271 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I posted this is another thread, and this is my stance:

Look, the way I see it, a film has precedence over a video game. CR and QoS do not feature the gun barrel at the start.

That's not really accurate, in CR the gunbarrel does feature at the start, and that is before the main titles- just like in DN- only that in a VERY extended version. CR twisted the formula but didn't broke it, like they did it in QOS putting the gunbarrel at the end.

[The Shark]

A good director is a good director. I completely disagree with this notion some people have that movie directors are devided into little groups; this one does action, this one does comedy, this one does horror etc.

Most directors tend to fall into niches and comfort zones themselves.

Forster's tepid, sterile, asexual style doesn't work with Bond. You need someone with the larger than life personalities of Terence Young and Peter Hunt. One's personality always ends up on the end product, no matter which creative talent you are.

[sharpshooter]

I posted this is another thread, and this is my stance:

Look, the way I see it, a film has precedence over a video game. CR and QoS do not feature the gun barrel at the start.

That's not really accurate, in CR the gunbarrel does feature at the start, and that is before the main titles- just like in DN- only that in a VERY extended version. CR twisted the formula but didn't broke it, like they did it in QOS putting the gunbarrel at the end.

I know what you're saying, but it is accurate. CR does not open with a gun barrel. It’s near the start, but that’s not the start. Near enough isn’t good enough. QoS twisted the gun barrel formula. But it's no more "guilty" than CR for breaking tradition in my book. In terms of iconography, QoS has a lot more classic looking design (with dots) compared to the impromptu CR rendition. The only untraditional thing is the placement. And both instances are firsts in that regard.

[Jim]

Do such specific decisions define the era, though? I think the intention of the original post was, in part at least, to consider what the Craig-era stood for. It appears to me to stand for decision-making and decision-taking and some have come off and some have not, but at least they bothered. Otherwise it would be terribly production line and dull, wouldn't it? Not everything they have done has appealed to me but - as a broad-brush overview of what taking any decision represents, I am happy. Hooray for me. They can't keep on making Octopussy. At least they've woken up to the fact that starting and ending the film with James Bond almost exactly the same makes for a hellishly boring experience.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I posted this is another thread, and this is my stance:

Look, the way I see it, a film has precedence over a video game. CR and QoS do not feature the gun barrel at the start.

That's not really accurate, in CR the gunbarrel does feature at the start, and that is before the main titles- just like in DN- only that in a VERY extended version. CR twisted the formula but didn't broke it, like they did it in QOS putting the gunbarrel at the end.

I know what you're saying, but it is accurate. CR does not open with a gun barrel. It’s near the start, but that’s not the start. Near enough isn’t good enough. QoS twisted the gun barrel formula. But it's no more "guilty" than CR for breaking tradition in my book. In terms of iconography, QoS has a lot more classic looking design compared to the impromptu CR rendition. The only untraditional thing is the placement. And both instances are firsts in that regard.

Well, the thing is that I see- or understand- the whole B&W part of CR as one big extended gunbarrel; just like in DN where there isn't any pretitle scene and the gunbarrel scene with Bob Simmons it's filmed in B&W too; so it's at the start according to my view.

[SecretAgentFan]

By the way, EON is not the only production company using A directors for genre fare. This trend has already been going on for years now. And IMO it is a good one, opening up genre limits and making films more interesting.

Hiring smug, luvvie directors with little experience in the genre or affinity for Bond, is something to be proud of?

Hmm, you are referring to one director. In fact the only director who ever directed a Bond film and was not experienced in action movies but known for drama, mostly independent-style.

Is Marc Foster smug? "Luvvie"? I would say no on both accounts. And he often stated his affinity for Bond. He only admitted that at first he did not know whether he would fit in with the previous way of directing Bond (being very controlled by EON).

Should EON be proud of hiring Marc Foster?

Yes, absolutely. He not only managed to make a Bond film that was visually different and daring. Foster´s hiring also sent a signal within the industry that EON now is willing to have directors come in and put their stamp on a film. Bond films are not just about getting a hired hand, a routine-like genre-guy in anymore.

Does that mean EON only wants to impress critics now?

Of course not. And let´s never forget: QOS was a MASSIVE worldwide success. It´s not like EON brought in Foster who deconstructed everything so the end result was a flop, yet EON wants to continue getting arthouse-directors do the same.

