[SPOILERS] Skyfall: Post-Viewing Discussion

I wouldn't call that scene in GOLDENEYE an evaluation, even if that's what the girl was hired for.

trevanian wrote:

Are you serious? There's precious little to even suggest any connect with Fleming in the DC pics. Sure, you have moments in Bond's head in Fleming's CR where he muses that it will just be too bad if Vesper gets killed during his auto pursuit, but it is just that, musing.

The traumatized Bond at the start of YOLT is the direct product of a conventional tragedy, quite unlike anything presented in SKYFALL. If anything we'd consider this Bond miraculously lucky to have survived the PTS, but to think he would stay dead and live the soft life? Again, the soft life is something Fleming Bond thinks about but never really acts upon (outside of letting a rich guy pay for his lobster in GF.)

The whole notion of Bond out of sorts and staying dead because he thinks he has been betrayed by M. is utter rubbish, because if nothing else, the Craig era 007 is aware of the nature of the business and cannot show any surprise over behavior that would otherwise be considered callous, especially given how that is his own viewpoint regarding pretty much everything and everyone.

Again it all comes back to context. If you take a Fleming scene out of context for your movie, do so in a way that relates to Bond that keeps him in character and works for the Bond movie universe. (all of the Robber stuff from L&LD worked into LTK is a sterling example; you carry the dangerous dirty-play feel of the Fleming universe over while giving the character something that reinforces who he is and also works for the movie. Except for Bond & Mathis on the plane in QoS, LTK is the last time I felt Fleming in these movies.)

But SF's Bond is all over the place, the crack shot when he needs to be for M's sake, but not for the girl's, demonstrating no reasonable judgement at the very times when his cold calculation should be in most effect (before he zips off to Scotland just in order to keep other professionals who would be at M's beck-and-call from risking their lives doing what it is they choose to do -- like Bond himself, at least the Bond I know -- in defense of her. Would Bond or M really feel guilt over some SAS guys getting killed defending her, when it is their job to risk their lives in such a fashion?)

And the way Silva is killed, with Bond just doing a Domino-at-end-of TB from off-camera, puts Bond so far off-center from the storytelling it is like they decided to shoehorn something from OCTOPUSSY in when the guy gets killed by his pet after Bond has left. And this is the film's climax for chrissake.

Bollocks. You obviously haven't read your Fleming closely at all. Half of the text is Bond's thoughts, and very frequently they are conflicted, tormented thoughts. And insofar as DCBond is the most introspective of Bonds--which he obviously is--DCBond is also the most similar to Fleming. It is RMBond that bears the least resemblance to Fleming's creation.

As to your criticisms of the DCBond films, they are errant. I don't have the time or inclination to dissect your myriad errors, but I will address your final point. Hence, the conclusion of SF hardly puts Bond at the periphery of the story. The story, my dear trevanian, is Bond desperately attempting to stave off and kill off Silva's horde in time to make it back to M and save her. That is what we call suspense. It works, and it is classic Bond.

Largo's Shark wrote:

trevanian wrote:

The whole notion of Bond out of sorts and staying dead because he thinks he has been betrayed by M

While it's true that he's a bit peeved with her spilt-second decision, that's hardly the real reason he stays low. As with Fleming's Bond, he's developed accidie. The only difference is that here he acts on private feelings, because he's given a trigger (the fall - not dissimilar Bond's fall from the weather balloon at the end of Fleming's YOLT).

Who's to say Bond didn't have some kind of memory loss from concussion? But then again, there's no real precedent in Fleming to compare it to here.

trevanian wrote:

Would Bond or M really feel guilt over some SAS guys getting killed defending her, when it is their job to risk their lives in such a fashion?)

Guilt or not, Silva would have smelt a rat.

trevanian wrote:

Except for Bond & Mathis on the plane in QoS, LTK is the last time I felt Fleming in these movies.

How has Mathis giving Bond the Dr. Phil McGraw treatment got anything to do with Fleming?

Exactly, Sharky. Mathis cossetting Bond is the least Flemingian moment in the DC era. It is to laugh.

Largo's Shark wrote:

trevanian wrote:

The whole notion of Bond out of sorts and staying dead because he thinks he has been betrayed by M

While it's true that he's a bit peeved with her spilt-second decision, that's hardly the real reason he stays low. As with Fleming's Bond, he's developed accidie. The only difference is that here he acts on private feelings, because he's given a trigger (the fall - not dissimilar Bond's fall from the weather balloon at the end of Fleming's YOLT).

