194 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

Probably, or at least if he were given the chance to play the Bond series' first ever truly well-written and fleshed-out villain with comparable screentime to 007.

This strikes me as a bit like Tom Hardy signing up to play the bad guy in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - more than just yer usual villainous role in just yer usual action franchise sequel. Something that's relatively meaty and prestigious. Or at least I hope so.

I like the idea. I’m sure Bond could get away with such a scenario. But the character would have to be top notch and instantly memorable. It’d be interesting to see how they did it.

Giving the villains more of the floor works well for Batman, mainly for two reasons. One, it aids Batman’s characterization. He is treated as a shadowy figure that lives in the backdrop. We learn and possibly empathize with the villain, who often is a new character for the film. All the while Batman is observing, and will sooner or later intervene at a moment of his choosing. We imagine what he is up to.

And two, Batman and his rogues gallery have been around for ages. I think because of that, people naturally have an affinity for wanting to see those villains in a decent sized role. Especially if these villains have regularly appeared in other media like comics, animated series, and video games. People have grown up getting familiar with them. Naturally, we want to see them re-introduced in rebooted continuity. Especially if it's been 19-16 years since they have last appeared in a previous series.

With Bond, I don't think people are sentimental to the villains as they are with Batman or say, Spider-Man. Every film has somebody different and nobody knows what we’re going to get. The video games toy with bringing back classic Bond villains like Oddjob and Jaws, but there's never been any real indication the films will follow suit.

[Loomis]

Interesting points. It's true that some Bond villains are iconic, but (unless I'm overlooking a couple of characters) only Blofeld and Jaws have appeared in more than one film (I imagine that Mr White will crop up in BOND 23, although he's hardly an iconic character.... yet). Very few Bond fans would wish to see the likes of Dr. No, Red Grant, Rosa Klebb, Goldfinger, Oddjob, Scaramanga, Nick Nack, Stomberg, Drax, etc. return to the big screen, although no one minds having them in games. There's no call in Bond fandom for these characters to be part of a rebooted cinematic continuity a la the Joker, Harvey Dent, Catwoman and co. in the Nolan Batman films.

Not that Bardem needs to play an iconic villain from the past, though (although if he were the head of Quantum he'd effectively be the new Blofeld). I'm thinking of Pacino and De Niro in HEAT: Craig's Bond and Bardem are similar people with similar temperaments, who both live by codes of professionalism and honour and end up developing a mutual respect. Both of them are stylish, driven, charismatic alpha males who are set on a collision course with each other. This would be very radical territory for the Bond series, for as far as I'm aware Bond never has any respect or liking for any of the baddies, in any of the films or novels.

Of course, the Bond franchise has occasionally toyed with the idea of Bond and the villain as mirror images of each other, the only difference being that Bond is on the side of "good" (see Scaramanga in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and Trevelyan in GOLDENEYE), but it's an idea that has never been developed with any real bite. Perhaps, though, it could be BOND 23's unique selling point - greater screentime for and deeper focus on the villain may be the reason why Bardem and Sam Mendes are (reportedly) interested in being part of this film.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't see any future Bond villain being any more differently presented. Larger-than-life does not mean larger-than-Bond.

I think Bardem is more than apt, but let's just see what happens. Early days and all that...

[Loomis]

I don't see any future Bond villain being any more differently presented. Larger-than-life does not mean larger-than-Bond.

Well, I'm hoping for equal-size-to-Bond rather than larger-than.

That said, though, even that seems unlikely, given that the franchise is still very much straitjacketed by The Formula™. It would take real guts for Eon to make a film that was just as much the bad guy's story as Bond's story, and to give an actor like Bardem the opportunity to steal the show from Craig. Would they give us a villain we'd want to root for almost as much as Bond?

They've already moved the gunbarrel around and cut out Q and Moneypenny, but it remains to be seen whether Eon will make any bold changes on a narrative level.

There was a lot of excitement in fandom when Robert Carlyle was cast in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but his Renard turned out to be a very conventional, standard-issue Bond bad guy wasted by being confined to a handful of scenes. I hope Bardem isn't squandered in this manner. I'd like him to be the Bond series' Hans Gruber, more than holding his own against Bond and giving BOND 23 what I believe is called in the trade "a second level of sell".

[Royal Dalton]

There was a lot of excitement in fandom when Robert Carlyle was cast in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but his Renard turned out to be a very conventional, standard-issue Bond bad guy wasted by being confined to a handful of scenes.