If indeed Mendes will direct BOND 23 it only means that they continue looking for quality directors to give their input. Which can only enrichen the Bond universe.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I think you need to separate Craig the actor from what has been going on at Eon most of the past 10 years.

It seems (and I will stress the word seems because few really *know*) as if Eon is chasing "respect" in Hollywood. Casino Royale got the best reviews in years for a Bond movie. So, for QOS, they decide to get a director of Very Important Movies (Forster who had done Monster's Ball), they retained a writer known for Very Important Movies (Haggis with Crash). The result was, well, Quantum of Solace. Some people like it, but a lot of fans objected at least in part. And it's not like QOS got anywhere near the "respect' that Casino Royale, either.

You can blame that on Haggis being hurried to get his script in before a writer's strike. But I'm not sure it would have had that much of a difference. For a lot of fans, other Bond movies made by "journeymen" (Young, Hamilton, Hunt, Gilbert, Maibaum, Mankiewicz, et. al) were more entertaining than QOS.

Plus, there are signs the drive for "respect" influenced Bond 23 before the MGM financial situation worsened. Eon hired Peter Morgan -- who has recently said he questioned the concept of Bond -- to do a script. He spent months but never got past the treatment stage. Apparently, Morgan pitched Eon an intriguing idea but never turned it into even a first draft of a script. Anthony Burgess once pitched an idea and didn't make it to a script but at least he liked Bond.

Great post.

I also think Eon has been guilty of chasing respect of late. I wish they'd just chase entertainment.

I agree with both of you. Respect (from critics and Hollywood) is nice but it shouldn't be the end game when it comes to 007. Entertaining the masses and making money should be. Eon's Bond in the '60s basically created the action/adventure genre with highly entertaining and quality stories and solid film-making. Where was their respect from Hollywood and critics then? Sure the films were given mostly positive reviews but that was about it. In the history of the series EON has only won two Oscars--one for special effects and one for sound. The only other times they've received for nominations were for music/songs with Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only. Even Casino Royale, the highest rated major release in 2006 by Rotten Tomatoes didn't get a sniff from awards people other than the BAFTAs.

Over the years, Bond has proven time and time again that so-called "journeymen" directors can make good, quality, entertaining films. But the two highly respected artsy directors EON's hired in the last decade (Michael Apted and Marc Forster) have given us arguably the two most hated/controversial films of the series with The World Is Not Enough and Quantum Of Solace. I have a hard time thinking that is coincidence. Is getting respect from Hollywood and critics worth disappointing/upsetting/antagonizing the fan base?

I like Daniel Craig and I loved Casino Royale, but Quantum Of Solace was disappointing in several areas. It was not the right direction for the series to take as its many missteps show. Getting another film as great as Casino Royale will be difficult but not impossible and I hope EON is able to do it. Even if they're not, I'll be perfectly pleased with another Thunderball, Octopussy, or Tomorrow Never Dies. However, if we get another Quantum Of Solace disappointment, I'll be very concerned with the direction of the series.

[Zorin Industries]

I'm not sure BLOOD STONE should really be held up as 'canon' - in a way for folk to hold up the Craig era in thoughts like this. Canon fodder maybe, but not canon. Does it really matter what musical themes are played in it? Did folk get too worried about the musical moments in Spectrum's A VIEW TO A KILL game circa 1985? BLOOD STONE is a game. It is a promo spin-off, a piece of merchandise as worth worrying about as the lastest DK Books WORLD OF BOND'S GADGETS tome.

Bond reflects the times he works in. If Craig ain't wearing a suit then there is some thinking behind that. Dalton went casual in DAYLIGHTS as did Moore in EYES ONLY. Yes, they also wore the tux but so did Craig in both his Bond films.

The Bond producers are not messing up anything. Changing is not the same as messing. They are a canny bunch at Eon House. If a gunbarrel has been put on hold, then maybe there is a thinking that it's part of a tired iconography of Bond and could easily do more damage than good. And - I might be wrong - but there was a gunbarrel motif in both Daniel Craig films, and will be again (probably slap bang at the start of the film as that particular piece of iconographic motif-making has now earnt its appearance again). They were just done differently. And these films are half a century old now. The films peddle a formula that is - on paper - very dated. So the dressing has to be tweaked to still allow the audiences to engage with the formula (and the box office globally for both Craig's efforts somewhat underlines Eon got it right - despite the lazy, tired and ill-read criticism levelled at SOLACE particularly). And the Bond making family need a change themselves. Imagine churning out the same film time and time again. There is no creative drive to that. And - despite the naysayers - the producers want to test themselves (and I say that on fairly good authority).

