Daniel Craig Promises 'Skyfall' Won't Be An Emo Bond Flick

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Plus, it's only one of the plots of the film - Quantum of Solace is about Bond finding his quantum of solace

I know that that was kind of one of Michael Wilson's talking points regarding the movie, but I cringed every time I heard him use it, and it doesn't sound much better coming from fans either. It's a sh**e title, and MGW and company desperately tried to force-feed the reasoning for the title, and neither explanation works very well. A Bond film should never be about Bond trying to find "solace". If I wanted to watch a program about peace and security I'd watch a nuclear disarmament conference on C-SPAN. A better title would've been....well, just about anything.

Meanwhile, also in 2008, Daniel Craig said it was his idea to use Quantum of Solace for the title because Bond titles don't mean anything. Thus, there's no difference between Quatum of Solace and, say, Live And Let Die. That, on the surface, would seem to be at odds with Michael G. Wilson's explanation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3096758/Daniel-Craig-Bond-film-name-Quantum-of-Solace-was-my-idea.html

Excerpt:

(A)ccording to Craig, all Bond titles are essentially nonsense.

Asked if he agreed with fans who have laughed at the new name, Craig told GQ: "No, because I was involved in making the decision. Names were coming out, some ludicrous stuff was going back and forth – I can't remember exactly, but you know the sort of thing: 'The Blood On Your Face'. I knew I didn't want 'death', 'die', 'bleed' or any of those things in the title.

"We had it written down on boards and we'd literally go and sit in rooms and stare at this title. If you look at 'Q's, they're really weird in a title.

"As soon as it came out, people were saying, 'Ooh, it sounds like Harry Potter.' No, it's Quantum of Solace. I was saying, 'It's a Bond title! The name of a Bond film is not about anything. Live And Let Die? Octopussy? What does it mean? It means very little. We've got nothing to worry about."

Napoleon Solo wrote:

Meanwhile, also in 2008, Daniel Craig said it was his idea to use Quantum of Solace for the title because Bond titles don't mean anything. Thus, there's no difference between Quatum of Solace and, say, Live And Let Die. That, on the surface, would seem to be at odds with Michael G. Wilson's explanation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3096758/Daniel-Craig-Bond-film-name-Quantum-of-Solace-was-my-idea.html

Excerpt:

(A)ccording to Craig, all Bond titles are essentially nonsense.

Asked if he agreed with fans who have laughed at the new name, Craig told GQ: "No, because I was involved in making the decision. Names were coming out, some ludicrous stuff was going back and forth – I can't remember exactly, but you know the sort of thing: 'The Blood On Your Face'. I knew I didn't want 'death', 'die', 'bleed' or any of those things in the title.

"We had it written down on boards and we'd literally go and sit in rooms and stare at this title. If you look at 'Q's, they're really weird in a title.

"As soon as it came out, people were saying, 'Ooh, it sounds like Harry Potter.' No, it's Quantum of Solace. I was saying, 'It's a Bond title! The name of a Bond film is not about anything. Live And Let Die? Octopussy? What does it mean? It means very little. We've got nothing to worry about."

Thank you. It's quite obvious that Craig needs to stick to the acting and let other people make the creative decisions. He's full of crap if he thinks a Bond film title means "nothing" and is "not about anything". Nearly the first thing we find out about a new Bond film is the title, and it helps set the tone for the rest of the production. If they mean so little, why did he feel the need to give his opinion at all during the decision making process? Why not just call the film A VIEW TO A KILL 2.0 or LICENSE TO KILL REVOKED & RELOADED or BOND 22?

I grow to dislike the man more and more every day.

He's half right, a Bond title isn't what draws people in, it's the fact that it's a Bond film at all. And he is right that some titles really have no relevance to the films, not all of them but some.

Makeshift Python wrote:

He's half right, a Bond title isn't what draws people in, it's the fact that it's a Bond film at all. And he is right that some titles really have no relevance to the films, not all of them but some.

Yes he's half-right, but only because of luck. LIVE AND LET DIE (the movie) could have better tied in the title with the line from the novel, but they didn't. Yet, at the same time, when a person hears LIVE AND LET DIE, they think of Fleming and Bond. They don't think of something that could be confused with a Lifetime Movie of the Week starring Tori Spelling, or a Christmas-themed movie starring Dean Cain on The Hallmark Channel.

But to say that Octopussy the film title had no meaning? What was he smoking before he watched the film?

Quantum of Solace is ass. It's pure ass. And not in a Mrs. Aural Sects-ass good kind of way, either.

Makeshift Python wrote:

He's half right, a Bond title isn't what draws people in, it's the fact that it's a Bond film at all. And he is right that some titles really have no relevance to the films, not all of them but some.

