27 replies to this topic

[mrmoon]

With the hype surrounding bond 20 and the triple anniversaries bond will be receive next year I was wondering whether the story may become too bogged down in the recent quest for realism within the films in an attempt to make it the best yet. I was wondering whether anyone else agrees that maybe Purvis + Wade should contemplate bringing back that fantastical era of the late 70's when broccoli went alone and the introduction of Star wars to the masses called for a larger than life bond that was evident in TSWLM and Moonraker. After all, however autobiographical people may think bond is the evolution of the films has presented a much different character to the masses and I feel it maybe time to move away from the realistic approach dalton introduced and once again create a larger than life film which people can compare with Episode 2 and say that Bond is just as big. After all its only critics who are synical about bonds lack of realism, and what do they know I mean if its not shakespeare their not interested. So the question is:-

Do you want Realism or Fantasy?

[rubixcub]

[quote]Blue Eyes (26 Mar, 2001 04:23 a.m.):
Yes rubixcub I think we do think quite alike Which is of course a good thing. I like your little script treatment though it seems familiar. Have you sent it to me before or something?

Gee, maybe I did. I don't recall having done it. Maybe I outlined it somewhat in an email or something. Glad you liked it! I thought it didn't cover any new ground, but was original enough in covering the old ground, which is essentially what the new movies do.

I would also give Shatterhand Phantom of the Opera-like facial scarring, like pink puffy tissue surrounding one of his eyes, and also a beard & mustache, maybe bald or mostly bald. Real sinister looking.

Dave

[Blue Eyes]

I loved it in OHMSS when Lazenby as Bond picks up the shoe and says "This never happened to the other fella..."!! Who are we talking about? Connery as Bond? or perhaps Prince Charming in Cinderella.

and then again in OHMSS when Bond opens his draw and pulls out momentos such as Red Grants watch....

These two are some of the most brilliant moments of connectivity in the series.

[rubixcub]

Blue Eyes (03 Apr, 2001 12:00 a.m.):
Well thanks for the compliment about my humour Nexus

Well if you read the Bond novels you'll find out a lot. Like the fact that Bond never studied Chinese or any other Oriental language at Cambridge. In fact, Bond lied to Moneypenny to impress her!

Aren't I just a wealth of information

Oh. Guess that fits too, about Bond's pride. I've read YOLT, and part of OHMSS, but never noticed anything about Bond not knowing any oriental language (or I probably just forgot; the novels and the movies show Bond differently anyway).

Dave

[Blue Eyes]

I love those little interludes as well. But more than that I'd love to see it around other characters like we do in the novels. I mean in the script for TND we find out that Major Bootroyd has atleast two granddaughters. In Zero Minus Ten (I think that was the one) we find out more about Barbara Mawdsley and her love life. That stuff is awesome stuff for fans!! And In TND we find that whole pre-history to Stamper and Carver!! BRILLIANT!

[B5Erik]

Absolutely. That's why I noted that the movies have added to the canon. But the foundation for anything new with Bond HAS to be Flemings original novels.

It's a shame that they don't have more continuity in the movies - like Bond visiting Tracy's grave at the beginning of FYEO or the reference to his brief, tragic marriage in LTK. Moments like that are priceless. They really should do stuff like that much more often. It just gives the movie greater depth.

And more on this topic, I do prefer reality based Bond films, but there is room within a "realistic" Bond film for BITS of Sci-Fi or fantasy. As long as it isn't completely unbelievable!

[mrmoon]

I also love continuity in the films it ties them together, its especially good when linking one bond to another i.e linking connery to moore etc.

[Jacques Nexus]

In the movies what does "realism" mean?. It is a b.s. term that does not mean anything. A lot of Bond fans think the sixties films are the best because they say they were more realistic in the way Connery portrayed 007. If that is "realism" then they need therapy. Good 007 movies need a mixture of both and that is what differentiates them from other action pictures. Also they need villains & girls with exotic names plus larger than life capers, though improbable but possible. In TWINE I loved the dramatic tension and I hope that continues in future. Dalton's LTK ditched some of the traditional elements at it's peril. TWINE worked because it mixed LTK with the traditional formula. That's the secret recipe from Colonel Sanders. Bye for now

[Blue Eyes]

B5Erik (07 Apr, 2001 06:44 a.m.):
It's not a matter of popularity between the novels and the movies (although the Bond novels at their peak were one of the bestselling book series ever).  It's about continuity and style.  The early movies all remained somewhat true to the novels (with the exception of YOLT), and those movies set the tone that is still followed today.  Ian Fleming created James Bond.  It's his Bond we see (with some embellishments) in the Connery films.  It's Fleming's Bond you see in For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, Licence To Kill, Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World Is Not Enough.  Fleming's Bond, and the novels, is/are canon.  