And when folk cite how Fleming mixed the real and fantasy, they may well be right. But those books were written half a century ago. The world and the world of cinema had moved on from Fleming's Bond world before DR NO came out. The books may be beautifully written and full of laboourious detail, but they are from another era and another century.

The fantasy element may have been honed down but the recent memory alternative has been ice-surfing and ice palaces. And why should the Craig films pay homage to what went before? These films are meant to be stand alone efforts. Did LIVE AND LET DIE tip its trilby to GOLDFINGER or EYES ONLY lay in reverence at THUNDERBALL?

I have a hunch that BOND 23 could well have a baroque and broader sweep to it. Mendes (if it is indeed him at the helm when the Pinewood push comes to shove) no doubt wants to have fun with it. I don't think he would make BOND IN AMERICAN BEAUTY WITH PERDITION. Heck, we may even get henchmen in matching boiler suits falling off of gantries.

And dare I say it - though I have tried before - not one director who could legitimately been naively labelled "art house" has done a Bond film. Tamahori, Forster and Mendes are NOT "art house" directors and indicative of Eon HQ wanting to chase critics back-patting. Just because a director's output doesn't reach the masses consciously as well as physically doesn't imply they are a bit "arty". There ain't nothing "arty" about films that seep into a wider consciousness and go on to win Best Picture Oscars. Sam Mendes first feature film emerged from one of the most entertainment-led production houses - Dreamworks. Forster directed THE KITE RUNNER based on an international best selling book with a universal point to it. These are not the likes of Derek Jarman or Sally Potter or indeed a myriad of directors that naive fans label "art house" because they haven't heard of them or would ever got off their box-set sofas to go and see.

[Zorin Industries]

A good director is a good director. I completely disagree with this notion some people have that movie directors are devided into little groups; this one does action, this one does comedy, this one does horror etc.

Thank you!

Richard Donner did THE OMEN. He then did SUPERMAN and MAVERICK.

Friedkin did THE EXORCIST then a searing look at the gay club scene, CRUISING.

Spielberg does RAIDERS and then later SCHINDLER'S LIST.

Danny Boyle does TRAINSPOTTING, then does SLUMDOG via MILLIONS and is doing FRANKENSTEIN next year before overseeing the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony.

Soderbergh does SEX then OCEAN's, THE LIMEY, ERIN BROCKOVICH and maybe a LIBERACE biopic.

[Mr_Wint]

Did folk get too worried about the musical moments in Spectrum's A VIEW TO A KILL game circa 1985?

That comparison is ridiculous. A lot of things has happened during the last 25 years. Don't think that the way Bond is presented in GE/Bloodstone is a coincident. EON has total creative control. They will do anything possible to ensure that the way Bond and his world is interpreted in these games is consistent with their own view.

[Zorin Industries]

EDITED

[Lachesis]

I think there is a curious case of history repeating, in the 50's and 60's Fleming's work was criticised for their approach to their subject matter by people who had pretentions and agenda's beyond writing a rattling good yarn. He was unashamed in his response which he saw as writing books to entertain, boys own adventures for grown up. Eons response appears quite different.

It really isn't about the iconography, as people have noted that doesn't change the nature of the film - however the continued evidence of those changes is a focus that manifests itself when faced with a different approach to the films as a whole, Bonds films played and appealed on many different levels - moreso than most other movies - but now the focus is on one, action, and in fairness that is the most common of all comparable movie products. Something that you could admire for having no time for poe faced pretention has now made a genuine stab at that very label.

The split in fandom may be that we had the ultimate 'Jack of all trades' franchise, but that last two entries has elecetd instead to try and be master of one. Even if it succeed or has succeeded the loss has been something completely unique and I hope that the daliance of joining the crowd is just a blip on the larger radar - in which case I can one day look back at the bold experiment and add it as more evidence of real diversity in the series rather than the way I personally percieve it atm, the polar opposite.

