Mendes quote about Skyfall

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I thought CR was apolotical enough. Sure, there was a dollop of psychobabble, but I can overlook that far more easily than disquisitions on capitalism and colonialism.

Khan are you inventing words? :) If so I like that one. It sound almost Hagg-squishish.

btw I am looking forward to the new film Act of Valour which opens on Friday. Might be a nice change of pace from the usual Hollywood CIA-bashing fare found in the likes of Bourne, QoS or the new Safe House. I might even bring my Go USA pom-poms or a little flag.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

This is a fair point. And if SF merely grounds its plots in real problems and crises the world faces, fine. But there is a difference between an acknowledgement of geopolitical problems and pushing an ideological agenda with one's commentary. The Bond films you reference did the former, QOS came dangerously close to doing the latter. I hope SF is not QOS on steroids.

It's one thing to make a film that is contemporary and entertaining; it's another to push a political point of view. Most of the Bond films pre-Brosnan are the former; the Craig films are certainly the latter. Craig's films have been drained of any intrigue, any mystery, any exotic villains, any willing women. You won't find a Xenia Onatopp or an Odd Job in any of Craig's films. No Pussy Galores.

The Connery and Moore films certainly had their SUBTEXT, but Babs has decided that it's not enough to be sub-textual; she wants her films to hammer home certain political points. We never had Connery's Bond debating the difference between justice and revenge; there was never any doubt that the British were the good guys, and Bond's world in film was in black and white; no shades of grey. Now it's all different. Now it's all "complex". Now the films feel the need to make a statement. It's just tiresome to see and hear. Babs wants Jason Bourne, not James Bond.

I guess the problem facing EON is how to keep the franchise alive, contemporary and fresh. The danger of doing a Bond film which doesn't reflect the era it belongs in could turn out dated, old fashioned and will keep away the young demographic audience.

The original Fleming novels were written 60 years ago, and the golden period of Bond films was 50 years ago. Yet the producers are trying to keep a character alive from that period, and survive in todays climate. Not an easy task, especially with a multi-million pound franchise at stake.

It seems we live in a time of pretentions, emotive conceits and anally literal exposition sadly Bond, which has been pretty much the antithesis of all those elements and has so often been the most honest escape from them is now being forced to fall in line. It may be nescessary, it may be inevitable.....but I'm not convinced, I think its just them adopting the route of least creative need. As long as a genuinely entertaining film emerges from it I can live with it till this wretched phase passes.

jet set willy wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

This is a fair point. And if SF merely grounds its plots in real problems and crises the world faces, fine. But there is a difference between an acknowledgement of geopolitical problems and pushing an ideological agenda with one's commentary. The Bond films you reference did the former, QOS came dangerously close to doing the latter. I hope SF is not QOS on steroids.

It's one thing to make a film that is contemporary and entertaining; it's another to push a political point of view. Most of the Bond films pre-Brosnan are the former; the Craig films are certainly the latter. Craig's films have been drained of any intrigue, any mystery, any exotic villains, any willing women. You won't find a Xenia Onatopp or an Odd Job in any of Craig's films. No Pussy Galores.

The Connery and Moore films certainly had their SUBTEXT, but Babs has decided that it's not enough to be sub-textual; she wants her films to hammer home certain political points. We never had Connery's Bond debating the difference between justice and revenge; there was never any doubt that the British were the good guys, and Bond's world in film was in black and white; no shades of grey. Now it's all different. Now it's all "complex". Now the films feel the need to make a statement. It's just tiresome to see and hear. Babs wants Jason Bourne, not James Bond.

I guess the problem facing EON is how to keep the franchise alive, contemporary and fresh. The danger of doing a Bond film which doesn't reflect the era it belongs in could turn out dated, old fashioned and will keep away the young demographic audience.

The original Fleming novels were written 60 years ago, and the golden period of Bond films was 50 years ago. Yet the producers are trying to keep a character alive from that period, and survive in todays climate. Not an easy task, especially with a multi-million pound franchise at stake.