Interestingly, that's a role Bardem is said to have turned down.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't see any future Bond villain being any more differently presented. Larger-than-life does not mean larger-than-Bond.

Well, I'm hoping for equal-size-to-Bond rather than larger-than.

That said, though, even that seems unlikely, given that the franchise is still very much straitjacketed by The Formula™. It would take real guts for Eon to make a film that was just as much the bad guy's story as Bond's story, and to give an actor like Bardem the opportunity to steal the show from Craig. Would they give us a villain we'd want to root for almost as much as Bond?

They've already moved the gunbarrel around and cut out Q and Moneypenny, but it remains to be seen whether Eon will make any bold changes on a narrative level.

There was a lot of excitement in fandom when Robert Carlyle was cast in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but his Renard turned out to be a very conventional, standard-issue Bond bad guy wasted by being confined to a handful of scenes. I hope Bardem isn't squandered in this manner. I'd like him to be the Bond series' Hans Gruber, more than holding his own against Bond and giving BOND 23 what I believe is called in the trade "a second level of sell".

And Robert Carlyle is a superb actor but not a screen presence in the way Bardem is. Carlyle is very TV - which may explain why his film career has not really taken off beyond Bond and THE FULL MONTY (which had telly origins anyway). Also, and I could be talking rollocks here - Carlyle seems a tad dated as a presence. He has that 1980's social realist drama ethic about him - whereas someone like Bardem eats the screen in a very "now" way.

It is not a question of being "bold" with making a bad guy's story on a par with BOND. It is about unbalancing a film, it's drives and beats. The Formula TM is there for good reason on a Bond film - i.e. it works. I think a Javier would shine and (maybe) sign off the Quantum-ness exceedingly well. He is also a very versatile performer (hate that phrase) so could turn in such a charmingly sympathetic villain. And lucky for him his English has improved in recent years as it would have been a case of the LARGO voiceover artist once again if (I said 'if') he does get cast.

[Loomis]

It is not a question of being "bold" with making a bad guy's story on a par with BOND. It is about unbalancing a film, it's drives and beats. The Formula TM is there for good reason on a Bond film - i.e. it works.

Would you say that DIE HARD is unbalanced, or that its "drives and beats" are wrong? Both Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman play solidly-written, fleshed-out characters, each with his own distinct goal and character arc. The film is just as much the story of Hans Gruber and what he wants as it is John McClane's story. With a less interesting bad guy, DIE HARD would still probably work quite well as an enjoyable timekiller of an action flick, but it wouldn't be the very solid piece of storytelling and filmmaking that it is.

I realise that this has never happened before, but I fail to see why a Bond film can't have a villain like Hans Gruber, or why it would be impossible to have Craig and Bardem in a De Niro/Pacino HEAT situation.

[Zorin Industries]

DIE HARD is not a Bond film. They may share action needs and set piece fall-backs but the driving dynamics are quite different.

And not that you are saying as much, but I find HEAT a really bloated film whose whole concept is predicated on one scene that feels shoe-horned in from the start. Though the cat and mouse motif may not be lost on a Bond film.

[Loomis]

DIE HARD is not a Bond film.

I know. But why can't BOND 23 be a break from the usual formula, especially with talent like Bardem and Mendes onboard?

I thought the Craig era was supposed to be all about innovation. You yourself enthusiastically supported the stylistic changes of QUANTUM OF SOLACE and Marc Forster's somewhat idiosyncratic approach to storytelling and visuals, so wouldn't you like to see Mendes and co. continue to ring the changes a little? Or do you just want a pretty conventional Bond flick in which the bad guy wears a black hat, there's no real relationship between him (or her) and 007, and there's no real dramatic weight to their interactions, no particular sense of moral dilemma or conflicted loyalties, and so on?

If Bond can have a deeper-than-usual relationship with the Bond girl, acted to an unusually high standard by Craig and Eva Green, with screenwriting of a rather higher calibre than is usual for the series, why can't we have the same sort of thing with Bond and the villain in BOND 23?

[univex]

"Craig's Bond and Bardem are similar people with similar temperaments, who both live by codes of professionalism and honour and end up developing a mutual respect. Both of them are stylish, driven, charismatic alpha males who are set on a collision course with each other"

That would be a remarkable selling point for the film, very interesting points there Loomis, I wonder if you haven´t already guessed the main kanundrum in Bond´s newly found emotional depth. When do you guys think we´ll have some sort of confirmation on this? Shouldn´t Bardem´s publicist/agent be on to this by now? Or are they cruising on the free pub there?