Edited by Lachesis, 05 November 2010 - 01:05 PM.

[The Shark]

By the way, EON is not the only production company using A directors for genre fare. This trend has already been going on for years now. And IMO it is a good one, opening up genre limits and making films more interesting.

Hiring smug, luvvie directors with little experience in the genre or affinity for Bond, is something to be proud of?

Hmm, you are referring to one director. In fact the only director who ever directed a Bond film and was not experienced in action movies but known for drama, mostly independent-style.

No. Michael Apted and Lee Tamahori had neither directed an action picture before, and were known in the business for small scale drama. Lewis Gilbert to a lesser to a less degree. Though REACH FOR THE SKY and SINK THE BISMARK could be deemed wartime drama.

Is Marc Foster smug? "Luvvie"? I would say no on both accounts.

His Bohemian penchant for scarves, says otherwise. Though that's more a poseurish gesture. Otherwise he seems quite sincere and humbled. I was thinking more along the lines of Sam Mendes when I chose the word 'smug'.

And he often stated his affinity for Bond. He only admitted that at first he did not know whether he would fit in with the previous way of directing Bond (being very controlled by EON).

He stated he had an affinity for Bond (who would direct a project while telling the press they were appalled by the character!?), but also that he'd never seen a Bond film before Barbara Broccoli sent him a carefully selected number of Bond DVDs.

That's what I mean by little affinity, and it shows on the direction.

He not only managed to make a Bond film that was visually different and daring.

Exactly. He's an aestheticist, who cares more about the qualities of visuals, than using them to tell a story, and develop character. Hence the pointless additions such as location fonts.

Foster´s hiring also sent a signal within the industry that EON now is willing to have directors come in and put their stamp on a film. Bond films are not just about getting a hired hand, a routine-like genre-guy in anymore.

But Forster is a routine hired hand, up there with the likes of Micheal Apted. Another mercenary director for hire, brought in to diversify his portfolio. He's just slightly more highbrow, and brings more clout within the industry. It's not a major achievement by any means, considering the lacklustre results.

Does that mean EON only wants to impress critics now?

Of course not. And let´s never forget: QOS was a MASSIVE worldwide success. It´s not like EON brought in Foster who deconstructed everything so the end result was a flop, yet EON wants to continue getting arthouse-directors do the same.

Like you say, it was big box office success, with a mediocre reaction from critics and the general public alike. Just like DIE ANOTHER DAY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. The later also de-constructing everything, with similar results.

[sharpshooter]

Well, you know, they can't really play with the gun barrel much more, even if they wanted to, without repeating CR and QoS. And where that itself becomes a cliche. They've integrated it into the titles via an action scene. And they've put it at the end. The middle is all they've got left, really. But I can't see them doing that, and transitioning to another scene straight after. I really do think Bond 23 will open with the gun barrel, and contain Craig's first two films as experimental, young Bond earning his stripes tales. But the refreshing grit will go on.

[Zorin Industries]

Are we really complaining about a gunbarrel moment in a computer game?

[sharpshooter]

Are we really complaining about a gunbarrel moment in a computer game?

We're talking about the direction of the Craig era as a whole.

[level007]

i'm very surprised by some of the reactions here.

people complaining because there isn't a gunbarrel at the beginning of the movie, or beacuase in a movie there is a the name of each countries with different fonts.
Is it really this important ?

I prefer to have a good story and few "bond trademarks" than the contrary.
For the first time in years, we have the chance to have bond film that have real story about bond, and you would prefer to have Moneypenny, Q and all the cliché back ala DAD ?
i mean we had 18-20 formulaic films before, go back to watch them !

ANd if people didn't like as much QOS as CR, it's because most of the people have become lazy about bond film. They don't expect any surprise anymore.
they want, the "bond, james bond" line, the bond theme, the gunbarrel at the begginning, the ridiculous gadget, etc.

It's because EON made the same movie for 30 years that people didn't like QOS.
in fact they didn't want the story to continue! instead they wanted a CR 2, which is crazy!
how can you complain about Bond being humorless and not stylish in QOS ? i mean in the story the guy lost the girl he loved. he wants revenge only.
it's a revenge movie. no time to go to the casino and make love for hours to a stupid girl in a long dress.
That's why QOS is so good. it's because the way it was filmed is 100% perfect for a revenge story.

well, that's my point of view :-)

[DamnCoffee]

You can still have a brilliant story-lead Bond film with the Bond theme and a gunbarrel sequence...