Quick look (film context):

1. Dr. No: villain
2. From Russia With Love, reference to Tatiana, Bond writes it on her photograph to make sure it's clear for the audience.
3. Goldfinger: villain
4. Thunderball: name of the operation, but you could have named it almost anythng.
5. You Only Live Twice, refers to how Bond's death is faked.
6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond is....
7. Diamonds Are Forever...self evident, diamonds are the mcguffin (used considerbly differently than the book
8. Live And Let Die: not referenced in film, was referenced in book.
9. The Man With the Golden Gun: villain
10. The Spy Who Loved Me, For Bond, it's Anya and vice versa.
11. Moonraker: name of the shuttle (name of the rocket in the book)
12. For Your Eyes Only: top secret designation, also used at end
13. Octopussy: one of the main chracters.
14. A View to a Kill, a meaning was shoehorned in. There was an explanation in the short story From a View to a Kill
15. The Living Daylights, has a basis in the short story, is mentioned in the movie but wouldn't have substantially changed the movie if you had called it something else.
16. Licence to Kill. Bond had one until it got revoked.
17. GoldenEye. Name of a Russian operation, but you could have called it something else and that's that why they used it.
18. Tomorrow Never Dies, sort of refers to the media mogul's newspaper but was intended to be Tomorrow Never Lies (the newspaper's slogan).
19. The World is Not Enough: Bond family motto, previously referenced in OHMSS.
20. Die Another Day: While the maning was explained you could have called it something else and it wouldn't really change the movie.
21. Casino Royale: the site of the card game.
22. Quantum of Solace: Craig says there was no meaning, his nominal boss, Wilson, says there was.
23. Skyfall: We'll see.

Quote :

"As soon as it came out, people were saying, 'Ooh, it sounds like Harry Potter.' No, it's Quantum of Solace. I was saying, 'It's a Bond title! The name of a Bond film is not about anything. Live And Let Die? Octopussy? What does it mean? It means very little. We've got nothing to worry about."

Daniel Craig is an ass. "The name of a Bond film is not about anything."

When will this nightmare end?

Craig is anti-Bond. You've heard of anti-Christ. Craig is anti-Bond.

Book of Revelations says of anti-Christ "that the people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything" :shock:


He will destroy everything! Aiieee!
Craig is anti-Bond. Be afraid. :affraid:

Man is Craig insufferable. He is determined to re-shape Bond in his own ego. Craig is better than Bond. Craig will fix Bond.

We are in the equivalent of the Bond dark ages. We endure. Someday it will end.

CJB wrote:

The difference is America's rockets are more important than Bolivia's water. Also Dr. No wasn't as boring as the bug eyed French dude who swings an axe like a girl.

So yeah... a 50 year old, low budget movie spanks an expensive 2008 action flick.

If after two films you can't make your villains odious or your audience worried about what they're capable of... well, frankly, you've got some shitty ass villains.

And I remember high school buds dismissing FRWL in the 70s as 'bond goes to steal a typewriter.' Guess it wasn't big enuf, huh?

dr. strangelove wrote:

The concept of a villain using a seemingly humanitarian organization as a front to create a drought as the means of extortion...well, to me, that's very Fleming-esque. The pensive, quiet thoughts of Bond unraveling the villain's plan as he walks across the desert is Fleming. Bond unable to find a way out of a situation that he had gotten too deep into and turning his gun on himself...that's Fleming to the core. Bond describing how to keep to control yourself when the next kill is personal...Fleming.

There's A LOT in Quantum that's Fleming-esque. Forster was on to something in that respect. The problem is that the story and characters are so damn underdeveloped that the Fleming parts don't really make sense or resonate enough in the context they're presented in. Combine that with Forster's political sensibilities and the recent fads of "going rogue" and quick-cutting, and you have a film that's a bit of a mess.

You manage to hit pretty much everything I like and dislike about the film. I really think a non-ADD cut would work wonders for some of us, and matter not a whit to others though.

The shallow aspect with the other characters works for me because it is Bond's odyssey I'm interested in here, which feels like they have something like the character instead of the TOPGUN/Maverick teen-oldster in CR.

When he ferrets out the QUANTUM folk in his night at the opera and in Russia, I really thought something was there (also with Mathis, though they blew their chance to really do the 'nature of evil' chapter from Fleming's CR properly ... just as well, since I could only imagine Dalton playing that.)