Who's to say Bond didn't have some kind of memory loss from concussion? But then again, there's no real precedent in Fleming to compare it to here.

trevanian wrote:

Would Bond or M really feel guilt over some SAS guys getting killed defending her, when it is their job to risk their lives in such a fashion?)

Guilt or not, Silva would have smelt a rat.

trevanian wrote:

Except for Bond & Mathis on the plane in QoS, LTK is the last time I felt Fleming in these movies.

How has Mathis giving Bond the Dr. Phil McGraw treatment got anything to do with Fleming?

Just the look on Craig's face. It was the only time in, what 6.5+hrs of Bond this century that seemed right. Don't feel strongly about defending it because it is just an instinctive thing, but it is the only moment besides Tosca and the Russia end of QoS that really worked for me. And nothing worked for me in these other two. I mean, Bond feeling upset by hot-blooded killing? That's the anti-Connery.

Again, re: the fall, the big difference is Bond makes a conscious decision to stay dead here, instead of having no memory of who he is and what he is. So the choice to stay dead doesn't have a precedent, and for me undercuts the argument that they're going back to Fleming for this stuff. I also don't ever get the idea that Craig has developed accidie. If that is what they were after and wanted physical manifestations of the condition, then perhaps his trigger finger should have become numb (as happens with snipers who lose their functional sociopathy) rather than just turning into a rotten shot.

Quote :

So the choice to stay dead doesn't have a precedent, and for me undercuts the argument that they're going back to Fleming for this stuff.

What they're trying to do is capture the spirit of Fleming's stories and his prose, not adapt anything ad verbatim. This is partly why SKYFALL works far better for me than CASINO ROYALE (the same way QUANTUM probably does for you) - while it doesn't pretend to be a faithful translation of a Fleming novel to the screen, I feel his presence here more than in any Bond film since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, and possibly LICENCE TO KILL (though I have many problems with that film).

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I'm sorry tiffy, but it's apparent to me that you will go to any lengths and twist yourself into many pretzels to justify your disdain for DC-Bond. What's so odd about this is that you also purport to be an admirer of Fleming's Bond. We'll the truth is that Fleming delved deeply into Bond's fraught psyche, much in the manner that current cinematic Bond does. Cut out the PC we saw in QOS and current bond is probably closer to Fleming's than any other.

I do have disdain for DC-Bond. It's quite awful IMHO, so no arguments there, however a love for the Fleming books is hardly inconsistent for disdain for DC-Bond. Of course there are attempts to channel Fleming Bond by DC. Pre DC Bond did this regularly too.

I do think its folly though to speculate with authority as to what Fleming might make of current Bond. We don't know. Fleming's death and the dawn of DC Bond are separated by over 4 decades. But regarding the scene in question I do not see the literary precedent or even the film precedent for Bond's indifference towards Patrice's murder of a potentially "innocent" or hapless art-dealer. I do think we have an example here of DC-Bond adjusting Bond's moral compass.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Half of the text is Bond's thoughts, and very frequently they are conflicted, tormented thoughts. And insofar as DCBond is the most introspective of Bonds--which he obviously is--DCBond is also the most similar to Fleming. It is RMBond that bears the least resemblance to Fleming's creation.

I think this is a somewhat subjective discussion and anyone that has seen the films and more importantly taken the time to read the Fleming books is emminently qualified to weigh in, so I can respect all opinion from those who have done the due diligence.

IMO Connery and Moore are very close to the Fleming Bond, in the sense that they both caught Bond's personality, his outward exterior, his social persona. Connery and Young took pains to craft this persona, derived from the Fleming books. Fleming's Bond is a bon vivant. He is quick witted, charming, oozes personality. He can be a real smartass, downright cocky and very cheeky. But lingering below the surface is also a deadly menace. Fleming often references the cruel smile and the ability of others to pick-up on Bond's deadly qualities. What Moore couldn't quite capture, and neither could Broz, was Bond's dangerous visage.

Connery though, I think managed to capture both Bond's deadly and charming side. Laz was quite close as well. Connery and Laz IMO are the two closest to Fleming's Bond, whereas Moore at least caught the Bond personality to a large degree and he certainly had the right facial look and stature.