[level007]

Mharkin, i agree 100% with you.

I was talking about chosing between story and bond trademark :-)

ABout the bond theme, the thing is during the Brosnan era, a lot of people where complaining that the theme was used too much.
now that Arnold has made the theme less bombastic, people are complaining that they miss it.

I really like the QOS score. not too long nd on CD i found it a lot more enjoyable as a whole than CR, which despite some extraordinary cues, it's a bit dull when you listen on CD.

[Mr_Wint]

ANd if people didn't like as much QOS as CR, it's because most of the people have become lazy about bond film. They don't expect any surprise anymore.
they want, the "bond, james bond" line, the bond theme, the gunbarrel at the begginning, the ridiculous gadget, etc.

It seems like you are saying that QOS was full of surprises and I can't really see that.

But I never expected a CR-sequel to be that dull, so yes, for lazy people like me it was a little bit surprising.

I was talking about chosing between story and bond trademark :-)

Why do we have to choose?

[Lachesis]

I think the real issue is about what has made Bond stand out from the crowd for so very long, what makes it more than just another action film. IMO it has been anything but the introspective emo pretension that I feel the films since TWINE have been escalating. For myself I feel Bond has lost his identity, he might still be a success but what is there that endears or interests me in this demystified version over the same process applied to a Bourne or a Hunt, or even a McClane?

[Zorin Industries]

Are we really complaining about a gunbarrel moment in a computer game?

We're talking about the direction of the Craig era as a whole.

But it is being boiled down to what clothes he wears in a computer game and whether a gunbarrel motif is exactly where it always has been. This is not a discussion of the Craig era as a whole. For starters, I do not count two films as an "era", but that could well be all we have of Mr Craig (hopefully not). And that era has already shaken up and shed some of the formula whilst keeping it at the same time, bringing a personal insight (not "the" personal insight, but "a") about BOND to the foreground, ditched the tired ABC investigative nature of the mission, ditched some of the characterisation cliches (dumb blonde, over reliance on gadgets, clear cut global politics). But these sort of things get lost as apparently the gunbarrel is more important and Marc Forster doesn't know how to edit a film. Fan impatience at a lack of films (and worse, a lack of information about forthcoming ones) is not the same as an era not working.

After two years hindsight the fact that folk are moaning about the gunbarrel AGAIN says to me that folk don't really want to look at the "era" with the same progressive eyes the producers have and will continue to do with the franchise. As long as BOND 23 is 126 minutes long, has signposted exposition left, right and centre with wall-to-wall 007 Theme Music then I fear some folk will never be happy.

[JamesCraig]

If the Bondseries hadn't evolved one bit, it would've been something like:

"Teh most boring series evah"
"Bond is no good, Bourne is much bettah"

I don't think that QOS is as brilliant as CR, but why some people seem to dismiss it as the only "bad" Bond is beyond me, it's not that EVERYTHING was amazing in the past (And this comes from who enjoys QOS for what it is, yes these people exist)...

Enjoying a Bondmovie just because it has all or many "classic" elements is dangerously fanboyish.

[SecretAgentFan]

No. Michael Apted and Lee Tamahori had neither directed an action picture before, and were known in the business for small scale drama. Lewis Gilbert to a lesser to a less degree. Though REACH FOR THE SKY and SINK THE BISMARK could be deemed wartime drama.

Sorry, Shark - but previous to BOND Michael Apted for example directed the wonderful Cold War thriller "GORKY PARK" which featured terrific action and suspense. And Lee Tamahori did not only do suspense and action in his beloved "ONCE WERE WARRIORS" but also "THE EDGE" and "MULHOLLAND FALLS".

His Bohemian penchant for scarves, says otherwise. Though that's more a poseurish gesture. Otherwise he seems quite sincere and humbled. I was thinking more along the lines of Sam Mendes when I chose the word 'smug'.

Gee, Foster wears a scarve and therefore must be a Bohemian poser? (All us scarve-wearers should probably feel ashamed now.) I still don´t see why you consider Mendes "smug", by the way. And did you see all of his movies?