Ah, the fatal trap. Bond need not consciously be made "relevant" because James Bond is timeless. And Bond is timeless because he is animated by Ian Fleming's genius. Subordinate that genius to fads and trends and you destroy Bond far more surely than you would by allowing him to smoke, smack girls on the bum and tell a black guy to fetch his shoes. I would add, moreover, that it's a misnomer to think that young folks want to see evermore political correctness, wonton cynicism and hypersensitivity. At root, young folks are a bit rebellious. And political correctness--broadly defined--is today's establishment against which the young often rebel. The "old fashioned," viz real Bond would find favor with the kidz far more than a monkish, hangdog Bond who spouts politically correct pablum with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season, or like an English professor.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

[Ah, the fatal trap. Bond need not consciously be made "relevant" because James Bond is timeless. And Bond is timeless because he is animated by Ian Fleming's genius. Subordinate that genius to fads and trends and you destroy Bond far more surely than you would by allowing him to smoke, smack girls on the bum and tell a black guy to fetch his shoes. I would add, moreover, that it's a misnomer to think that young folks want to see evermore political correctness, wonton cynicism and hypersensitivity. At root, young folks are a bit rebellious. And political correctness--broadly defined--is today's establishment against which the young often rebel. The "old fashioned," viz real Bond would find favor with the kidz far more than a monkish, hangdog Bond who spouts politically correct pablum with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season, or like an English professor.

But if you look at Craig's last 2 Bond films, he still shags around ruthlessly, (ok, so he also falls in love in CR and doesn't bed the main girl in QoS, but that's fine, as Bond did this too in the Fleming novels).

And Bond himself is not particularly PC friendly in the last two films either, still has a violent edge, still drinks excessively and still prefers the high life at any given opportunity.

The only thing Bond doesn't do now from the Fleming days is smoke, but this is the only real change in terms of character. It's the world around him that changes, but Bond himself doesn't. As long as the producers stick to this, and Bond himslef doesn't become too PC, then I don't mind slight modernisation of the Bond films.

And right now, Mendes comments don't indicate whatsoever that the Bond character will be changing.

Statistics show that Bond has been "shagging" less and less since the palmy days of Roger Moore. And in QOS Bond spouts political platitudes for the first time in series history. Since Dalton he's ceased smoking. Since GE he is periodically berated by the feministas who now run the MI6 shop, and he offers nothing by way of a response. And off screen, he wears a dress rather than a tux and a Walther. If you cannot see the steady erosion of Fleming's character I don't know what to tell you.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Statistics show that Bond has been "shagging" less and less since the palmy days of Roger Moore. And in QOS Bond spouts political platitudes for the first time in series history. Since Dalton he's ceased smoking. Since GE he is periodically berated by the feministas who now run the MI6 shop, and he offers nothing by way of a response. And off screen, he wears a dress rather than a tux and a Walther. If you cannot see the steady erosion of Fleming's character I don't know what to tell you.

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

Bond usually only bedded moderately in the books too, sometimes only one woman throughout the entire novel, so if anything this makes the character more in line with Fleming. No issues there.

Bond is constantly rebelling against any order M throws his way, so I'm fine with how he responds to the feminist M giving orders to him.

As for what Daniel Craig decides to do away from Bond, I couldn't care less. Makes not the slightest bit of difference whatsoever to the films.

jet set willy wrote:

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

He's probably speaking of the Leiter/Bond conversation in the bar.

Harmsway wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

He's probably speaking of the Leiter/Bond conversation in the bar.

Eh? I hardly call that spouting political platitudes??

Also, Bond in the novels was never too shy of his own political viewpoint of the world anyway. Take one quick look at the conversation Bond has with Tiger in YOLT, when defending Britain after being riled by Tiger.

CJB wrote:

Please, please keep that shit away from the franchise. That's not what Bond movies are for.

The only thing Bond movies should say about the world we live in is that it's full of fine food, good drinks, and shagging. Keep your "social justice" commentary, Luddite environmentalism, and other ideological dreck to yourself.