I don't think the political angle in and of itself is objectionable, I just think the execution is lame. It is just like TOTAL RECALL when they turn off the air, and a whole lot of people we barely know or care about will die. Yeah, and then what? It isn't the politics that fail, it is the 'make audience care about victims' that fails.

tiffanywint wrote:

Book of Revelations says of anti-Christ "that the people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything" :shock:

Can you please use the spoiler tags next time? Now you've ruined the Skyfall plot for everyone.

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

The difference is America's rockets are more important than Bolivia's water. Also Dr. No wasn't as boring as the bug eyed French dude who swings an axe like a girl.

So yeah... a 50 year old, low budget movie spanks an expensive 2008 action flick.

If after two films you can't make your villains odious or your audience worried about what they're capable of... well, frankly, you've got some shitty ass villains.

And I remember high school buds dismissing FRWL in the 70s as 'bond goes to steal a typewriter.' Guess it wasn't big enuf, huh?

Some typewriter, heck part of Britain's war effort centred around 'a typewriter'.

Not nearly enough, no.

trevanian wrote:

And I remember high school buds dismissing FRWL in the 70s as 'bond goes to steal a typewriter.' Guess it wasn't big enuf, huh?

That's actually kind of funny though. Bond goes to steal a typewriter.:)

QoS: Bond puts back the water

CR: Bond plays cards

DN: Bond beats-up man with one hand and destroys his home.

GF: Bond drinks mint juleps with fat-man.

SF: Bond sets his family home on fire.

OHMSS: Bond goes skiing.

TLD: Bond steals Commie General's Girlfriend

LTK: Bond kills a drug dealer and steals his girlfriend.

LALD: see above

trevanian wrote:

I don't think the political angle in and of itself is objectionable, I just think the execution is lame. It is just like TOTAL RECALL when they turn off the air, and a whole lot of people we barely know or care about will die. Yeah, and then what? It isn't the politics that fail, it is the 'make audience care about victims' that fails.

Well said, Trevanian. I can't speak for others around here, but I found QOS' politics objectionable not because they were left-wing per se (I love Lawrence of Arabia, American Psycho and There Will be Blood, all of which I would classify as left-wing movies) but because it had half-baked left-wing politics sprinkled with the usual asscrack nonsense conspiracy theory stuff Hollywood Liberals love to stuff into movies. I'd of had no objection to a left-wing Bond movie per se. Heck, the fact that Bond usually fights rich industrialists is fairly left-wing already. But turning the whole exercise into the sort of "The CIA is secretly doing all this nefarious stuff" crap we get in the Bourne movies was silly and pathetically derivative.

Come to think of it, I think my real objection to QOS is not that it's left-wing, but that's it's postmodernist without a Monty Python or American Psycho sense of humor, which is simply unforgiveable. Post-modernism is supposed to be all about not taking things too seriously, after all, so when a post-modernist very gravely wants me to be concerned about Bolivian water supplies and secret organizations controlling governments throughout the world Quantum style, I laugh. I fear SF will try to do the same sort of laughable nonsense with terrorism ("terrorism isn't caused by Islamic extremists, it's caused by Javier Bardem's organization bent on blah, blah, blah . . .").

tiffanywint wrote:

Quote :

"As soon as it came out, people were saying, 'Ooh, it sounds like Harry Potter.' No, it's Quantum of Solace. I was saying, 'It's a Bond title! The name of a Bond film is not about anything. Live And Let Die? Octopussy? What does it mean? It means very little. We've got nothing to worry about."

Daniel Craig is an ass. "The name of a Bond film is not about anything."

When will this nightmare end?

Craig is anti-Bond. You've heard of anti-Christ. Craig is anti-Bond.

Book of Revelations says of anti-Christ "that the people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything" :shock:


He will destroy everything! Aiieee!
Craig is anti-Bond. Be afraid. :affraid:

Man is Craig insufferable. He is determined to re-shape Bond in his own ego. Craig is better than Bond. Craig will fix Bond.

We are in the equivalent of the Bond dark ages. We endure. Someday it will end.

You're really starting to scare me. We've got the anti-Christ as President in the White House, and the anti-Bond starring in his 3rd 007 film. What are the chances that 2 demonic, satanic, villains from hell could both be coinciding in our world with us at the same time?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

You're really starting to scare me. We've got the anti-Christ as President in the White House, and the anti-Bond starring in his 3rd 007 film. What are the chances that 2 demonic, satanic, villains from hell could both be coinciding in our world with us at the same time?

I googled anti-Christ and that's what came-up.

"that the people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, He will destroy everything."

It all fits. Craig is anti-Bond. The people flock to him, but he will destroy everything. He is the destroyer of Bond. :shock:

Where is the true successor to Sean? Sean, save us. Anoint your proper heir, before it is too late!!!