He stated he had an affinity for Bond (who would direct a project while telling the press they were appalled by the character!?), but also that he'd never seen a Bond film before Barbara Broccoli sent him a carefully selected number of Bond DVDs. That's what I mean by little affinity, and it shows on the direction.

Well, I certainly read a different interview in which he stated that he loved the Connery Bond films and therefore inserted the "Goldfinger" hommage (which shows his affinity in my book pretty well).

Exactly. He's an aestheticist, who cares more about the qualities of visuals, than using them to tell a story, and develop character. Hence the pointless additions such as location fonts.

I respect your opinion. But everything you wrote just now is the opposite of what I would say, namely: he uses the visuals to tell the story and develop the character very elegantly and quickly. The location fonts may or may not be to anyone´s liking. I did not find it problematic. It´s a fashion, IMO. Just as it was a fashion when location fonts were done in typewriter font or with computer keyboard clicks during the 90´s. And the insertion of the location fonts into a scene is done right now in a stylish TV show like "FRINGE" by the way.

But Forster is a routine hired hand, up there with the likes of Micheal Apted. Another mercenary director for hire, brought in to diversify his portfolio. He's just slightly more highbrow, and brings more clout within the industry. It's not a major achievement by any means, considering the lacklustre results.

How can Foster (or Apted) be mercenary directors for hire when they are brought in because of their more highbrow diversified portfolio? And the "lackustre results" are just due to interpretation on your part.

Like you say, it was big box office success, with a mediocre reaction from critics and the general public alike. Just like DIE ANOTHER DAY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. The later also de-constructing everything, with similar results.

How can it be a mediocre reaction from the general public when the films were big box office successes (QOS, DAD, TWINE)? Concerning the critics, I would say that the reviews weren´t as favorable as for CR but that it was a predictable backlash.

[David_M]

I'm falling in the Zencat camp, here. I don't care so much where (or if) they include the gunbarrel sequence or the theme; what I miss is the old sense of opulence, grandeur, adventure and sheer scale of the old-school Bonds. There's plenty of ways to fit those elements in without severely limiting creativity, and I miss them. Before Craig, that's what I missed in LTK, the prototype "grim and gritty" entry.

I'm pretty disinterested in what's next at this point, but I suppose is a blessing or else I'd be a nervous wreck waiting for MGM and EON to pull it together.

[JamesCraig]

I'm falling in the Zencat camp, here. I don't care so much where (or if) they include the gunbarrel sequence or the theme; what I miss is the old sense of opulence, grandeur, adventure and sheer scale of the old-school Bonds. There's plenty of ways to fit those elements in without severely limiting creativity, and I miss them. Before Craig, that's what I missed in LTK, the prototype "grim and gritty" entry.

I'm pretty disinterested in what's next at this point, but I suppose is a blessing or else I'd be a nervous wreck waiting for MGM and EON to pull it together.

Then count out TLD, FRWL, Dr No, OHMSS & FYEO too if you don't mind.

[level007]

ANd if people didn't like as much QOS as CR, it's because most of the people have become lazy about bond film. They don't expect any surprise anymore.
they want, the "bond, james bond" line, the bond theme, the gunbarrel at the begginning, the ridiculous gadget, etc.

It seems like you are saying that QOS was full of surprises and I can't really see that.

But I never expected a CR-sequel to be that dull, so yes, for lazy people like me it was a little bit surprising.

I was talking about chosing between story and bond trademark :-)

Why do we have to choose?

You are right, QOS is not exactly full of surprise but the movie itself is a surprise.
Because it's the first real sequel in the bond series !
It's what DAF should have been. i was very disapointed when i first saw this movie because bond didn't get a real revenge on Blofeld

I understand that some people prefer the movies being more "formulaic". i do to for some of them.
but right now we are in a different era and that's what is great about the bond series, because for each period of time we have a different bond.
i'm sure in the future, post craig, we may have a different kind of bond, maybe less serious.
i'm just happy right now that we are getting something different, even it that means to have less bond theme (and i do love it) and others bond usual stuff.

by the way this is a great topic, thanks Mr Mharkin :-)

[Iroquois]

In regards to Craig's films, I will simply say that ALL the Bond elements are in them, just in ways you don't expect. I find that way you enjoy and indulge in these little Bondian things more. Regardless, the films are about Bond's origins so they're allowed to mess around with it in these two.