Amen.

jet set willy wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Statistics show that Bond has been "shagging" less and less since the palmy days of Roger Moore. And in QOS Bond spouts political platitudes for the first time in series history. Since Dalton he's ceased smoking. Since GE he is periodically berated by the feministas who now run the MI6 shop, and he offers nothing by way of a response. And off screen, he wears a dress rather than a tux and a Walther. If you cannot see the steady erosion of Fleming's character I don't know what to tell you.

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

Bond usually only bedded moderately in the books too, sometimes only one woman throughout the entire novel, so if anything this makes the character more in line with Fleming. No issues there.

Bond is constantly rebelling against any order M throws his way, so I'm fine with how he responds to the feminist M giving orders to him.

As for what Daniel Craig decides to do away from Bond, I couldn't care less. Makes not the slightest bit of difference whatsoever to the films.

There's the Bond/Leiter exchange and there's Greene going on about Haiti's minimum wage and Marxists wanting to "give resources to the people" among other things. It's not just 007, its QOS in general that is easily the most political of all Bond films.

Fleming's Bond was a class A womanizer. Even when he only bangs one girl in a book Fleming makes it clear that he sleeps around but plenty. I could quote chapter and verse, but that would entail an amount of research not justified by this thread.

Craig's Bond rebels against M's putdowns? Really? I hadn't noticed. If sulking equals rebellion, perhaps so.

If you think there's no relationship between Bond in a dress and what happens in the films, then you're being obtuse. The ideology guiding the former seeps into the latter. A firewall between the two does not exist.

jet set willy wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

He's probably speaking of the Leiter/Bond conversation in the bar.

Eh? I hardly call that spouting political platitudes??

Also, Bond in the novels was never too shy of his own political viewpoint of the world anyway. Take one quick look at the conversation Bond has with Tiger in YOLT, when defending Britain after being riled by Tiger.

Flemint's Bond rarely offers his political opinions--Fleming once stated that his novels contain little in the way of politics--but when he does, they're usually patriotic and culturally conservative. In QOS, Bond sounds like a watered down Michael Moore. Fleming's Bond would hardly have approved.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Fleming's Bond was a class A womanizer. Even when he only bangs one girl in a book Fleming makes it clear that he sleeps around but plenty. I could quote chapter and verse, but that would entail an amount of research not justified by this thread.

Perhaps so, but I see nothing to indicate that Craig's Bond doesn't sleep around plenty.

It would take a great woman to make Craig's Bond fall out of love with himself.

Harmsway wrote:

Perhaps so, but I see nothing to indicate that Craig's Bond doesn't sleep around plenty.

Being promiscuous in the 50's and 60's was an act of rebellion. Today, you're assumed to be a stud and a whore by the time you're a freshman in high school. So Bond isn't exactly pushing any boundaries in the Craig films.

Having never seen MAD MEN before, I sat down and decided to watch in Spring of last year. Within 5 minutes I knew I was hooked. I had been transported back to a world I no longer recognize, and at time it felt like Don Draper had been written with Fleming's Bond in mind. Didn't one of the writers for the show admit they used Bond a lot to come up with Draper because they were big fans?

Personally, if you want to see Bond back in his element, any episode of MAD MAN will do. Jon Hamm *IS* Bond....if Bond worked for a marketing agency.

On the other hand, there's still plenty more political correctness the 007 series has to work through before it becomes totally absurd, but there's also a huge audience out there that WANTS to see Bond be politically incorrect, tell a black man to fetch his shoes, to see Bond smoke and drink hard, love and leave the women like they were sacks of garbage to be put on the curb for pickup.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

There's the Bond/Leiter exchange and there's Greene going on about Haiti's minimum wage and Marxists wanting to "give resources to the people" among other things. It's not just 007, its QOS in general that is easily the most political of all Bond films.

Fleming's Bond was a class A womanizer. Even when he only bangs one girl in a book Fleming makes it clear that he sleeps around but plenty. I could quote chapter and verse, but that would entail an amount of research not justified by this thread.