The movies have added to the canon - to be sure - but the novels (for the most part) HAVE to be considered canon.

To depart very far from the novels changes Bond, and it could change the whole Bond concept to the point where you could honestly say that the character on screen ISN'T James Bond.  A couple of the movies hit that point (Moonraker for sure) where you could argue that the story just isn't a legit "Bond" story.

The movies don't really have much continuity - with the exception of the ties to Fleming's Bond and the original stories.  Fleming's novels are what really holds the films together.  

Honestly, I think that if they ever depart too far from Fleming for any length of time (more than 2 movies in a row) the series could die.

Fleming got it right.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I hear what you're saying Bond does have his roots as a Fleming character and while a lot of Bond is based on that if we only take Fleming's books as canon then everything we've seen in the films never happened at all.

[Jacques Nexus]

You are right. Connery couldn't disarm a warhead but Moore could. Lazenby and Dalton never got a chance to do it. And Brosnan needed Christmas Jones to do the disarming for him. Sounds like 007 has been regressing over the years. I think 007 has forgotten what he learnt in spy school under the topic: Nuclear Weapons Disarming 101.

Hey this has inspired me to come up with a title for Bond 20.

"ATOMIC BOND"

Maybe I should contact the English tabloids and give them the scoop !!!.

[Blue Eyes]

Well thanks for the compliment about my humour Nexus

Well if you read the Bond novels you'll find out a lot. Like the fact that Bond never studied Chinese or any other Oriental language at Cambridge. In fact, Bond lied to Moneypenny to impress her!

Aren't I just a wealth of information

[rubixcub]

Not only did he forget how to disarm a bomb (although there have been some changes in them over the years, presumably), if you remember YOLT, Bond tells Moneypenny he doesn't need a book of "Instant Japanese" because he "took a first in Oriental languages at Cambridge", yet in TND he walks over to a typewriter with Chinese symbols on it and Wai Lin gets a mild snicker at the fact he can't understand it. Did he forget?

Dave

[Blue Eyes]

lol, send it to them, they'll damn well print it I'd bet. "They'll print anything these days..."

Well I wouldn't say Brosnan forgot how to do it or needed someone else to. Re-watch TWINE. Look at the view Brosnan has. With those two things in your face you'd be undressing, not disarming

[B5Erik]

It's not a matter of popularity between the novels and the movies (although the Bond novels at their peak were one of the bestselling book series ever). It's about continuity and style. The early movies all remained somewhat true to the novels (with the exception of YOLT), and those movies set the tone that is still followed today. Ian Fleming created James Bond. It's his Bond we see (with some embellishments) in the Connery films. It's Fleming's Bond you see in For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, Licence To Kill, Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World Is Not Enough. Fleming's Bond, and the novels, is/are canon.

The movies have added to the canon - to be sure - but the novels (for the most part) HAVE to be considered canon.

To depart very far from the novels changes Bond, and it could change the whole Bond concept to the point where you could honestly say that the character on screen ISN'T James Bond. A couple of the movies hit that point (Moonraker for sure) where you could argue that the story just isn't a legit "Bond" story.

The movies don't really have much continuity - with the exception of the ties to Fleming's Bond and the original stories. Fleming's novels are what really holds the films together.

Honestly, I think that if they ever depart too far from Fleming for any length of time (more than 2 movies in a row) the series could die.

Fleming got it right. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[rubixcub]

Larger scale sets, liked Jonathan Pryce, supervillain... you and I think so much alike! Pity we don't call the shots around there!

Actually I had come up with an original plot that goes like this: a technology expert on loan to Britain from the USSR and his daughter, in training for the KGB (or whatever it is now) are missing when their plane is dredged. Whose hands have the fallen into? The daughter (gorgeous of course) is being held in Berlin, the father is in the villain's hideout in another country. The villain, one Guntram Shatterhand, isn't officially recognized as existing- he's sort of a ghost story made up by small businesses that went under due to big businesses. They spread a rumor that several big businesses were all a big cartel run by an invisible crime lord, and (as Wade guesses) someone just came up with the name Shatterhand. Bond investigates in Germany, where there are rumored contacts, and a homeless man spots Bond in a cafe and starts ranting about the man he knows Bond is looking for- Shatterhand- before he's taken away. Later that evening, Shatterhand's men find him, inject him with a heavy (but not lethal) dose of drugs and drop him in a deep space where construction workers were putting in new cement. They drop him unconscious into the hole, cover him with cement, smooth it over and write his name in it, saying "---- was here" (with due irony).