Where Craig fails IMO is he doesn't bring the Bond charm and zest for life that Connery and Moore both managed to find and Laz too. And this is very much a part of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond is not some broody melancholy sort. He has his introspective moments as we all do, but his prevalent persona is far more engaging and vibrant that what Craig has been attempting to do.

Craig Bond is pre-occupied with the dark. We see flashes of his more relaxed side, but they do seem to be grudgingly served up. His comfort level is the Bond of the fraught psyche. Fleming Bond IMO is a far more relaxed creature than Craig's Bond.

Craig's Bond comes across as a poser at times. He overplays conflicted Bond . Relax for 5 minutes please. You are not playing Hamlet here. Maybe Craig overcompensates because he knows he doesn't have the right look. He plays to his strengths. He can't find the Connery and Moore charm so he crafts his own Bond persona. Fair enough, but we don't have to like it.

I think to some extent we all take from Bond what we like, what we relate to, both from Fleming's Bond and from the films. I am probably guilty in that respect.

Fleming gave us a very interesting character. I wouldn't say terribly complex, but rather a somewhat malleable character. It's not surprising we Bond aficianados might focus the character through our own preferred lenses.

That's my opinion and I can respect all other opinions as long as you've read the damn books. :study:

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's not so much witnesses (Severine stays to watch while her bodyguards take care of the corpse), but disrupting the assassination itself. It would be mean more hell for Bond, with whoever financed the deal wandering what happened to their money. For someone still "dead" at this point, it would destroy Bond's low profile.

It would have no effect on Bond's personal profile
They might suspect it was an agent of MI6, but there's no way they would know it was Bond

However it would tip them off that something was awry, not that Craig Bond has ever worried about keeping his low profile in the past - for example his "performance" at Tosca

Perilagu Khan wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Are you serious? There's precious little to even suggest any connect with Fleming in the DC pics. Sure, you have moments in Bond's head in Fleming's CR where he muses that it will just be too bad if Vesper gets killed during his auto pursuit, but it is just that, musing.

The traumatized Bond at the start of YOLT is the direct product of a conventional tragedy, quite unlike anything presented in SKYFALL. If anything we'd consider this Bond miraculously lucky to have survived the PTS, but to think he would stay dead and live the soft life? Again, the soft life is something Fleming Bond thinks about but never really acts upon (outside of letting a rich guy pay for his lobster in GF.)

The whole notion of Bond out of sorts and staying dead because he thinks he has been betrayed by M. is utter rubbish, because if nothing else, the Craig era 007 is aware of the nature of the business and cannot show any surprise over behavior that would otherwise be considered callous, especially given how that is his own viewpoint regarding pretty much everything and everyone.

Again it all comes back to context. If you take a Fleming scene out of context for your movie, do so in a way that relates to Bond that keeps him in character and works for the Bond movie universe. (all of the Robber stuff from L&LD worked into LTK is a sterling example; you carry the dangerous dirty-play feel of the Fleming universe over while giving the character something that reinforces who he is and also works for the movie. Except for Bond & Mathis on the plane in QoS, LTK is the last time I felt Fleming in these movies.)

But SF's Bond is all over the place, the crack shot when he needs to be for M's sake, but not for the girl's, demonstrating no reasonable judgement at the very times when his cold calculation should be in most effect (before he zips off to Scotland just in order to keep other professionals who would be at M's beck-and-call from risking their lives doing what it is they choose to do -- like Bond himself, at least the Bond I know -- in defense of her. Would Bond or M really feel guilt over some SAS guys getting killed defending her, when it is their job to risk their lives in such a fashion?)

And the way Silva is killed, with Bond just doing a Domino-at-end-of TB from off-camera, puts Bond so far off-center from the storytelling it is like they decided to shoehorn something from OCTOPUSSY in when the guy gets killed by his pet after Bond has left. And this is the film's climax for chrissake.

Bollocks. You obviously haven't read your Fleming closely at all. Half of the text is Bond's thoughts, and very frequently they are conflicted, tormented thoughts. And insofar as DCBond is the most introspective of Bonds--which he obviously is--DCBond is also the most similar to Fleming. It is RMBond that bears the least resemblance to Fleming's creation.

As to your criticisms of the DCBond films, they are errant. I don't have the time or inclination to dissect your myriad errors, but I will address your final point. Hence, the conclusion of SF hardly puts Bond at the periphery of the story. The story, my dear trevanian, is Bond desperately attempting to stave off and kill off Silva's horde in time to make it back to M and save her. That is what we call suspense. It works, and it is classic Bond.

