Press Conference in Turkey

This of course could all be one big scam ie The more they prattle on about Fleming, the more they might convince, that whatever they are planning on serving up, is pure gold, even if it's a dog's breakfast, because it's all inspired by Fleming you see, so it must be brilliant.

hapless Bond fan " Ah yes, it's all inspired by Fleming. It must be brilliant."

Babs to hapless Bond fan " And? Come On. You can do it."

hapless Bond fan " Yes, it's the Best Bond ever!!!"

Babs (in her best Tiffany Case voice) " Good boy"

hapless Bond fan pants like dog.

:roll:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

gravity's silhouette wrote:

As far as going back to Fleming's original character....we've basically gotten that line, in some form or fashion, since 1987.

Exactly right, Gravity. Even during the Brosnan era, which, while it had very enjoyable aspects about it, tended to be rather OTT, MGW would constantly say that, when producing Bond movies, "the first thing we do is to go back to the character of Bond as written by Ian Fleming". For whatever reason, since Roger Moore left the role of Bond, "being true to Fleming" and "making Bond a complex character" are buzzwords EON likes to use. Sometimes it actually happens (TLD, GE, TWINE), but most of the time we get ever more mindless video game violence with random moments where Bond looks sad while tinkling piano music plays in the soundtrack. Then Bond kills another hoard of people in bloodless, PG-13 (and I might add, completely joyless) ways.

I think this attitude is reponsible for sucking much of the fun out of the cinematic character of Bond. Connery and Moore, even at their hardest, were fun characters to watch. Even when they were being brutal, they had a black sense of humor about them, and their movies weren't wall to wall violence. I like Brosnan Bond a lot (second to Connery) but I get puzzled when people compare his era to Moore's. There's no comparison. While I prefer Brosnan to Moore, Moore's movies are much more fun to watch. Even when Brosnan is in a movie that's supposed to be fun, his character is laden down with mourning over Paris Carver, or bizarrely mourning over Miranda Frost, or other such distractions. Brosnan could survive these issues, Craig can't, in large part because Craig thinks these emotional moments are the whole point of Bond's character. There's something to be said for how Sean deals with Aki's death in YOLT, or how Roger deals with Vijay's death in OP. Both times, Bond is clearly effected, and the soundtrack amplifies his feelings. But Bond then changes the subject or redirects his anger elsewhere, and we move on.

Death and mourning are clearly there in Bond's character for those old enough and mature enough to see the signs (like when Sean puts on sunglasses as he tells Domino about her brother). We (the intelligent viewer) don't need Bond's inner life constantly hammered at us. The frequent hints in the earlier movies were quite sufficient. In the end, this "complex Bond" EON keeps feeding us increasingly comes across as infantilizing, especially since Dalton or Brosnan are no longer playing the role. The "emotions" in Nu-Bond seem not so much complex as badly broadcast on billboards, so that the target teenager demographic won't miss what's going on. Thus we get increasingly less sex and sophistication in these movies, and increasingly amounts of sadism. The Bond recipe is becoming unbalanced.

"in large part because Craig thinks these emotional moments are the whole point of Bond's character. There's something to be said for how Sean deals with Aki's death in YOLT, or how Roger deals with Vijay's death in OP. Both times, Bond is clearly effected, and the soundtrack amplifies his feelings. But Bond then changes the subject or redirects his anger elsewhere, and we move on. "


Yes, get back to this. Get back to Sean and Rog. This group is more likely to twist Fleming to fit their own vision. I don't trust them. Best to work with the Bond persona as created by Connery and Young, but that's not likely to happen with this gang.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sharky wrote:

In Fleming's last novels, Mendes said, Bond suffered from a "combination of lassitude, boredom, depression, difficulty with what he's chosen to do for a living, which is to kill. That makes him a much more interesting character, and some of those things are explored in this movie, because Daniel as an actor is capable of exploring them."

It also makes him a much more exasperating character. Refusal to destroy known monsters is not a laudable characteristic.