Turns out, Shatterhand is holding the scientist, and has paid several high-profile hackers to assemble their secrets and turn them over to the Russian scientist, from which he'll make the ultimate virus to use against the U.S. technology system- and he's bribed a top general (or maybe 'owns' him) to give him the security codes to missiles, with which he'll destroy backup water purification and electricity. He of course destroys the hackers and watches (maybe seals them in the office and floods it, watching thru a bulletproof glass panel?) He is a psychology expert too, noting that "the bond between widowed father and a young, innocent virgin daughter is one of the strongest and easiest to play upon." Bond finds her (warehouse fight sequence, maybe w/cranes, fireworks, loading equipment, hooks, etc) and together they search for him by working on one of the members of the cartel (the man who owned the plane they went down on and the airline that flew it). From Berlin to Mexico to the hideout on top of the Rocky Mountains ("in American, but high above it, because I am above them" quips Shatterhand) they track him. His plan? He's tired of anonymity and plans to announce his existence to the world via a threat to shut off the U.S. and induce a nationwide 'Y2K-like' panic from sudden loss of way of life (and proves it w/a demonstration on a small Ohio town). He knows the government will buy him off, that they wouldn't have the guts to take that kind of risk, and they'll pay his $75 billion ransom. But it's not about the money- the money from this crime will put him at the top of the Fortune 500- "A fitting testament to my unparalleled genius"- and the notoriety of being history's greatest criminal and the world's richest man, that's what it's about. And to do it by threatening to start a nationwide unstoppable panic in the world's most technology-dependent and perhaps helpless (albeit powerful) nation!

Let me know what you think, anyone who reads this. There's more to it, but basic points are there. There'd be a bad girl, too, a blonde hopefully (we haven't had any really bad blonde women, if you think about it), whom Bond would throw out of a window after lovemaking (maybe)

But still, tell me how you like this idea, anybody, as far as originality and would it work.

Dave

[Jacques Nexus]

I love your sense of humour Blue Eyes. I wasn't expecting the joke about disarming and undressing. Good stuff. Keep it up !.

[Blue Eyes]

Well it could be said that Connery was a tad more realistic - compared to a real spy or perhaps Fleming's Bond who was simply a blunt instrument (a quote that is )

Anyway Moore's Bond could disarm Nuclear Weapons (several times over!!) Connery's couldn't even flick the right switch

[Blue Eyes]

B5Erik (06 Apr, 2001 05:51 p.m.):
Bond began in the novels, and that is what the early movies are based on.  That's what ALL of the movies should be based on - the STYLE of Ian Fleming.  There is room for the fantastic and outlandish in a realistic story, but I hope we never see another Bond movie as ridiculous as Moonraker.

I prefer the more realistic Bond films.  The scripts for those have generally been better since the writers couldn't fall back on fantasy and comedy as a crutch.

My favorite Bond films are Licence To Kill, Dr No, From Russia With Love, The Living Daylights, For Your Eyes Only, and Tomorrow Never Dies.  Those all fit in with the style of the novels (Tomorrow.. may be stretching it a bit, but not much).

I still take the Bond movies as Canon. They hold a lot of the original elements, however, the movies are far more popular than the novels. And I agree with your choice of favourite Bond films. Personally though I'd replace FYEO with TSWLM. I'd also include GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough.

[Blue Eyes]

Yes rubixcub I think we do think quite alike Which is of course a good thing. I like your little script treatment though it seems familiar. Have you sent it to me before or something?

As for sending Bond into space. While I'd like to see it I don't think they should do it for Bond 20. Maybe have the threat of it like in YOLT and sort of make it seem like Bond will. If that makes sense.

[Blue Eyes]

I think a mixture of the two is great! I'll get my thoughts together sometime and perhaps post them!!

[mrmoon]

Who thinks they should send bond into space again for 20. I do. It would be brilliant and pierce would look great in a space suit. Plus the bad guy this time round needs an army of man in boiler suits for nostalgia.

[B5Erik]

Bond began in the novels, and that is what the early movies are based on. That's what ALL of the movies should be based on - the STYLE of Ian Fleming. There is room for the fantastic and outlandish in a realistic story, but I hope we never see another Bond movie as ridiculous as Moonraker.

