49 replies to this topic

[dtuba]

What both the Brosnan and Craig eras demonstrate is that EON has stumbled in using momentum from strong beginning to create a successful run. Both the Craig and Brosnan eras stumble right out of the gate because both were rushed to capitalize on the success of the predecessor, and were rushed into production before a cohesive vision was decided on, and subsequently derailed the trajectory of the actors' eras.

 

 

Really though, couldn't you say that each Bond's tenure ended up in a lesser place from whence they started? DAF, AVTAK and DAD have their fans, but none could be called classics of the series. Obviously I'm not considering Dalton or Lazenby here, and most would say that Roger's strongest performances were in the middle of his tenure.

 

If Craig's last film is not a lesser entry in the series, then he will have truly broken the mold.

Edited by dtuba, 11 March 2016 - 03:34 AM.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

When the time does come to establish a new 007, they'd be smart to sign a director for a two-film deal, and have the first film written alongside a treatment for the second. Which isn't to say that Bond should do a two-parter (if anything, after Craig, they should keep things more episodic in nature), but that it would be good to have a team and direction already in place for the second film while the first is developed.

 

Totally agree. In retrospect it's really strange that when they made CR they really had not thought through what they would've done with QOS, especially since CR ends with a bit of a cliff hanger.

[sharpshooter]

Where's the "OTT silliness" in Spectre?

Bond getting holes drilled in his head with no visible after effects. Then blows up an entire base and shoots down a helicopter with just a well-placed shot by a small arms pistol.
Maybe not the same level of "OTT" as MR and DAD were, but pretty silly for Craig's Bond.

I find the free fall sequence in Quantum of Solace more OTT than anything else in SPECTRE. It stands out more for me, anyway.

[Surrie]

 

 

Where's the "OTT silliness" in Spectre?

Bond getting holes drilled in his head with no visible after effects. Then blows up an entire base and shoots down a helicopter with just a well-placed shot by a small arms pistol.
Maybe not the same level of "OTT" as MR and DAD were, but pretty silly for Craig's Bond.

I find the free fall sequence in Quantum of Solace more OTT than anything else in SPECTRE. It stands out more for me, anyway.

 

That's a fair point, I had forgotten about that!

[Leo R.]

 

 

 

As for killing his Russian comrades: firstly, Alec is a bad guy who kills people. 

 

 

Also Ourumov kills one of them; and more years later at Severnya.

 

 

 

So Ouromov has a real bullet in his gun to kill the soldier, and a fake one to 'kill' Trevelyan? Or is the soldier in on it and he fakes his death too? Which means, they are basically putting on a show for Bond? Which means, they WANT him to escape, because why else would you put on such a show? But wait, they then start chasing him with machine guns, leaving him no option to jump off a mountain and do a completely improbable, nay impossible stunt?

Come on.

Edited by Leo R., 12 March 2016 - 08:01 AM.

[Harmsway]

 

When the time does come to establish a new 007, they'd be smart to sign a director for a two-film deal, and have the first film written alongside a treatment for the second. Which isn't to say that Bond should do a two-parter (if anything, after Craig, they should keep things more episodic in nature), but that it would be good to have a team and direction already in place for the second film while the first is developed.

 

Totally agree. In retrospect it's really strange that when they made CR they really had not thought through what they would've done with QOS, especially since CR ends with a bit of a cliff hanger.

 

Indications are that they did have an idea as to what they wanted to do, but they let Forster throw out the original storyline.

[Surrie]

 

 

When the time does come to establish a new 007, they'd be smart to sign a director for a two-film deal, and have the first film written alongside a treatment for the second. Which isn't to say that Bond should do a two-parter (if anything, after Craig, they should keep things more episodic in nature), but that it would be good to have a team and direction already in place for the second film while the first is developed.

 

Totally agree. In retrospect it's really strange that when they made CR they really had not thought through what they would've done with QOS, especially since CR ends with a bit of a cliff hanger.

 

Indications are that they did have an idea as to what they wanted to do, but they let Forster throw out the original storyline.

 

 

What could have been!

[Harmsway]

Well, who knows? Maybe the original P&W script was garbage.

But when it was tossed aside, the film became unmoored and they spent a lot of time chasing a story idea that went nowhere (Vesper's child).

[Dustin]

Interesting thought, to have things going in a different direction right after CR. Though if rumours are anything to go by that alternative could have turned out rather perilous. Personally, I didn't mind QOS plot so much as I did the execution in parts.

EDIT: I see this only now, Harmsway; so Vesper's child was an idea that only came aboard with Forster at the helm?

[Harmsway]

Yeah, Forster threw out P&W's draft and asked for Haggis to come back. Haggis pitched the Vesper's child angle, and that remained in play up until a number of weeks before the writer's strike, when Haggis was asked to start over from scratch (well, not scratch, exactly, since a few of the set pieces were locked-in).

[SecretAgentFan]

According to THE JAMES BOND ARCHIVES P&W had persuaded EON to have CR followed by a direct sequel one year later.  That´s why CR had such an open ending.  The sequel was supposed to have Bond search for Vesper´s boyfriend and become entangled with the secret organization behind that guy (which became QUANTUM).  Roger Michell worked with them on the script - but he shied away from directing a Bond film and dropped out.  So plans for a release in 2007 were scrapped. Originally, Eva Green was to appear in several flashbacks and therefore contracted.

 

The P&W draft already contained lots of things that stayed in the final film: starting with the car chase, Bond disturbing the secret Quantum meeting, and Bond finding Vesper´s boyfriend.  

