Bond 25 (2019)

Flush wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Flush wrote:

Still, I don't disagree that Idris Elba wouldn't be a very good Bond choice, but that's because I don't think he's a particularly interesting actor. My vote (not that I have one) would go to Dan Stevens, but it's not because he's white, which would be a bizarre reason.

Why would it be bizarre to want an actor who resembles the Bond from the novels...??

Because it's rarely happened in the film series anyway?

Does Fleming expressly say Bond is white (he might do but it is years since I read the books)? I accept even if he did not, it would have been an assumption of the age in which they were written that Bond, in the role he's in, is white. Query whether it remains a sensible assumption of the age in which the next film will be produced. The recent recruitment campaign by SIS suggests otherwise.

Are you serious in that you think there is some ambiguity as to whether Fleming may have written Bond as black??? Have you ever read the novels? This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read on a Bond forum.

And it's rarely happened in the series? All 6 actors were white, 4 of them had dark hair, and 4 of them had blue eyes!!

And I couldn't care less about the age in which the film is produced. If they modernise this too much, it isn't Bond anymore. Its another generic action spy franchise, with no roots. And the Bond films have always been slightly quirky and different than other franchises in this respect, in that they still try to echo Fleming wherever they can.

No, it's more about whether there are positive statements that Bond definitely is white rather than the natural, and sensible for the books' vintage, assumption that he is..

The comparison is that some things about Bond that were definite in Fleming - let's say the smoking, the dark hair, the war experience forming his attitudes etc - have been altered on occasion to suit the age, in some of those cases permanently, so - and I'm joining in the vibe of slippery slope that seems to permeate round here - why not something that's not as evidently set in stone (and even if it is, it would just add itself to the list of definite stuff they do change)? I'm not suggesting they should, but I don't see Bond's skin being inherently a special rarified ringfenced case when other characteristics have been abandoned (or never adopted by the film series in the first place).

Would it not be slightly quirky and different from the norms it has set, and other similar stuff, for Bond to be other than white?

Flush wrote:

No, it's more about whether there are positive statements that Bond definitely is white rather than the natural, and sensible for the books' vintage, assumption that he is..

The comparison is that some things about Bond that were definite in Fleming - let's say the smoking, the dark hair, the war experience forming his attitudes etc - have been altered on occasion to suit the age, in some of those cases permanently, so - and I'm joining in the vibe of slippery slope that seems to permeate round here - why not something that's not as evidently set in stone (and even if it is, it would just add itself to the list of definite stuff they do change)? I'm not suggesting they should, but I don't see Bond's skin being inherently a special rarified ringfenced case when other characteristics have been abandoned (or never adopted by the film series in the first place).

Would it not be slightly quirky and different from the norms it has set, and other similar stuff, for Bond to be other than white?

Here is a link to the literary description, including an artists impression of how Bond looked, authorised by Fleming himself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_(literary_character)

You obviously need educating in this respect. He is described in the books as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. Last time I checked, he was white. In the novel LALD, Bond is wary going in to Harlem, and then listens in on how black people speak - with a chapter called `Nigger Heaven'.

If they change the basics of the character that much, then it is no longer Ian Fleming's James Bond. It is a generic modern day action hero called James Bond, who has no past connected with the character Fleming wrote. The film's will end up like Bastille Day, starring Idris Elba. A cool black actor who looks good in action scenes, and is attractive to women so he gets laid quite a lot. But in the process this seriously could alienate the global fanbase of the franchise.

I for one wouldn't care about the films anymore.

Thank you for the education. I stand educated, accordingly.

It might however be "how some fictional black people living in and around Harlem speak", rather than "how black people speak", which still seems overly sweeping.

However, I remain of the view that they could change it, as history suggests they do change, and have changed, plenty of things. I am not saying they must, nor that they will, but that they could as it would just be one deviation of many, and when other changes have been given a free pass, why this one should be of any greater importance to those who have not rejected the film series for its other deviations, strikes an odd tone.

Flush wrote:

Thank you for the education. I stand educated, accordingly.