Yeah, I guess I could spend hours tearing YOUR notions of how Fleming reads apart too, but since you're not going to pay attention or learn anything from it, I guess that would be a fool's errand. BTW, Dalton is the introspective Bond, Craig is just a character actor playing the wrong character.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Half of the text is Bond's thoughts, and very frequently they are conflicted, tormented thoughts. And insofar as DCBond is the most introspective of Bonds--which he obviously is--DCBond is also the most similar to Fleming. It is RMBond that bears the least resemblance to Fleming's creation.

I think this is a somewhat subjective discussion and anyone that has seen the films and more importantly taken the time to read the Fleming books is emminently qualified to weigh in, so I can respect all opinion from those who have done the due diligence.

IMO Connery and Moore are very close to the Fleming Bond, in the sense that they both caught Bond's personality, his outward exterior, his social persona. Connery and Young took pains to craft this persona, derived from the Fleming books. Fleming's Bond is a bon vivant. He is quick witted, charming, oozes personality. He can be a real smartass, downright cocky and very cheeky. But lingering below the surface is also a deadly menace. Fleming often references the cruel smile and the ability of others to pick-up on Bond's deadly qualities. What Moore couldn't quite capture, and neither could Broz, was Bond's dangerous visage.

Connery though, I think managed to capture both Bond's deadly and charming side. Laz was quite close as well. Connery and Laz IMO are the two closest to Fleming's Bond, whereas Moore at least caught the Bond personality to a large degree and he certainly had the right facial look and stature.

Where Craig fails IMO is he doesn't bring the Bond charm and zest for life that Connery and Moore both managed to find and Laz too. And this is very much a part of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond is not some broody melancholy sort. He has his introspective moments as we all do, but his prevalent persona is far more engaging and vibrant that what Craig has been attempting to do.

Craig Bond is pre-occupied with the dark. We see flashes of his more relaxed side, but they do seem to be grudgingly served up. His comfort level is the Bond of the fraught psyche. Fleming Bond IMO is a far more relaxed creature than Craig's Bond.

Craig's Bond comes across as a poser at times. He overplays conflicted Bond . Relax for 5 minutes please. You are not playing Hamlet here. Maybe Craig overcompensates because he knows he doesn't have the right look. He plays to his strengths. He can't find the Connery and Moore charm so he crafts his own Bond persona. Fair enough, but we don't have to like it.

I think to some extent we all take from Bond what we like, what we relate to, both from Fleming's Bond and from the films. I am probably guilty in that respect.

Fleming gave us a very interesting character. I wouldn't say terribly complex, but rather a somewhat malleable character. It's not surprising we Bond aficianados might focus the character through our own preferred lenses.

That's my opinion and I can respect all other opinions as long as you've read the damn books. :study:

I disagree with much of what you say, but you say it well and do make some valid points. In particular, I think Bond as bon vivant has been suppressed too much in DC Bond. Bond's charm? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think DC showed some charm in both CR and QOS. Not to the level of Seanery and Moore, but hey, that's not DC's focus either. What I will say is that DCBond explores Bond's more tormented side very well, and far too often this aspect of the character has been neglected.

I also think it's a misnomer that Fleming's Bond is not complex. IMO, he's very complex. Far more than most critics facilely give him credit for. As we can see from this discussion, Bond is a glib, charming lady's man with a scathing sensayuma, but he's also a tough cookie with a powerfully sentimental streak, a pronounced sense of loyalty, and a deeply ingrained streak of morality. Critics commonly assert that Bond is a blank page upon which we write our own fantasies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

tiffanywint wrote:

Where Craig fails IMO is he doesn't bring the Bond charm and zest for life that Connery and Moore both managed to find and Laz too. And this is very much a part of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond is not some broody melancholy sort. He has his introspective moments as we all do, but his prevalent persona is far more engaging and vibrant that what Craig has been attempting to do.

I think we see that "zest" come up in moments in Craig's films, particularly in the lighter bits of CASINO ROYALE (the Bahamas stuff, the stuff in Montenegro prior to Bond's big loss). When Craig has the opportunity, he's perfectly capable of that relaxed coolness and charm that is an essential component of the Bond persona.