I prefer the more realistic Bond films. The scripts for those have generally been better since the writers couldn't fall back on fantasy and comedy as a crutch.

My favorite Bond films are Licence To Kill, Dr No, From Russia With Love, The Living Daylights, For Your Eyes Only, and Tomorrow Never Dies. Those all fit in with the style of the novels (Tomorrow.. may be stretching it a bit, but not much).

[Blue Eyes]

I wouldn't mind seeing another hollowed out volcano esque set in Bond 20. The missile silo in TWINE was quite impressive but I'd like to see something on a larger scale. It doesn't have to be some super structure that's completely unrealistic but some great set. I mean the volcano isn't all that unrealistic - during the cold war the USSR hollowed out a mountain and built a massive city underneath.

In the same notion I'd love a superbaddy. I found Elliot Carver an excellent villain. He was not some physical baddy but just some rich insane guy, like the classic Bond villains such as Goldfinger, plus I loved the performance by Johnathon Pryce.

As for the element of the story, well nothing too far fetched but good would do me. I need to be able to believe it. I mean, if Bond is chasing some gadget that could freeze people where they stand and he doesn't want it to fall into the hands of the wrong person ... well that sucks! We need something believable like a stolen chunk of plutonium or the capture of US and USSR space launches.

[Blue Eyes]

Read the movie novelisations. While Bond began in the novels I feel that the movies have become canon. What do you think?

[mrmoon]

Who thinks they should send bond into space again for 20. I do. It would be brilliant and pierce would look great in a space suit. Plus the bad guy this time round needs an army of men in boiler suits for nostalgia.

[rubixcub]

I guess it depends on what's meant by realism. I think what's above all important is good characterization, perhaps not quite the level we saw in TWINE. On first viewing, it was a little too much. Some of this 'realism', though, has a nasty side effect- the soap opera effect. Take the scenes with Elektra and Bond in her house, where she talks about her fear in especially cliched terms, and her outburst at Bond after the missile silo scene. These to me aren't realism so much as an overdone, overacted, third-rate soap opera. However, this is outweighed by a lot of good scenes in the film: the departure of Q, the fantastic garotte scene in Maiden's Tower, and the death of Zukovsky thereafter. I think the writers just need to decide when the dialogue is too much, do better, more thrilling action scenes in the next one, and they'll be fine.

For me, the film's plot, although a Goldfinger rip-off in the tradition of A View to a Kill, was only tangential to the real substance of the movie, which was the melodrama. It was weird feeling sympathy for the henchman, though. This sort of robs him of his power. I would've thought they'd have him relish his strength rather than pine away for what he's lost. There was more sympathy than badness for the most part. Elektra was terrific though (except in the aforementioned 'soap opera' scenes). She's undoubtedly the best characterized Bond girl of the series, the best Bond girl in 20 years, the Best characterized villain in 20 years, one of the best villains of the series and the best villain in 20 years. Many argue for Trevelyan, and while his character works, largely, his story opens up too many questions of various motivations and either too little or too much revealed about the character. If anybody here has read the book "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" you'll know what I'm talking about.

I say, keep going in the characterization vein, just be careful not to tell us too much- we'll lose interest that way.

I'd say in answer to the question, both realism and fantasy. Rather, include fantasy and spectacle of course, but don't do it at the expense of characterization.

Dave

[R]

I think that the best course to steer is something like a Fantasy that just might happen. For example, breaking into Fort Knox, whilst a fantastic fantasy, seems actually quite reasonable when explained by Goldfinger. Stealing submarines, too, requires only a minor suspension of disbelief. On the other hand, hollowing out a volcano or putting an entire space station in orbit, whilst looking spectacular, does, for me anyway, stretch the credibility to breaking point. (Its interesting to note that the films which immediately followed the two most spectacular entries in the series, YOLT and Moonraker, are two of the most "realistic" and downbeat; OHMSS and FYEO).

I think there does need to be a little bit more grandiosity about the sets and the concepts, but only a little. Another idea I had floating around was a terrorist group hijacking the International Space Station, and threatening to bring it down over mainland Europe. Bond has to go up and stop them.

As long as the writers don't sacrifice, depth of character for pretty looking sets, I don't think I'll mind that much.

[The Admiral]

I also think a mixture of the two. Because the recent films have been realism, and it may be to much to go staright to fantasy. If you do a mixture, it'll be easier.