[Dustin]

Oh my... With that backstory it's actually a wonder QOS didn't turn out far worse. But then there is really no telling what kind of original angle was involved in the P&W version. All one can reasonably assume is going deeper into the background of White, but that was already a given with CR's last frame.

EDIT: thanks for that, SAF! Sounds not all that far from the finished thing.

[SecretAgentFan]

It´s really a pity, I think, that Michell dropped out.  To get a sequel only one year after CR would have been a unique chance for a true companion piece, deepening Bond´s connection to Vesper even more.  Haggis´ idea with Vesper having a child, however, would have been a disaster, IMO.  Good thing it didn´t happen.

[Harmsway]

 thanks for that, SAF! Sounds not all that far from the finished thing.

Yeah, Vesper's boyfriend was always going to play a big role in the sequel. The hints are that P&W's early draft handled that material differently than the finished film, but their draft had enough of the same broad strokes as the finished film to justify their screenwriting credit.

 

My suspicion is that, after EON and Forster jettisoned Haggis' "Vesper's child" angle, they ended up having to lean on the original P&W draft elements a bit more strongly as they cobbled together a story to fit the set-pieces they had already developed. (That said, even after Haggis walked, there was a lot of new development; the Tosca scene, for example, did not exist when Haggis was working on the film.)

[Dustin]

It's really a shame the production didn't meet with a better set of circumstances. But I'm still fond of QOS regardless, I always was. I would have preferred if it hadn't backtracked so much on CR's last frame, which showed the traditional unfazed Bond.

[hoagy]

Indeed.  Given the serious grounding of Craig's films, SP went wild with having him shoot down a helicopter with a pistol (with the position of both in motion, by the way).  He found the damsel in distress by luck when it would have been easy to plant, earlier in the film, a clue he would use later to find her.  Just a brief script revision would have accomplished that !  He could not shoot down a helicopter in SF but managed it with relative ease -- in a more difficult situation, shot-wise -- in SP.  For that, as well, a simple, brief script revision would have allowed for a proper weapon to be on that boat !  When he road the same boat earlier with Tanner there could have been a brief mention of a (whatever weapon) being on board, likely the subject of a bit of a joke.  Why do people spend MONTHS, nay, YEARS writing and tearing apart a script, then spend MONTHS filming, spend MILLIONS to film, and not bother to make simple, easy, little fixes ???

 

Having said that, I enjoyed SP tremendously.  Like Connery's 4th, it is big, sprawling, gets rushed and improbable at the end...and, like TB, SP is great fun.

 

As for an alternate explanation of all the events from the torture scene onward in SP, I already have written about a theory of mine that would tremendously affect the next film, if it is followed.  To describe it, I'll just say this:  Terry Gilliam's Brazil, from the torture scene onward.

 

As for comparing Brozza's films with Craig's, it is not fair to Brosnan that the scripts were weak.  He brought the franchise back very well.  He was so very much the right actor for the job when he stepped in...and was let down by scripts which were a mix of terrific with weak and/or downright dumb.  It was not his fault that the director of TND somehow thought slow motion would be good for a Bond film, that the ski-and-motorized-ulra-light-aircraft chase in TWINE was practically incomprehensible and utterly lacked suspense or threat, nor that the film-makers became enamored with cheap-looking CGI in DAD.

 

Both Brosnan and Craig did great jobs, from their position as lead actor, in revitalizing the films.  As for comparing their films, as indicated above, through no fault of the lead actor, the Brosnan films displayed much, much more weakness and lameness.

[sharpshooter]

It´s really a pity, I think, that Michell dropped out.  To get a sequel only one year after CR would have been a unique chance for a true companion piece, deepening Bond´s connection to Vesper even more.  Haggis´ idea with Vesper having a child, however, would have been a disaster, IMO.  Good thing it didn´t happen.

Agreed. It would've opened up a can of worms. I don't like the idea of Bond becoming a babysitter, but abandoning another orphan like himself would've also come off as too cruel, even for Bond. I'm glad it was dropped.

[byline]

Well, who knows? Maybe the original P&W script was garbage.

But when it was tossed aside, the film became unmoored and they spent a lot of time chasing a story idea that went nowhere (Vesper's child).

Wow, this is the first I've ever read that there was to have been an angle featuring Vesper's child. As others have noted, I'm glad that didn't happen. Too soap opera-ish for my tastes.

[S K Y F A L L]

I'm hard on comparing them both a product of their own time but I enjoy reading these comparisons. 

 

No Ice Berg comments yet, AMAZING! "Ice Berg Straight Ahead!"

 

My thoughts are 

 

Craig is the first HD Bond, DAD I believe is in HD but I guess I don't fell like it utilized it. 

 

Craig is the more believable action hero and modern spy and I believe considered the more prestige actor

however I think Brosnan is more believable as a womanizer and drunk

 

Craig's films seem like they are trying to reach an even larger demographic. I hope they do not reboot for another 20 films (Bond 40). And Craig's films are too Personal!

 

Christ I miss the cold-war!

[BoogieBond]

I think the Craig era has been better.

CR and SF were excellent

QOS and SP were pretty good

Vs Brosnan

GE was excellent

TWINE was pretty good

TND and DAD were mediocre(at best) IMO although I know both have a lot of fans.

I will grant both had an era that revitalised the franchise in GE and CR and arguably their 1st was their best films.

Craig's tried to do more, but it didn't always come off. I felt Brosnan's were much more by the numbers Bonds, playing it safe with the formula.