I would agree about Connery but Moore is nothing like Fleming's Bond. Moore is quite purposefully playing a parody. He is the Adam West of Bonds. Connery, Lazenby and Dalton are all playing variants on Fleming's Bond whilst I would say the character Craig plays is at least strongly derived of it.

Whereas Moore is a parody Bond and Brosnan is playing the popular public perception of Bond.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

In particular, I think Bond as bon vivant has been suppressed too much in DC Bond. Bond's charm? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think DC showed some charm in both CR and QOS. Not to the level of Seanery and Moore, but hey, that's not DC's focus either. What I will say is that DCBond explores Bond's more tormented side very well, and far too often this aspect of the character has been neglected.

I also think it's a misnomer that Fleming's Bond is not complex. IMO, he's very complex. Far more than most critics facilely give him credit for. As we can see from this discussion, Bond is a glib, charming lady's man with a scathing sensayuma, but he's also a tough cookie with a powerfully sentimental streak, a pronounced sense of loyalty, and a deeply ingrained streak of morality. Critics commonly assert that Bond is a blank page upon which we write our own fantasies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Khanners, well said. All of our collective Bond IQ's are that much further enriched.

Yes of course, Craig is not at a complete loss when it comes to being charming and relaxed.

Personally I find Fleming's Bond quite funny. Not in a har-de-har-har kind of way but in a, as you put it, "scathing sensayuma" way. He sure gave it good to both GF and Oddjob. Fleming I think used Bond to get his shots in at various segments of society, and his villains I think often represented broader societal targets, that Fleming wanted to give the business to.

I'm only two paragraphs into TB, and I am already laughing.

"He had a hangover, a bad one, with an aching head and stiff joints.

"....The one drink too many, signals itself unmistakably. His final whisky and soda in the luxurious flat in Park Lane had been no different than the ten preceding ones, but it had gone down reluctantly and had left a bitter taste and an ugly sensation of surfeit."

Mr Whisky and Soda actually does feel it occasionally. It took 11 stiff belts mind you.

trevanian wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Are you serious? There's precious little to even suggest any connect with Fleming in the DC pics. Sure, you have moments in Bond's head in Fleming's CR where he muses that it will just be too bad if Vesper gets killed during his auto pursuit, but it is just that, musing.

The traumatized Bond at the start of YOLT is the direct product of a conventional tragedy, quite unlike anything presented in SKYFALL. If anything we'd consider this Bond miraculously lucky to have survived the PTS, but to think he would stay dead and live the soft life? Again, the soft life is something Fleming Bond thinks about but never really acts upon (outside of letting a rich guy pay for his lobster in GF.)

The whole notion of Bond out of sorts and staying dead because he thinks he has been betrayed by M. is utter rubbish, because if nothing else, the Craig era 007 is aware of the nature of the business and cannot show any surprise over behavior that would otherwise be considered callous, especially given how that is his own viewpoint regarding pretty much everything and everyone.

Again it all comes back to context. If you take a Fleming scene out of context for your movie, do so in a way that relates to Bond that keeps him in character and works for the Bond movie universe. (all of the Robber stuff from L&LD worked into LTK is a sterling example; you carry the dangerous dirty-play feel of the Fleming universe over while giving the character something that reinforces who he is and also works for the movie. Except for Bond & Mathis on the plane in QoS, LTK is the last time I felt Fleming in these movies.)

But SF's Bond is all over the place, the crack shot when he needs to be for M's sake, but not for the girl's, demonstrating no reasonable judgement at the very times when his cold calculation should be in most effect (before he zips off to Scotland just in order to keep other professionals who would be at M's beck-and-call from risking their lives doing what it is they choose to do -- like Bond himself, at least the Bond I know -- in defense of her. Would Bond or M really feel guilt over some SAS guys getting killed defending her, when it is their job to risk their lives in such a fashion?)

And the way Silva is killed, with Bond just doing a Domino-at-end-of TB from off-camera, puts Bond so far off-center from the storytelling it is like they decided to shoehorn something from OCTOPUSSY in when the guy gets killed by his pet after Bond has left. And this is the film's climax for chrissake.

Bollocks. You obviously haven't read your Fleming closely at all. Half of the text is Bond's thoughts, and very frequently they are conflicted, tormented thoughts. And insofar as DCBond is the most introspective of Bonds--which he obviously is--DCBond is also the most similar to Fleming. It is RMBond that bears the least resemblance to Fleming's creation.