Craig's Bond rebels against M's putdowns? Really? I hadn't noticed. If sulking equals rebellion, perhaps so.

If you think there's no relationship between Bond in a dress and what happens in the films, then you're being obtuse. The ideology guiding the former seeps into the latter. A firewall between the two does not exist.

Again, no real issues with the political context. The era we live in now is not that different from the Cold War era, with global terrorist threat alerts galore. Besides, Fleming's novels touched on politics too, from a British colonial viewpoint, and he knew it was slowly diminishing, and Fleming ocassionally reflected this, particularly in the last couple of novels he wrote.

In CR he seduces a bird to get info, and in QoS he bangs a female who is meant to keep tabs on him - so no issues there at all. Womaniser behaviour in both films.

Bond disobeys most orders thrown his way from M, disregards them at any opportunity, but doesn't say that much to her face - then again Bond in the novels never did either to M (even though M in the novels was not a woman). Bond would quietly get angry inside. He obviously doesn't like been given orders from a woman, and this is evident in his disobedience towards her. So no, cannot see where you are coming from with the Bond/M relationship.

And because I disagree with your opinion on Craig wearing drag, I'm now being obtuse..... Grow up, PK.

I don't particularly like seeing a Bond actor dolled up like that, but I can sure as hell overlook it while watching Skyfall if the movie is any good. I'm fairly sure that photo of Craig in drag on stage will not be in the forefront of my mind while watching SF.

I may bitch about many things in the Bond movies, and find plenty of stuff I'm not happy with, but these particular issues you have with the film are not on the top of my priority list.

My real issues are losing the grip of realism, making Bond superhuman, and not going back to the unused Fleming material. In CR they went some way in fixing that, but in QoS they lost the plot again.

Then again, my concerns may not be a big issue for you either, but I doubt I will be calling you `obtuse' for disagreeing with me....

jet set willy wrote:

Besides, Fleming's novels touched on politics too, from a British colonial viewpoint, and he knew it was slowly diminishing, and Fleming ocassionally reflected this, particularly in the last couple of novels he wrote.

The key difference is that in QOS, the writers (through Bond and the villains) take the opposite end of the straw. They're making cynical platitudes about the evils of colonialism, the free market, CIA, and western foreign policy in general. This is the closest we've got to Bond Aid. You couldn't be further from Fleming if you tried.

Sharky wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Besides, Fleming's novels touched on politics too, from a British colonial viewpoint, and he knew it was slowly diminishing, and Fleming ocassionally reflected this, particularly in the last couple of novels he wrote.

The key difference is that in QOS, the writers (through Bond and the villains) take the opposite end of the straw. They're making cynical platitudes about the evils of colonialism, the free market, CIA, and western foreign policy in general. This is the closest we've got to Bond Aid. You couldn't be further from Fleming if you tried.

Fair enough. I know the political stance is very different from Fleming's Eton-raised, upper-class British colonial views, but I personally don't think this is what made QoS such a bad movie.

My issues were the mainly to do with the shoddy script, the lack of realism, the bad editing, the breakneck speed, the continued ignorance of any unused Fleming material, the terrible, trashy gutter level Bond song.

jet set willy wrote:

I personally don't think this is what made QoS such a bad movie.

True enough. I don't agree with the politics of 'The Bourne Supremacy' either, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that it's a good film. Nor 'Triumph of the Will' for that matter.

jet set willy wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

There's the Bond/Leiter exchange and there's Greene going on about Haiti's minimum wage and Marxists wanting to "give resources to the people" among other things. It's not just 007, its QOS in general that is easily the most political of all Bond films.

Fleming's Bond was a class A womanizer. Even when he only bangs one girl in a book Fleming makes it clear that he sleeps around but plenty. I could quote chapter and verse, but that would entail an amount of research not justified by this thread.

Craig's Bond rebels against M's putdowns? Really? I hadn't noticed. If sulking equals rebellion, perhaps so.

