "reboot" is not a dirty word.

[The Shark]

To give Campbell credit and criticism in equal measure... GOLDENEYE is really badly directed. Far too many shots are dull mid shots, it looks really pallid, the basic blocking is quite awkward and it is not as stylised or nuanced as it thinks it is.

But ROYALE was a revelation. I think that is partly because the quality of writing elevated the whole show (no director can go wrong with that train scene for instance.). But ROYALE had a dignity that Bond films need from time to time. There are still far too many excessive beats (the Parkour chase is not narratively needed and its whole drive and story motif is repeated again at Miami Airport).

I disagree entirely but will limit my counter to the parkour chase seen. I was narratively needed because it was fresh--almost no one had even heard of parkour before then--and it was a welcome revelation to see a younger, fit Bond in full action mode...while actually mistaking mistakes and learning, shall we say, on the run. My only wish is that it had been filmed more straightforwardly so that we could see each component of the chase in its full glory.

But because Parkour had not been done in a Bond film before is not reason enough to throw it in. I like the sequence, but it is story deadwood.

My point was not that it hadn't been done in a Bond film, but that parkour was largely unknown to moviegoers period. The intent was to show a hipper, more happening Bond in a hipper, more happening Bond film. The sequence did that fine, imo, and thus cannot be deadwood.

They could alternatively show Bond in a moshpit at the Download festival while blazing some regs.

Just because something is considered 'hip' and 'trendy' by middle-aged executives, producers, and middle aged creative talent, doesn't mean it's necessary appropriate for the world of Bond.

'Street' and 'urban' sports aren't for Bond. Lets face it.

[Colossus]

I really liked GoldenEye but don't like Casino Royale, too boring and bland for me, the novel is good but cinematically not so much, should have stayed as the classy 1954 tv episode. Campbell's direction was great as usual though.

[DamnCoffee]

How can you say that the direction in Casino Royale is top notch, yet the actual film is boring and bland. You've just contradicted yourself.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

The evaluation scene in GE is them re-evaluating Bond to insure he was fit to return after he went rogue in LTK.

Remember also that M says if Bond finds Ourumov, guilty or not, she doesn't wants Bond involved in vendettas.