The series has clearly moved on from that. I completed Blood Stone earlier today and if you're worried about lack of Bondian elements then Blood Stone has them all:

-The pre-titles sequence is completely detached from the main story, it's a mini adventure ala Goldfinger.
-There are naked silhouettes of women throughout the titles (for the record, there are also in QOS and Goldeneye so wake up people )
-Bond has a Vodka Martini and has slept with the waitress by the time the credits sequence is over.
-There are dozens of references to Q Branch (it was very cool hearing Craig say 'Q Branch') just like the novels.
-Imaginative set design.
-The relationship between Bond and M is secure, one of her first lines is 'I put my faith in Bond'. Bond is loyal to M and committed to the mission. M is also not a supporting character and is mainly there for exposition.
-Great action set pieces, notably one that takes place on a hovercraft.
-Tricky situations that Bond has to escape from, such as a big underground drill and a room filling with gas.
-There's a lot of espionage in the game, it's not just about explosions, bullets and chases.
-There's a Casino scene, tux, suits, fast cars.
-A disfigured, sadistic Villain, who captures and tortures Bond.
-Bond has a gadget in the form of his phone, which can hack into cameras and whatnot (again, provided by Q branch).
-Bond infiltrates the villains remote lair in Burma as the villain taunts him over the base's loud speakers.


There's definitely a lot more than that, but everything's there apart from the theme during the narrative and the gunbarrel, the imagery of the gunbarrel is on the HUD and during the loading screen however.

If you're worried about Craig not getting his Bond theme worry not, I've only completed 3 levels of Goldeneye so far and it has indeed played in full during a rather cool moment.It should be noted that David Arnold is involved with the music so now he's clearly using the theme again. Whenever we see Bond 23 it will be there.

There's not been a gunbarrel as of yet but, again, the imagery is there.

Goldeneye in general is packed full of Bond elements.

As for Craig's Bond being 'too casual' I beg to differ. In fact, Craig was wearing suits throughout the majority of QOS and spent most of CR in a dinner jacket.

Regardless Bond dresses for the occasion, and he's ALWAYS stylish. If you think Craig's too casual watch Thunderball, FYEO, TLD etc. Bond is more than what he wears, though what he wears is very cool. Craig gets the balance right.

Edited by Iroquois, 05 November 2010 - 09:48 PM.

[The Shark]

No. Michael Apted and Lee Tamahori had neither directed an action picture before, and were known in the business for small scale drama. Lewis Gilbert to a lesser to a less degree. Though REACH FOR THE SKY and SINK THE BISMARK could be deemed wartime drama.

Sorry, Shark - but previous to BOND Michael Apted for example directed the wonderful Cold War thriller "GORKY PARK" which featured terrific action and suspense. And Lee Tamahori did not only do suspense and action in his beloved "ONCE WERE WARRIORS" but also "THE EDGE" and "MULHOLLAND FALLS".

Well, I'd seen GORKY PARK, and wasn't too impressed by Adpted's handling of it. Amateurish, TV-movie direction, but it benefited to some degree from a good screenplay and cast. But still, it's a very low key thriller, with no large set-pieces - contrary to the film he was hired for. ONCE WERE WARRIORS is indeed a fine film (I haven't seen the other two you'd mentioned, but I'll get round to it) but it's action was rather small scale - At least compared relatively to the monolithic scale and excess of DIE ANOTHER DAY, it's a completely different world. And I think it's fair to to say Tamahori must have felt like a kid in a sweet shop, when given a modern film to work with, and I think that's one of the two ways these sort director's for hire reacting when tackling. They either can't handle, and produce a fragmented, schizoid mes of a picture (Apted and Forster), or they pump the film to the extreme with everything, from hard boiled thriller convention (first third of the film) to a John Woo/Roland Emmerich hybrid (last two thirds) - everything but the kitchen sink put into one giant blender. Neither works IMHO, and results from the simple case of a director being overwhelmed by Bond and its legacy.

I hope you sort of understand where I'm coming from.

His Bohemian penchant for scarves, says otherwise. Though that's more a poseurish gesture. Otherwise he seems quite sincere and humbled. I was thinking more along the lines of Sam Mendes when I chose the word 'smug'.