Of course they are just as likely to screw it up all up. They could cherry pick the worst of Fleming eg TMWTGG simply to suit their own narrative.

tiffanywint wrote:

This of course could all be one big scam ie The more they prattle on about Fleming, the more they might convince, that whatever they are planning on serving up, is pure gold

I'm calling "Shenanigans!" on all this. I don't believe one word of it. If they were really trying to "get back to Fleming" like they said they were, why are we just now hearing about it? And if they are trying to "get back to Fleming", what are they suggesting about QOS? Or CR? I think they're trying to prop up SKYFALL by implying that QOS was a failure, but I'd have more respect for them if they'd just come out and admit that QOS was no good, rather than dance around the issue. Besides, it's not the lack of Fleming that necessarily bugs me about the Craig era; it's the endless prattling on about the difference between justice and revenge, and the attempts to color MI6, Bond, and the CIA in shades of gray, plus the ongoing efforts to create some sort of Mother-son trust issues between Bond and M that have never existed before.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

This of course could all be one big scam ie The more they prattle on about Fleming, the more they might convince, that whatever they are planning on serving up, is pure gold

I'm calling "Shenanigans!" on all this. I don't believe one word of it. If they were really trying to "get back to Fleming" like they said they were, why are we just now hearing about it? And if they are trying to "get back to Fleming", what are they suggesting about QOS? Or CR? I think they're trying to prop up SKYFALL by implying that QOS was a failure, but I'd have more respect for them if they'd just come out and admit that QOS was no good, rather than dance around the issue. Besides, it's not the lack of Fleming that necessarily bugs me about the Craig era; it's the endless prattling on about the difference between justice and revenge, and the attempts to color MI6, Bond, and the CIA in shades of gray, plus the ongoing efforts to create some sort of Mother-son trust issues between Bond and M that have never existed before.

I don't buy a word of it either. That presser was vomit inducing. Please. Mendes and Craig, prattling on about Fleming. And yes Babs, we know. We've heard the quote about your dad (who made good Bond movies btw) going back to Fleming, about a million times, but thanks for the reminder.

Man, these guys (Craig and Mendes) are so damn pleased with themselves already. So its now been confirmed by Sammy, that Bond will of course be all conflicted again, this time about killing apparently. Didn't seem to bother him in his first two films. Remember " I wouldn't be very good at my job, would I" This movie has the potential to make QoS look like classic Bond.

And there are still 4 more of these dreary Bond-character driven dramas to come. Remember Craig's shooting for 7 films, probably 8, so he can be the best Bond ever maybe.

But lest I forget, Craig promises lots of laughs too and a full sex-life. I'm sure they will screw that all up too and find a way to make both elements oh so deep, dull, and very pc.

This movie has the potential to be one big Sam and Dan ego stroke.

Timmer, I can't keep up with your switching between "this could be good" and "this is the apocalypse" :|

Tiff's in the role of a lifetime. :)

Makeshift Python wrote:

Timmer, I can't keep up with your switching between "this could be good" and "this is the apocalypse" :|

Tune in next week. This week its the apocalypse. Generally as long as neither Mendes nor Craig are talking I can relax.

tiffanywint wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Timmer, I can't keep up with your switching between "this could be good" and "this is the apocalypse" :|

Tune in next week. This week its the apocalypse. Generally as long as neither Mendes nor Craig are talking I can relax.

I admire your stamina if you can keep this up until the film comes out old sport.

Hilly wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Timmer, I can't keep up with your switching between "this could be good" and "this is the apocalypse" :|

Tune in next week. This week its the apocalypse. Generally as long as neither Mendes nor Craig are talking I can relax.

I admire your stamina if you can keep this up until the film comes out old sport.

We endure ;)

tiffanywint wrote:

Tune in next week. This week its the apocalypse. Generally as long as neither Mendes nor Craig are talking I can relax.

So exactly what do you want from this Bond film? Craig isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so lambasting him post after post accomplishes...exactly what?

Hmm, I thought about going back to pro-Craig mode, except I don't have the time or patience to head-butt anymore... but like I said, the nay saying and Craig bashing is getting unbearable once again. It's like nothing either he or Mendes says can please anyone, especially someone who's hotwired to shit upon anything he says simply because he's not liked as Bond. If Craig talks Fleming, it's a big crime, possible because he'll do it well, which is not what an anti-Craiger wants. Any Goddamn thing done by the cast or anyone involved is turned into a shitpile. And, of course, if no press conference is done at all, that would also be complained about.

I shall protest by changing my avatar. :lol!:

Good gawd, Doggie. That hits me right where I live. Please! Please change it baaaaaaaack!

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I shall protest by changing my avatar. :lol!:

You're unjustly punishing others. Not only did you take down the avatar of your perfectly formed arse, but then you replace it with an annoying picture of Daniel Craig twitching his nose.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I shall protest by changing my avatar. :lol!:

There's no need for that Doggie.

See what you've done, timmer?

Sharky wrote:

See what you've done, timmer?

I hang my head in shame

Could be worse though. It could be this avatar.