If you think there's no relationship between Bond in a dress and what happens in the films, then you're being obtuse. The ideology guiding the former seeps into the latter. A firewall between the two does not exist.

Again, no real issues with the political context. The era we live in now is not that different from the Cold War era, with global terrorist threat alerts galore. Besides, Fleming's novels touched on politics too, from a British colonial viewpoint, and he knew it was slowly diminishing, and Fleming ocassionally reflected this, particularly in the last couple of novels he wrote.

In CR he seduces a bird to get info, and in QoS he bangs a female who is meant to keep tabs on him - so no issues there at all. Womaniser behaviour in both films.

Bond disobeys most orders thrown his way from M, disregards them at any opportunity, but doesn't say that much to her face - then again Bond in the novels never did either to M (even though M in the novels was not a woman). Bond would quietly get angry inside. He obviously doesn't like been given orders from a woman, and this is evident in his disobedience towards her. So no, cannot see where you are coming from with the Bond/M relationship.

And because I disagree with your opinion on Craig wearing drag, I'm now being obtuse..... Grow up, PK.

I don't particularly like seeing a Bond actor dolled up like that, but I can sure as hell overlook it while watching Skyfall if the movie is any good. I'm fairly sure that photo of Craig in drag on stage will not be in the forefront of my mind while watching SF.

I may bitch about many things in the Bond movies, and find plenty of stuff I'm not happy with, but these particular issues you have with the film are not on the top of my priority list.

My real issues are losing the grip of realism, making Bond superhuman, and not going back to the unused Fleming material. In CR they went some way in fixing that, but in QoS they lost the plot again.

Then again, my concerns may not be a big issue for you either, but I doubt I will be calling you `obtuse' for disagreeing with me....

You just raised another issue. Fleming's Bond did his duty. Rarely, if ever did he flagrantly disobey orders from his superior. And can you imagine Fleming's Bond breaking into M's house? M would have had him court martialed if he had. Unfortunately, Craig's Bond often comes across as a petulent, dysfunctional adolescent rather than an adult acting in service of queen and country.

And don't be so goddam sensitive.

Erica Ambler wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

I personally don't think this is what made QoS such a bad movie.

True enough.

Perhaps. But the anti-Fleming ideology arguably made it a bad Bond movie. And this from a guy who rates QOS in the middle of the pack rather than at the bottom of the barrel like most around here.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

You just raised another issue. Fleming's Bond did his duty. Rarely, if ever did he flagrantly disobey orders from his superior. And can you imagine Fleming's Bond breaking into M's house? M would have had him court martialed if he had. Unfortunately, Craig's Bond often comes across as a petulent, dysfunctional adolescent rather than an adult acting in service of queen and country.

I agree with this. I'm not too keen on the whole `Bond going rogue' thing. It's obviously an attempt to cash in on the success of the Bourne films, and has very little to do with Fleming. When was the last time we saw Bond going in to M's office at the beginning of the movie and given a mission to do, then go out and do it? In fact, I think it is as far back as GE that this happened (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And don't be so goddam sensitive.

Blame the misses....she got me in a riled up mood before she left to go to work.....

jet set willy wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And don't be so goddam sensitive.

Blame the misses....she got me in a riled up mood before she left to go to work.....

Calling the Missus a Misses doesn't bode well...

Erica Ambler wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And don't be so goddam sensitive.

Blame the misses....she got me in a riled up mood before she left to go to work.....

Calling the Missus a Misses doesn't bode well...

Man talk....my sexist 1950's Fleming influences showing through. I don't know why she's working anyway, when she should be chained to the kitchen sink.

Barbara Broccoli would certainly not approve..... ;)

Harmsway wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

He's probably speaking of the Leiter/Bond conversation in the bar.

Possibly one of the worst scenes ever put into a Bond movie. Terrible dialogue, performances, and characterization.

Bond and Leiter hardly knew each other, yet they were given lines that you'd likely hear in a buddy cop movie.