It might however be "how some fictional black people living in and around Harlem speak", rather than "how black people speak", which still seems overly sweeping.

However, I remain of the view that they could change it, as history suggests they do change, and have changed, plenty of things. I am not saying they must, nor that they will, but that they could as it would just be one deviation of many, and when other changes have been given a free pass, why this one should be of any greater importance to those who have not rejected the film series for its other deviations, strikes an odd tone.

Why would I want to write `fictional black people'? That is what we are talking about, isn't it? Bond is a work of fiction, last time I checked.
Or is there some underlying PC correctness agenda going on here too, that I have to be careful what I write on a Bond forum.

For the record, I am not that happy changing secondary characters either, but I can understand why, to modernise the world around Bond. But once you modernise the central character too, then it no longer is Fleming Bond.

Right now, CR, set in modern times, manages to still remain faithful to a novel written in 1952, even though Felix Leiter is now black. Because his skin colour or origin is not that essential to the story.

But once you change Bond too, it will become difficult to still try and interpret the character authentically from the novels. Making Bond black, gay, female, bi, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, etc. would then become a different character to the rather old-fashioned Etonian snobby English gentleman that was really underneath Ian Fleming in disguise. Bond was his alter ego.

I've no doubt at all that's what Bond "was".

Whether that's what Bond "is", or can be, is another matter. (I'm saying "can be" not "should be", mind).

I don't disagree that such a move would be a radical departure - but there have been other radical departures. The Felix Leiter one is a good one, of course - it is he who is showing Bond Harlem in Live and Let Die and he's not showing Bond Harlem as a member of the community on show (so that Leiter is white was as significant that Bond was white, in such a situation and presumably what Fleming intended to convey; thank you for pointing me in the direction of Live and Let Die again - my education continues).

I suppose the point rests whether they are still trying to interpret the character authentically from the novels. That's been a bit mixed, over the years (don't see much of it in A View to a Kill or Tomorrow Never Dies, as probably rebuttable examples). If this had always been the case, that Bond was a fixed character, then a) I suspect I would agree with you much more and b) I suspect the Bond series would have lasted about four or five films. I just don't think there's been that much consistency in "trying" to interpret the character authentically (whatever the barometer of authenticity is) over the years - sometimes it occurs, with Timothy Dalton and bits and pieces of Daniel Craig - but I'm not totally sure that's so great a benchmark or indelible characteristic of the series that opening it up to change is any great wrench from prior, fluid practice. The relative purity of the Dalton depiction wasn't that immediately popular from recollection, although I accept there may have been all sorts of factors and not just his take on the character. That the film character has been pushed and pulled around in the pursuit of the widest audience rather than text adherence/purity and a fixed idea, does give opportunity to change. Whether they take the opportunity - don't know, all I'm suggesting is that the history of the Bond films and the inconsistency of the approach to the lead means they could. Still not yet at "should", though, but if they get the actor they want to portray the Bond they think they need at a given time - so be it.

I know they put "John Doe as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007" at the start of the films, but they put "in Ian Fleming's Moonraker" on Moonraker and it's very "not". On the basis that the Brosnan and Craig Bonds have been credited as "Ian Fleming's James Bond 007" and they're very different characters I'm not sure it's anything more than a courtesy nod any more, rather than faithful interpretation.

Bond is, as you say, fictional - the demands and opportunities of fiction may lay the path for change without it actually mattering.

I recall that business about one of JK Rowling's characters being played on stage by a "black" (whatever that is) actress when all previous depictions - and depictions presumably controlled and OK'd by the author, keeps quite a tight rein on that sort of thing apparently - were "white".

Quote :

Or is there some underlying PC correctness agenda going on here too, that I have to be careful what I write on a Bond forum.

No, I don't think so. Interesting phrase, political correctness - I understand China is not allowing that Midnight film to be shown because it is "not politically correct" (the censor used those precise words). I suspect those bandying the term around in the West would have the absolute opposite view!

Flush wrote:

I've no doubt at all that's what Bond "was".