Gee, Foster wears a scarve and therefore must be a Bohemian poser? (All us scarve-wearers should probably feel ashamed now.) I still don´t see why you consider Mendes "smug", by the way. And did you see all of his movies?

About the scarf, that was a bad joke on my behalf. With Mendes though his smug, sliminess radiates through every interview I've seen of the guy, along with his entire filmography (which I've watched). Specious is a good word to do describe him ans his brand of films.

He stated he had an affinity for Bond (who would direct a project while telling the press they were appalled by the character!?), but also that he'd never seen a Bond film before Barbara Broccoli sent him a carefully selected number of Bond DVDs. That's what I mean by little affinity, and it shows on the direction.

Well, I certainly read a different interview in which he stated that he loved the Connery Bond films and therefore inserted the "Goldfinger" hommage (which shows his affinity in my book pretty well).

Yes, he saw GOLDFINGER once on DVD, and decided to work in an pointless, clumsy homage to it.

Exactly. He's an aestheticist, who cares more about the qualities of visuals, than using them to tell a story, and develop character. Hence the pointless additions such as location fonts.

I respect your opinion. But everything you wrote just now is the opposite of what I would say, namely: he uses the visuals to tell the story and develop the character very elegantly and quickly. The location fonts may or may not be to anyone´s liking. I did not find it problematic. It´s a fashion.

Yes, and serves little pointless in the context of the film other than to look nice.

But Forster is a routine hired hand, up there with the likes of Micheal Apted. Another mercenary director for hire, brought in to diversify his portfolio. He's just slightly more highbrow, and brings more clout within the industry. It's not a major achievement by any means, considering the lacklustre results.

How can Foster (or Apted) be mercenary directors for hire when they are brought in because of their more highbrow diversified portfolio?

I said they were seen as high brow within film and media circles, not that they held particularly diverse filmographies (mostly between documentaries, dramas, and relatively low-key thrillers).

Like you say, it was big box office success, with a mediocre reaction from critics and the general public alike. Just like DIE ANOTHER DAY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. The later also de-constructing everything, with similar results.

How can it be a mediocre reaction from the general public when the films were big box office successes (QOS, DAD, TWINE)?

Because of the phenomenally viral marketing campaigns though films had. Audiences swarming into cinemas says more about the hype built up for the film, coupled with the success of the previous instalments than their judgement of the film.

Concerning the critics, I would say that the reviews weren´t as favorable as for CR

That's a pretty big understatement.

[Guy Haines]

You can still have a brilliant story-lead Bond film with the Bond theme and a gunbarrel sequence...

Agreed. There is very little I find annoying about the Craig era. I think it has been a shot in the arm for the series, and I consider Daniel Craig to be the best Bond since Connery. But I did miss the "identifiers", if you like - the gunbarrel and Bond theme at the start, and the original theme played at appropriate moments. It wasn't so much a problem with CR, because it was made clear that it was meant to be an "origin" or "retcon" type of film - and it would have seemed odd if the film opened as "business as usual". Therefore the film makers were correct in "twisting" the gunbarrel scene to the end of the end of the pre title, leading in to the theme tune (I thought the link was done very well indeed). Also, "You Know My Name" is used throughout the soundtrack and occasionally teeters on the brink of going into the Bond theme - at least to my "tin ear" it did!

That said, I missed the gunbarrel at the start of QoS, and imo putting it at the end of the film seemed downright odd, almost like an afterthought. And I did miss the occasional use of the Bond theme - I think QoS could have done with it far more than CR, because it was in some ways such a diversion in style from audience expectations.

This isn't a "Bond 23" thread, but I'll add my two-pennneth anyway. I think the gunbarrel and a traditional Bond theme arrangement should be restored. The James Bond theme should be used where appropriate (not every time Bond turns up, of course, but where it adds something to the scene in question - John Barry's 60s scores provide a guide as to where). And, a Cbn member on another thread suggested a title scene incorporating images from the Bond book covers - I would be in favour of that. Finally, a theme tune with orchestral backing which - like the early Bond tunes - includes a few notes from Monty Norman's original.

We've been reminded from time to time on this site and elsewhere that by the time 23 comes out, Bond will have been away for quite a while. These little additions to the presentation of 23 would, I think, help to remind the audience that Bond has indeed returned.