As to your criticisms of the DCBond films, they are errant. I don't have the time or inclination to dissect your myriad errors, but I will address your final point. Hence, the conclusion of SF hardly puts Bond at the periphery of the story. The story, my dear trevanian, is Bond desperately attempting to stave off and kill off Silva's horde in time to make it back to M and save her. That is what we call suspense. It works, and it is classic Bond.

Yeah, I guess I could spend hours tearing YOUR notions of how Fleming reads apart too, but since you're not going to pay attention or learn anything from it, I guess that would be a fool's errand. BTW, Dalton is the introspective Bond, Craig is just a character actor playing the wrong character.

Go ahead. I'd pay good money to see it, though I wager Khan would tear you to shreds.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

In particular, I think Bond as bon vivant has been suppressed too much in DC Bond. Bond's charm? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think DC showed some charm in both CR and QOS. Not to the level of Seanery and Moore, but hey, that's not DC's focus either. What I will say is that DCBond explores Bond's more tormented side very well, and far too often this aspect of the character has been neglected.

I also think it's a misnomer that Fleming's Bond is not complex. IMO, he's very complex. Far more than most critics facilely give him credit for. As we can see from this discussion, Bond is a glib, charming lady's man with a scathing sensayuma, but he's also a tough cookie with a powerfully sentimental streak, a pronounced sense of loyalty, and a deeply ingrained streak of morality. Critics commonly assert that Bond is a blank page upon which we write our own fantasies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Khanners, well said. All of our collective Bond IQ's are that much further enriched.

Yes of course, Craig is not at a complete loss when it comes to being charming and relaxed.

Personally I find Fleming's Bond quite funny. Not in a har-de-har-har kind of way but in a, as you put it, "scathing sensayuma" way. He sure gave it good to both GF and Oddjob. Fleming I think used Bond to get his shots in at various segments of society, and his villains I think often represented broader societal targets, that Fleming wanted to give the business to.

I'm only two paragraphs into TB, and I am already laughing.

"He had a hangover, a bad one, with an aching head and stiff joints.

"....The one drink too many, signals itself unmistakably. His final whisky and soda in the luxurious flat in Park Lane had been no different than the ten preceding ones, but it had gone down reluctantly and had left a bitter taste and an ugly sensation of surfeit."

Mr Whisky and Soda actually does feel it occasionally. It took 11 stiff belts mind you.

Thunderball is a personal favorite of mine. And the humor is a primary reason. The whole bit at Shrublands is a riot. As is Bond and Leiter's chagrin with their lousy chow and drink in the Bahamas.

The early London stuff in SKYFALL very much reminds of me of the Shrublands chapters of Fleming's TUNDERBALL. The rain, the dreary buildings, boredom, Bond referring to that old lady as a bitch etc.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I would agree about Connery but Moore is nothing like Fleming's Bond. Moore is quite purposefully playing a parody. He is the Adam West of Bonds. Connery, Lazenby and Dalton are all playing variants on Fleming's Bond whilst I would say the character Craig plays is at least strongly derived of it.

Whereas Moore is a parody Bond and Brosnan is playing the popular public perception of Bond.

But do you think Broz wanted to play it that way? His oft-stated intention to lure Scorsese or Ang Lee to the franchise and appreciation for OHMSS certainly suggests he wanted something more compelling than the usual fare, which would almost mandate a departure from the straighten-the-tie shtick. In the end, I think he was settling for getting a bit of story input in return for basically doing what the producers wanted and a lot of money.

trevanian wrote:

Ang Lee to the franchise

I wonder whether Lee might be a good director for BOND 24.

Loomis wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Ang Lee to the franchise

I wonder whether Lee might be a good director for BOND 24.

He seems to be better when working with low-brow material (i.e. HULK).