Whether that's what Bond "is", or can be, is another matter. (I'm saying "can be" not "should be", mind).

I don't disagree that such a move would be a radical departure - but there have been other radical departures. The Felix Leiter one is a good one, of course - it is he who is showing Bond Harlem in Live and Let Die and he's not showing Bond Harlem as a member of the community on show (so that Leiter is white was as significant that Bond was white, in such a situation and presumably what Fleming intended to convey; thank you for pointing me in the direction of Live and Let Die again - my education continues).

I suppose the point rests whether they are still trying to interpret the character authentically from the novels. That's been a bit mixed, over the years (don't see much of it in A View to a Kill or Tomorrow Never Dies, as probably rebuttable examples). If this had always been the case, that Bond was a fixed character, then a) I suspect I would agree with you much more and b) I suspect the Bond series would have lasted about four or five films. I just don't think there's been that much consistency in "trying" to interpret the character authentically (whatever the barometer of authenticity is) over the years - sometimes it occurs, with Timothy Dalton and bits and pieces of Daniel Craig - but I'm not totally sure that's so great a benchmark or indelible characteristic of the series that opening it up to change is any great wrench from prior, fluid practice. The relative purity of the Dalton depiction wasn't that immediately popular from recollection, although I accept there may have been all sorts of factors and not just his take on the character. That the film character has been pushed and pulled around in the pursuit of the widest audience rather than text adherence/purity and a fixed idea, does give opportunity to change. Whether they take the opportunity - don't know, all I'm suggesting is that the history of the Bond films and the inconsistency of the approach to the lead means they could. Still not yet at "should", though, but if they get the actor they want to portray the Bond they think they need at a given time - so be it.

I know they put "John Doe as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007" at the start of the films, but they put "in Ian Fleming's Moonraker" on Moonraker and it's very "not". On the basis that the Brosnan and Craig Bonds have been credited as "Ian Fleming's James Bond 007" and they're very different characters I'm not sure it's anything more than a courtesy nod any more, rather than faithful interpretation.

Bond is, as you say, fictional - the demands and opportunities of fiction may lay the path for change without it actually mattering.

I recall that business about one of JK Rowling's characters being played on stage by a "black" (whatever that is) actress when all previous depictions - and depictions presumably controlled and OK'd by the author, keeps quite a tight rein on that sort of thing apparently - were "white".

Quote :

Or is there some underlying PC correctness agenda going on here too, that I have to be careful what I write on a Bond forum.

No, I don't think so. Interesting phrase, political correctness - I understand China is not allowing that Midnight film to be shown because it is "not politically correct" (the censor used those precise words). I suspect those bandying the term around in the West would have the absolute opposite view!

Yes, you do have a point about the Bond actors have never really played the Fleming Bond accurately on screen, with exception to Connery in his early films, Lazenby in OHMSS, and Dalton particularly in LTK. I find it hard to rope Craig in with this too, other than some of the scenes he had in CR (mainly when it follows the book).

While I largely agree with JSW on this, I have to - characteristically - draw the line at the CR06 comparisons with Fleming. It doesn't exist beyond the simple premise of Bond bankrupting a terrorist financier and falling in love with a tragic double agent. That's it. There aren't any parallels otherwise and I'd wager that the inclusion of a black James Bond would continue on that commercialised, leftist trite we were subjected to with CR06.

Like lachesis, as much as I love SF, Craig is definitely one of the weaker aspects of that film, and is noticeably out-performed by Bardem, Dench, Marlohe and Fiennes. Even Whishaw gives him a run for his money. The strength lies in the writing of Bond's character; the script reflects Fleming's writing of his character - irrespective of one's objections to how the Skyfall narrative unfolds and the alleged plot holes.

FieldsMan wrote:

While I largely agree with JSW on this, I have to - characteristically - draw the line at the CR06 comparisons with Fleming. It doesn't exist beyond the simple premise of Bond bankrupting a terrorist financier and falling in love with a tragic double agent. That's it. There aren't any parallels otherwise and I'd wager that the inclusion of a black James Bond would continue on that commercialised, leftist trite we were subjected to with CR06.