Edited by univex, 01 February 2011 - 03:39 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

DIE HARD is not a Bond film.

I know. But why can't BOND 23 be a break from the usual formula, especially with talent like Bardem and Mendes onboard?

I thought the Craig era was supposed to be all about innovation. You yourself enthusiastically supported the stylistic changes of QUANTUM OF SOLACE and Marc Forster's somewhat idiosyncratic approach to storytelling and visuals, so wouldn't you like to see Mendes and co. continue to ring the changes a little? Or do you just want a pretty conventional Bond flick in which the bad guy wears a black hat, there's no real relationship between him (or her) and 007, and there's no real dramatic weight to their interactions, no particular sense of moral dilemma or conflicted loyalties, and so on?

If Bond can have a deeper-than-usual relationship with the Bond girl, acted to an unusually high standard by Craig and Eva Green, with screenwriting of a rather higher calibre than is usual for the series, why can't we have the same sort of thing with Bond and the villain in BOND 23?

I am not saying any of that is preferred. Of course Mendes and co will twist and tweak the expectations. Who is to say that a Javier Bardem type is the only villain. The film could have a whole boardroom of major names pushing BOND's buttons. Of course Craig and his opponents are going to be given some meat to play with. It could well be that the template for that - the dynamics - will indeed be different for a Bond (we may have already seen some key beats of BOND 23 already in SOLACE and ROYALE - but are then introduced to them through the new villain's perspective - "You didn't see me that night at the Opera, Mr Bond" / "Who do you think let you find the access codes for M's apartment?"... CUT FLASHBACK etc).

BOND 23 will operate very carefully within The Formula - as SOLACE did to its credit (more so than a lot of folk give it credit for). THAT is why skilled names like Mendes are getting in on the act nowadays - to do what has always been done but a bit differently, with more drive and less bombast... maybe.

[univex]

If Bond can have a deeper-than-usual relationship with the Bond girl, acted to an unusually high standard by Craig and Eva Green, with screenwriting of a rather higher calibre than is usual for the series, why can't we have the same sort of thing with Bond and the villain in BOND 23?

Yes, that sold it to me Loomis. And no one better to pull that off then Bardem, the guy has both charisma and strangeness, makings of a legendary Bond villain.

"You didn't see me that night at the Opera, Mr Bond" / "Who do you think let you find the access codes for M's apartment?"... [/i]CUT FLASHBACK etc).

That would probably be cool as an ice cube for us fans but I doubt they´ll go for it, you´re probably right there in that analysis Zorin, they´ll play it safe, not as safe as before, but safe.

Edited by univex, 01 February 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

BOND 23 could well be extremely traditional in a lot of ways anyway.

[Loomis]

to do what has always been done but a bit differently

That's basically exactly what I'm calling for.

And it can be done. Fleming did it himself. Look at YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: Tiger Tanaka is essentially M, while Dikko Henderson is essentially Felix Leiter, but they're better-drawn and more emotionally engaging than M and Leiter ever were.

Look at Kissy Suzuki: there's a realism to the character (well, apart from the rather far-fetched bit about her adventures in Hollywood!) and a poignancy and truth to her doomed cross-cultural romance with Bond that sets her apart from, say, Gala Brand in MOONRAKER. Even Blofeld is more personalised and vividly-sketched this time round as Fleming probes his madness.

It's because the characters and their relationships are so well-crafted that YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE has genuine dramatic power and emotional resonance, setting it head and shoulders above any of the other Bond novels (IMO, anyway). Story-wise, I guess the "beats" and structure are the same as ever, but the execution is of a higher calibre. I feel similarly about Eon's CASINO ROYALE (although that film most certainly does play around with beats and structure, and brilliantly so).

[The Shark]

If Bond can have a deeper-than-usual relationship with the Bond girl, acted to an unusually high standard by Craig and Eva Green, with screenwriting of a rather higher calibre than is usual for the series, why can't we have the same sort of thing with Bond and the villain in BOND 23?

Yes, that sold it to me Loomis. And no one better to pull that off then Bardem, the guy has both charisma and strangeness, makings of a legendary Bond villain.