There are those--horribile dictu--who would call Bond low-brow.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I disagree with much of what you say, but you say it well and do make some valid points. In particular, I think Bond as bon vivant has been suppressed too much in DC Bond. Bond's charm? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think DC showed some charm in both CR and QOS. Not to the level of Seanery and Moore, but hey, that's not DC's focus either. What I will say is that DCBond explores Bond's more tormented side very well, and far too often this aspect of the character has been neglected.
I also think it's a misnomer that Fleming's Bond is not complex. IMO, he's very complex. Far more than most critics facilely give him credit for. As we can see from this discussion, Bond is a glib, charming lady's man with a scathing sensayuma, but he's also a tough cookie with a powerfully sentimental streak, a pronounced sense of loyalty, and a deeply ingrained streak of morality. Critics commonly assert that Bond is a blank page upon which we write our own fantasies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well said, although I disagree about QOS, where Craig was woefully let down by the half baked script. IMO His seduction of Fields was laughable

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I would agree about Connery but Moore is nothing like Fleming's Bond. Moore is quite purposefully playing a parody. He is the Adam West of Bonds. Connery, Lazenby and Dalton are all playing variants on Fleming's Bond whilst I would say the character Craig plays is at least strongly derived of it.
Whereas Moore is a parody Bond and Brosnan is playing the popular public perception of Bond.

Connery developed the more extrovert version of "Book Bond" that we refer to as "Movie Bond", although it could just be that with "Movie Bond" we only get to see the confident exterior that Bond shows the world, while with "Book Bond" we are privee to the inner man, who suffers from moments of doubt, just like the rest of us. Lazenby attempted to follow this template while he was around. I think Moore basically brought the "Simon Templar" persona he had been honing for a decade, and added a few Bond touches. Although I grew up thinking of him as Bond, as an adult I find his approach too "lite" for my taste. Dalton tried to reign in the smugness and the low brow humour which often undercut the dramatic tension of the Moore films, and give us more of a look inside Bonds head, but audiences of the time weren't really looking for that. Brosnan returned to the original template but by the time Craig arrived the audience was looking for a more conflicted character to suit the uncertain post cold war, uncertain economic times, where the enemy seems to be as much within the system as outside of it and no one seems to have the right answers anymore. Bond has become more than just Flemings creation, he is now a universal icon who reflects the mood of the current times. He is not a time capsule, he has a "life" of his own, he evolves, like other iconic fictional characters who continue to have movies made about them, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Batman...

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Where Craig fails IMO is he doesn't bring the Bond charm and zest for life that Connery and Moore both managed to find and Laz too. And this is very much a part of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond is not some broody melancholy sort. He has his introspective moments as we all do, but his prevalent persona is far more engaging and vibrant that what Craig has been attempting to do.

I think we see that "zest" come up in moments in Craig's films, particularly in the lighter bits of CASINO ROYALE (the Bahamas stuff, the stuff in Montenegro prior to Bond's big loss). When Craig has the opportunity, he's perfectly capable of that relaxed coolness and charm that is an essential component of the Bond persona.

Craig can pull off an understated charm, he's a good actor, he just needs a script to work with. Personally, as someone her prefers a more "serious" version of Bond, I was satisfied with CR and SF, but not QOS, which I now know had script strike problems. However, now that the major personal dramas of Vesper and M are behind him, hopefully it will leave room for a little bit more of the high life, which has always separated Bond from the relentless grey world of Alec Leamus and Jason Bourne
My only concern with Craig Bond is that I would like him to retain a moral compass, which means with known villains anything goes, but unknown bystanders are presumed innocent and should be spared where possible

Seve wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I disagree with much of what you say, but you say it well and do make some valid points. In particular, I think Bond as bon vivant has been suppressed too much in DC Bond. Bond's charm? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think DC showed some charm in both CR and QOS. Not to the level of Seanery and Moore, but hey, that's not DC's focus either. What I will say is that DCBond explores Bond's more tormented side very well, and far too often this aspect of the character has been neglected.
I also think it's a misnomer that Fleming's Bond is not complex. IMO, he's very complex. Far more than most critics facilely give him credit for. As we can see from this discussion, Bond is a glib, charming lady's man with a scathing sensayuma, but he's also a tough cookie with a powerfully sentimental streak, a pronounced sense of loyalty, and a deeply ingrained streak of morality. Critics commonly assert that Bond is a blank page upon which we write our own fantasies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well said, although I disagree about QOS, where Craig was woefully let down by the half baked script. IMO His seduction of Fields was laughable

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I would agree about Connery but Moore is nothing like Fleming's Bond. Moore is quite purposefully playing a parody. He is the Adam West of Bonds. Connery, Lazenby and Dalton are all playing variants on Fleming's Bond whilst I would say the character Craig plays is at least strongly derived of it.
Whereas Moore is a parody Bond and Brosnan is playing the popular public perception of Bond.