Like lachesis, as much as I love SF, Craig is definitely one of the weaker aspects of that film, and is noticeably out-performed by Bardem, Dench, Marlohe and Fiennes. Even Whishaw gives him a run for his money. The strength lies in the writing of Bond's character; the script reflects Fleming's writing of his character - irrespective of one's objections to how the Skyfall narrative unfolds and the alleged plot holes.

I strongly disagree.

Craig did have his Fleming moments in CR. Blood splattered chest, taking his shirt off while looking in the mirror and drinking bourbon, `Go and get Mathis', covered in blood after the stairwell fight, `Get the girl out!' in the casino, Bond battered and passing out after the Aston Martin crash, Bond being tortured and screaming out in pain, Bond recovering in hospital, `the bitch is dead' line, Bond pausing with hesitation before jumping off the crane in Madagascar.

These were as Fleming as you can get - far more than Craig would ever do again in any of his other films (including SF).

Yes, all that did strike me as quite Fleming-y too (what I recall of Fleming - really must re-read them!).

For a Bond film made more than 50 years after its source novel, there's as much of said novel in CR '06 as could be realistically hoped for IMHO.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

For a Bond film made more than 50 years after its source novel, there's as much of said novel in CR '06 as could be realistically hoped for IMHO.

It's the closest adaptation of a full length Fleming novel since OHMSS in 1969. Shocking when you think about it.

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

While I largely agree with JSW on this, I have to - characteristically - draw the line at the CR06 comparisons with Fleming. It doesn't exist beyond the simple premise of Bond bankrupting a terrorist financier and falling in love with a tragic double agent. That's it. There aren't any parallels otherwise and I'd wager that the inclusion of a black James Bond would continue on that commercialised, leftist trite we were subjected to with CR06.

Like lachesis, as much as I love SF, Craig is definitely one of the weaker aspects of that film, and is noticeably out-performed by Bardem, Dench, Marlohe and Fiennes. Even Whishaw gives him a run for his money. The strength lies in the writing of Bond's character; the script reflects Fleming's writing of his character - irrespective of one's objections to how the Skyfall narrative unfolds and the alleged plot holes.

I strongly disagree.

Craig did have his Fleming moments in CR. Blood splattered chest, taking his shirt off while looking in the mirror and drinking bourbon, `Go and get Mathis', covered in blood after the stairwell fight, `Get the girl out!' in the casino, Bond battered and passing out after the Aston Martin crash, Bond being tortured and screaming out in pain, Bond recovering in hospital, `the bitch is dead' line, Bond pausing with hesitation before jumping off the crane in Madagascar.


These were as Fleming as you can get - far more than Craig would ever do again in any of his other films (including SF).

The only one I'd give you is the looking in the mirror and drinking bourbon. Everything else is generic and could be from anything, not just a Fleming novel. The "bitch is dead" line is fan service... It's not the good pay off to a tragic relationship that it should be. I also don't recall Bond jumping off cranes in the novel - with or without hesitation - so I fail to see how that is as 'Fleming as you can get'.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

For a Bond film made more than 50 years after its source novel, there's as much of said novel in CR '06 as could be realistically hoped for IMHO.

Perhaps in its premise, but it could have been handled so much better. Moodier/more vibrant cinematography, the actual character of James Bond, and not some personal journey that lets Vesper dress him so that he becomes Bond (someone recently told me that she found that sexy? ) all the while learning lessons from M as she visits him across the globe just to brief him after he breaks into her apartment. The torture could have even been handled better, with the torture itself being the focus of the scene, and not the joke which is what many remember it for. Some development of the love story wouldn't have gone astray, either. Swap Bond's personal journey development with focus on the love story, and the film becomes infinitely better. The poker game should have been brought forward in the film, and spend the second half of the film continuing to develop Vesper's relationship. Instead, the film makers wanted us to swallow the bitter pill of watching Bond become Bond (a tedious venture of many recent films exploring every aspect of an usually enigmatic character) hence the core love story suffers.

A more melodic score would have been more welcomed too.