If Craig is the Anti-Bond, I am definitely she who is referred to in Revelation 17:5...

You can call me FATIMA, for Fit A Thong In My Ass.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

If Craig is the Anti-Bond, I am definitely she who is referred to in Revelation 17:5...

You can call me FATIMA, for Fit A Thong In My Ass.

I must say, ma'am, that I love your latest avatar. Not sure what it is about it (thong+stockings+stairs?), but it manages to be dirty and classy all at once.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I don't think the political angle in and of itself is objectionable, I just think the execution is lame. It is just like TOTAL RECALL when they turn off the air, and a whole lot of people we barely know or care about will die. Yeah, and then what? It isn't the politics that fail, it is the 'make audience care about victims' that fails.

Well said, Trevanian. I can't speak for others around here, but I found QOS' politics objectionable not because they were left-wing per se (I love Lawrence of Arabia, American Psycho and There Will be Blood, all of which I would classify as left-wing movies) but because it had half-baked left-wing politics sprinkled with the usual asscrack nonsense conspiracy theory stuff Hollywood Liberals love to stuff into movies. I'd of had no objection to a left-wing Bond movie per se. Heck, the fact that Bond usually fights rich industrialists is fairly left-wing already.

The left-wing angle, of and in itself is objectionable IMO. There is no way to present it without being lame. Lame is lame. Fighting rich industrialists is not a left-wing angle. Bond is, more to the point, simply fighting cirminals. If lefties think Stromberg and Drax et al are somehow an endictment of capitalism, well, then they are just brain-dead, as David Mamet might put it.

I see nothing left-wing in Lawrence of Arabia (although I haven't seen the film for a while, but it didn't offend me, and make me barf when I did see it. Authentic left-wing "message" films always require barf bags). There is nothing offensively left-wing in American Pyscho or There Will Be Blood either. Bale was simply a soulless vessel unable to determine between right and wrong. The movie was also a send-up of 80's materialism but not an indictment of the free market or capitalism. And the oil guys in in There Will Be Blood were just bastards. The movie did not serve as a meaningful indictment of commercial oil operations, at least not from a lame left-wing perspective. Sure these guys could behave more responsbly but such is life. The conservative world view doesn't have any utopian pretensions, unlike the liberal world-view.

QoS on the other hand was rife with pity leftist platitudes and anti-Americanisms. It did require vomit bags. But what can you reasonably expect from the likes of Forster and Haggis. They are both card carrying, certified, brain-dead, Hollywood liberals. Maybe someday they will experience an epiphany as Mamet did and write a great book and make better movies. In the meantime they keep the barf-bag-industry stock healthy. They are good for something at least.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

If Craig is the Anti-Bond, I am definitely she who is referred to in Revelation 17:5...

You can call me FATIMA, for Fit A Thong In My Ass.

Heh heh. I don't think I'd say that in Mecca. Somebody might get peevish on ya'.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

If Craig is the Anti-Bond, I am definitely she who is referred to in Revelation 17:5...

You can call me FATIMA, for Fit A Thong In My Ass.

I'm sure Fatima Blush has nothing on you. Keep fitting those thongs for us! :geek:

tiffanywint wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I don't think the political angle in and of itself is objectionable, I just think the execution is lame. It is just like TOTAL RECALL when they turn off the air, and a whole lot of people we barely know or care about will die. Yeah, and then what? It isn't the politics that fail, it is the 'make audience care about victims' that fails.

Well said, Trevanian. I can't speak for others around here, but I found QOS' politics objectionable not because they were left-wing per se (I love Lawrence of Arabia, American Psycho and There Will be Blood, all of which I would classify as left-wing movies) but because it had half-baked left-wing politics sprinkled with the usual asscrack nonsense conspiracy theory stuff Hollywood Liberals love to stuff into movies. I'd of had no objection to a left-wing Bond movie per se. Heck, the fact that Bond usually fights rich industrialists is fairly left-wing already.

The left-wing angle, of and in itself is objectionable IMO. There is no way to present it without being lame. Lame is lame. Fighting rich industrialists is not a left-wing angle. Bond is, more to the point, simply fighting cirminals. If lefties think Stromberg and Drax et al are somehow an endictment of capitalism, well, then they are just brain-dead, as David Mamet might put it.

I see nothing left-wing in Lawrence of Arabia (although I haven't seen the film for a while, but it didn't offend me, and make me barf when I did see it. Authentic left-wing "message" films always require barf bags). There is nothing offensively left-wing in American Pyscho or There Will Be Blood either. Bale was simply a soulless vessel unable to determine between right and wrong. The movie was also a send-up of 80's materialism but not an indictment of the free market or capitalism. And the oil guys in in There Will Be Blood were just bastards. The movie did not serve as a meaningful indictment of commercial oil operations, at least not from a lame left-wing perspective. Sure these guys could behave more responsbly but such is life. The conservative world view doesn't have any utopian pretensions, unlike the liberal world-view.