Connery developed the more extrovert version of "Book Bond" that we refer to as "Movie Bond", although it could just be that with "Movie Bond" we only get to see the confident exterior that Bond shows the world, while with "Book Bond" we are privee to the inner man, who suffers from moments of doubt, just like the rest of us. Lazenby attempted to follow this template while he was around. I think Moore basically brought the "Simon Templar" persona he had been honing for a decade, and added a few Bond touches. Although I grew up thinking of him as Bond, as an adult I find his approach too "lite" for my taste. Dalton tried to reign in the smugness and the low brow humour which often undercut the dramatic tension of the Moore films, and give us more of a look inside Bonds head, but audiences of the time weren't really looking for that. Brosnan returned to the original template but by the time Craig arrived the audience was looking for a more conflicted character to suit the uncertain post cold war, uncertain economic times, where the enemy seems to be as much within the system as outside of it and no one seems to have the right answers anymore. Bond has become more than just Flemings creation, he is now a universal icon who reflects the mood of the current times. He is not a time capsule, he has a "life" of his own, he evolves, like other iconic fictional characters who continue to have movies made about them, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Batman...

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Where Craig fails IMO is he doesn't bring the Bond charm and zest for life that Connery and Moore both managed to find and Laz too. And this is very much a part of Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond is not some broody melancholy sort. He has his introspective moments as we all do, but his prevalent persona is far more engaging and vibrant that what Craig has been attempting to do.

I think we see that "zest" come up in moments in Craig's films, particularly in the lighter bits of CASINO ROYALE (the Bahamas stuff, the stuff in Montenegro prior to Bond's big loss). When Craig has the opportunity, he's perfectly capable of that relaxed coolness and charm that is an essential component of the Bond persona.

Craig can pull off an understated charm, he's a good actor, he just needs a script to work with. Personally, as someone her prefers a more "serious" version of Bond, I was satisfied with CR and SF, but not QOS, which I now know had script strike problems. However, now that the major personal dramas of Vesper and M are behind him, hopefully it will leave room for a little bit more of the high life, which has always separated Bond from the relentless grey world of Alec Leamus and Jason Bourne
My only concern with Craig Bond is that I would like him to retain a moral compass, which means with known villains anything goes, but unknown bystanders are presumed innocent and should be spared where possible

Actually, I meant CR and SF, not QOS. QOS in general is the most charmless of all Bond films.

All of the performances just choose aspects to enforce or ignore in order to play to the actor's strengths and weaknesses as well as audience expectations.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Ang Lee to the franchise

I wonder whether Lee might be a good director for BOND 24.

He seems to be better when working with low-brow material (i.e. HULK).

I haven't seen all that many of Lee's films (although I do intend to catch up on his stuff), but my understanding is that he's chiefly acclaimed for works of intimate, middlebrow drama (e.g. THE ICE STORM), which seems to be something that Eon likes in directors (consider Tamahori's ONCE WERE WARRIORS, Forster's THE KITE RUNNER, pretty much the entire Mendes canon, and some of the films of Spottiswoode and Apted).

Then again, Lee can also do big-budget, FX-heavy, action-packed (would-be) blockbusters like HULK, CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON and LIFE OF PI. He has a lot of critical acclaim under his belt, plus some commercial success and extensive directorial experience in different parts of the world, including all manner of budgets and genres. He's Mr Foreign-Language Arthouse, Mr American Indie and Mr Hollywood.

trevanian wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

I would agree about Connery but Moore is nothing like Fleming's Bond. Moore is quite purposefully playing a parody. He is the Adam West of Bonds. Connery, Lazenby and Dalton are all playing variants on Fleming's Bond whilst I would say the character Craig plays is at least strongly derived of it.

Whereas Moore is a parody Bond and Brosnan is playing the popular public perception of Bond.

But do you think Broz wanted to play it that way? His oft-stated intention to lure Scorsese or Ang Lee to the franchise and appreciation for OHMSS certainly suggests he wanted something more compelling than the usual fare, which would almost mandate a departure from the straighten-the-tie shtick. In the end, I think he was settling for getting a bit of story input in return for basically doing what the producers wanted and a lot of money.

Interesing on how Dalton views the other Bonds, especially his successors:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-skyfall-timothy-dalton-daniel-craig-bond-20121108,0,2428085.story

Quote: "With Roger Moore it was a pastiche that almost became a parody at the end. And with Pierce [Brosnan], I think he wanted to go darker and deeper but that wasn’t what those movies were.”