FieldsMan wrote:

The only one I'd give you is the looking in the mirror and drinking bourbon. Everything else is generic and could be from anything, not just a Fleming novel. The "bitch is dead" line is fan service... It's not the good pay off to a tragic relationship that it should be. I also don't recall Bond jumping off cranes in the novel - with or without hesitation - so I fail to see how that is as 'Fleming as you can get'.

Bond passing out after a car crash, screaming out in pain at a horrific torture, Bond recovering in hospital? I don't recall many moments like these in the films, which were a regular occurrence in the novels (just about every book, I think). The jumping with hesitation was the point I was making, not the crane itself, and you know it was....naughty FieldsMan!

FieldsMan wrote:

Perhaps in its premise, but it could have been handled so much better. Moodier/more vibrant cinematography, the actual character of James Bond, and not some personal journey that lets Vesper dress him so that he becomes Bond (someone recently told me that she found that sexy? ) all the while learning lessons from M as she visits him across the globe just to brief him after he breaks into her apartment. The torture could have even been handled better, with the torture itself being the focus of the scene, and not the joke which is what many remember it for. Some development of the love story wouldn't have gone astray, either. Swap Bond's personal journey development with focus on the love story, and the film becomes infinitely better. The poker game should have been brought forward in the film, and spend the second half of the film continuing to develop Vesper's relationship. Instead, the film makers wanted us to swallow the bitter pill of watching Bond become Bond (a tedious venture of many recent films exploring every aspect of an usually enigmatic character) hence the core love story suffers.

A more melodic score would have been more welcomed too.

Some of this I agree with, but I understand with modern audiences now and their expectations, that the poker scenes had to make way in the film for some generic box ticking action in the first half of the movie. What I didn't mind is that the action was handled more in a realistic context (Bond looks bloody and battered after each ordeal), rather than looking immaculate and straightening ties in tanks, underwater, etc.

As for the score, I think Arnold really delivers in this one. It is pretty much spot on in its sweeping Barry type sound in Venice, although I still don't care for the generic action music in the Miami airport scene.

One thing I found retarded in CR was, as Fields just mentioned, Vesper giving Bond his first big boy dinner jacket as if he's Batman getting his fucking batsuit (if that's what it's called). Played too hard on that "James becomes Bond" angle.

Speaking of, what a nonsensical line in the trailer that was.

Speaking of, why don't movie trailers have narrators any more?

CJB wrote:

One thing I found retarded in CR was, as Fields just mentioned, Vesper giving Bond his first big boy dinner jacket as if he's Batman getting his fucking batsuit (if that's what it's called). Played too hard on that "James becomes Bond" angle.

Yes I didn't like that either. The only saving grace was Arnold's tune over this scene, which sounded very Barryesque.

The best parts for me during the casino scenes (other than the table scenes themselves) was the stairwell fight, and Bond being poisoned, which reminded me a little bit of the brilliant centrifuge scene from Moonraker.

Flush wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Flush wrote:

Still, I don't disagree that Idris Elba wouldn't be a very good Bond choice, but that's because I don't think he's a particularly interesting actor. My vote (not that I have one) would go to Dan Stevens, but it's not because he's white, which would be a bizarre reason.

Why would it be bizarre to want an actor who resembles the Bond from the novels...??

Because it's rarely happened in the film series anyway? So much has deviated from Fleming in the portrayal of Bond over the years, that latching onto Fleming to support any specific view this far down the line seems odd. Bond wasn't Irish-American, either, but that seemed to get a pass.

Does Fleming expressly say Bond is white (he might do but it is years since I read the books)? I accept even if he did not, it would have been an assumption of the age in which they were written that Bond, in the role he's in, is white. Query whether it remains a sensible assumption of the age in which the next film will be produced. The recent recruitment campaign by SIS suggests otherwise.

But we can't debate who they actually cast (till it happens), we can only debate who we wish they would cast...in that case having someone in the role that matches that person that is in your minds eyes does not seem unreasonable (and given the gamut of actors to choose from - not just the ones already in the spotlight - I'm sure it remains possible).