Agreed. Though I do hope the dialogue is of a higher considerably quality than Purvis & Wade/Haggis's asinine romantic dialogue from CR.

"Do you know what can do with my little finger."

"I think that that's why I love you."

Let's hope the writing doesn't fail, this time round.

"You didn't see me that night at the Opera, Mr Bond" / "Who do you think let you find the access codes for M's apartment?"... CUT FLASHBACK etc).

*cue EastEnders drum machine*

But isn't that kind of cheap, retroactive storytelling more suited to a TV drama series, than Bond? Relying on easy twists, and self-contradictions to shock the audience.

I don't want Bond to go down that road. But I fear under a director of Sam Mendes's calibre, it just might.

[Matt_13]

The single most reassuring aspect of this project is the fact that there was no writer's strike and the script will be properly edited and polished. Quantum managed a lot with so little. It's really exciting to see what a proper Craig era Bond script with look like. Casino Royale's was a gem (aside from some iffy dialogue exchanges, though I do think the train scene is an instant classic) so this is a real opportunity for something extraordinary. Now, Bardem hasn't signed on yet, and we don't know how tempted he was by the Dark Tower series, or if either of these projects holds any interest in him whatsoever. However, the fact that they are going after someone like Bardem says a lot about what they have in store, as does the inclusion of Mendes and the addition of Logan. I'm sure they're on to something big here.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't want Bond to go down that road. But I fear under a director of Sam Mendes's calibre, it just might.

I'm just plucking an example that comes to mind - to pull the three films together with slight whispers and echoes of what went before - and as Mendes does have the calibre you suggest he does not, I personally have no qualms.

BOND 23 might well be the least traditional traditional Bond flick.

[Loomis]

Zorin, which Mendes films should I see?

I've seen and enjoyed AMERICAN BEAUTY, many years ago (I intend to watch it again soon) - prophetically, Kevin Spacey mentions his desire to catch the James Bond marathon on TV.

I tried ROAD TO PERDITION once but it bored me and I switched off. Ought I to give it another go?

JARHEAD - rented it once, quite enjoyed it, but didn't think it was anything particularly special.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD I just about managed to sit through. It's pretty deadly.

That's about all the Mendes I've gone near. Anything else you'd recommend?

[Zorin Industries]

Gosh, yes - give PERDITION another go. It's been a while but I thought it was great. A great film about the expectations and reality of masculinity. Clever little visual passage of time devices too.

JARHEAD is less successful. Gyllenhaal's a bit miscast. BUFFALO SOLDIERS (not Mendes) covered the same ground more effectively. It has scope. It just felt a project too early for Mendes (then - probably not now).

As a character piece and comedy, AWAY WE GO is a very adult, contemplative piece. It felt very contemporary when I saw it.

AMERICAN BEAUTY is still a stunning film. It has aged a bit (its pre-occupations are of another decade) but its message, dialogue and character sweep is still sublime.

[Jim]

He'd be excellent as the Bond girl.

[Mr. Blofeld]

If any of Mendes's Bond film is as tense and subtly suspenseful as the scene from Road to Perdition covered in this article, I'd say we've got a series masterpiece on our hands...

[univex]

He'd be excellent as the Bond girl.

How´s that for a change Who´s directing? Almodovar?

[Loomis]

Gosh, yes - give PERDITION another go.

Okay, then. If you insist.

As a character piece and comedy, AWAY WE GO is a very adult, contemplative piece.

Sounds very much my cup of tea. I'll see if it's available on DVD, and if it is rest assured I'll be all over it.

AMERICAN BEAUTY is still a stunning film. It has aged a bit (its pre-occupations are of another decade)

That's fine. The same is true of me.

Thanks for the tips.

[Jim]

He'd be excellent as the Bond girl.

How´s that for a change Who´s directing? Almodovar?

Can't see any reason why this Bardem bod shouldn't give it a try.

[Harry Fawkes]

Bardem would make a great Bond girl

[Jim]

Can't see any reason why not.

[univex]

Well this is becoming circular. Nice one Jim and how easy was that eh?)

[Jim]

I'm serious, fact fans. Yet to see one good reason why he couldn't - or shouldn't - do it.

[Quantumofsolace007]

http://latimesblogs....-intrigued.html


Interesting.


Ok so Bardem is about 99% on board and they want to "change things up"


very interesting

[Jim]

Ok so Bardem is about 99% on board and they want to "change things up"

...by making him the Bond girl.

It all fits.