QoS on the other hand was rife with pity leftist platitudes and anti-Americanisms. It did require vomit bags. But what can you reasonably expect from the likes of Forster and Haggis. They are both card carrying, certified, brain-dead, Hollywood liberals. Maybe someday they will experience an epiphany as Mamet did and write a great book and make better movies. In the meantime they keep the barf-bag-industry stock healthy. They are good for something at least.

I think your comment about "message" films is key here. I regard the three films I mentioned as being left-wing, but not as message films, since they all have a great measure of ambiguity about them. You can interpret Lawrence of Arabia as a "searing indictment of imperialism" or you can simply shake your head in despair at the Arabs' incompetent attempts at self-government. American Psycho and There will be Blood could both be anti-capitalist, but then again they might not be. There is ambiguity about them. The same goes with the industrialist baddies in Bond. Are there so many rich baddies in Bond because rich people are bad, or simply because bad rich people are more likely to be worth a 00's time than poor bad people? Either interpretation is valid.

By contrast, QOS is a message movie. It takes recent historical events (like Aristide's ouster in Haiti) and forces you to view them in a certain way. Aristide was a thoroughly corrupt and incompetent President of Haiti (not that most leaders there are very good), but QOS makes him into someone just trying to help his poor people, and who was subsequently ousted by evil corporations and Quantum. No ambiguity is allowed. Same with Evo Morales in Bolivia. The man hardly seems like a model of constitutional governance, but since the CIA, Medrano and Quantum all want to be rid of him, he must be great. Right? Right?!?

The message part of QOS' politics was what really bothered me. It retroactively destroyed whatever affection I still had for CR, because now I can't hear M's comment about LeChiffre, the stock market and 9/11 without thinking that there's some "message" here too (i.e. "Osama bin Laden really had nothing to do with 9/11. It was all a Quantum plot to make money off the stock market in cahoots with WalMart, the CIA, Chef Boyardee, et al.").

tiffanywint wrote:

trevanian wrote:

And I remember high school buds dismissing FRWL in the 70s as 'bond goes to steal a typewriter.' Guess it wasn't big enuf, huh?

That's actually kind of funny though. Bond goes to steal a typewriter.:)

FYEO: Bond tries to recover a typewriter, fails, and throws it off a cliff like a writer tired of rejection slips.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

If Craig is the Anti-Bond, I am definitely she who is referred to in Revelation 17:5...

You can call me FATIMA, for Fit A Thong In My Ass.

I must say, ma'am, that I love your latest avatar. Not sure what it is about it (thong+stockings+stairs?), but it manages to be dirty and classy all at once.

Just seeing your avatar beneath the AURAL one really evokes the DAF cheek stuff for me.

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

The difference is America's rockets are more important than Bolivia's water. Also Dr. No wasn't as boring as the bug eyed French dude who swings an axe like a girl.

So yeah... a 50 year old, low budget movie spanks an expensive 2008 action flick.

If after two films you can't make your villains odious or your audience worried about what they're capable of... well, frankly, you've got some shitty ass villains.

And I remember high school buds dismissing FRWL in the 70s as 'bond goes to steal a typewriter.' Guess it wasn't big enuf, huh?

A Soviet encryption device in 1963 is still more important and interesting than Bolivian H2O in 2008.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

but it manages to be dirty and classy all at once.

It's the job we were chosen to do :face:

CJB wrote:

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

The difference is America's rockets are more important than Bolivia's water. Also Dr. No wasn't as boring as the bug eyed French dude who swings an axe like a girl.

So yeah... a 50 year old, low budget movie spanks an expensive 2008 action flick.

If after two films you can't make your villains odious or your audience worried about what they're capable of... well, frankly, you've got some shitty ass villains.

And I remember high school buds dismissing FRWL in the 70s as 'bond goes to steal a typewriter.' Guess it wasn't big enuf, huh?

A Soviet encryption device in 1963 is still more important and interesting than Bolivian H2O in 2008.

How does it compare with Vegas O2? Bond has to pay a quarter to get some canned air back in the 50s in the novel.

Not to defend QoS' villain beyond my liking his fey banshee shriek, but when you put it up against cures for insomnia like Jurgen's Stromberg, it isn't like the bar has always been set all that high. But I don't think there have ever been two bond films in a row that had villains this lamely cast and written, that I grant you.