TBH my preference would actually be for a Bond film set in the period of the novels, or perhaps the alternate 60's world the earliest films existed in - today's environment and style of contemporary filming is largely incompatible with the Bond I love.....it won't happen but it still gets my vote! As fans I believe we should champion those choices that tick as many boxes as possible because we know that so many others have already been shot down in flames so at least we can say ......well this one looks the part etc.

Other than that its perhaps time to dust off the 'James Bond is a code name' conspiracy theory and run with it, CR (ironically) and QoS certainly have more Greengrass/Bourne in then than Fleming imo so it can make money for Eon and spawn a whole new set of fans I can learn to object too .

Well, as the man himself wrote:

"The tough man of the world. The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette.”

Seems an appropriate standard, yes?

Flush wrote:

Well, as the man himself wrote:

"The tough man of the world. The secret agent. The man who was only a silhouette.”

Seems an appropriate standard, yes?

But Fleming didn't just leave the description of Bond like that. He did flesh more detail - height, hair colour, hair style, eye colour, build, Hoagy Carmichael looking, etc.

Just as well, from one point of view, because silhouettes are black.

Flush wrote:

Just as well, from one point of view, because silhouettes are black.

Yup! And Fleming certainly didn't describe Bond as black.

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

The only one I'd give you is the looking in the mirror and drinking bourbon. Everything else is generic and could be from anything, not just a Fleming novel. The "bitch is dead" line is fan service... It's not the good pay off to a tragic relationship that it should be. I also don't recall Bond jumping off cranes in the novel - with or without hesitation - so I fail to see how that is as 'Fleming as you can get'.

Bond passing out after a car crash, screaming out in pain at a horrific torture, Bond recovering in hospital? I don't recall many moments like these in the films, which were a regular occurrence in the novels (just about every book, I think). The jumping with hesitation was the point I was making, not the crane itself, and you know it was....naughty FieldsMan!  

FieldsMan wrote:

Perhaps in its premise, but it could have been handled so much better. Moodier/more vibrant cinematography, the actual character of James Bond, and not some personal journey that lets Vesper dress him so that he becomes Bond (someone recently told me that she found that sexy? ) all the while learning lessons from M as she visits him across the globe just to brief him after he breaks into her apartment. The torture could have even been handled better, with the torture itself being the focus of the scene, and not the joke which is what many remember it for. Some development of the love story wouldn't have gone astray, either. Swap Bond's personal journey development with focus on the love story, and the film becomes infinitely better. The poker game should have been brought forward in the film, and spend the second half of the film continuing to develop Vesper's relationship. Instead, the film makers wanted us to swallow the bitter pill of watching Bond become Bond (a tedious venture of many recent films exploring every aspect of an usually enigmatic character) hence the core love story suffers.

A more melodic score would have been more welcomed too.

Some of this I agree with, but I understand with modern audiences now and their expectations, that the poker scenes had to make way in the film for some generic box ticking action in the first half of the movie. What I didn't mind is that the action was handled more in a realistic context (Bond looks bloody and battered after each ordeal), rather than looking immaculate and straightening ties in tanks, underwater, etc.

As for the score, I think Arnold really delivers in this one. It is pretty much spot on in its sweeping Barry type sound in Venice, although I still don't care for the generic action music in the Miami airport scene.

You got me but I never really registered hesitation in that moment - more Bond gauging the jump. Craig Bond doesn't hesitate - he goes in balls to the wall without thinking (see aforementioned moment, running through the wall, entire Miami Airport sequence, Venice brawl in the falling building, boat chase in QOS, "you and I had a mutual friend!", charging the plane down the maintain in SP, charging the plane through Hinx's car, jeopardising Dr Swann's life for references).

Aside from a few cues (City of Lovers is probably the notable standout), I rank Arnold's Casino Royale as one of the weakest scores of the series - and I'm an Arnold fan. Quantum of Solace was a marked improvement, but his work for Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day are infinitely better, particularly the former two.

FieldsMan wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

The only one I'd give you is the looking in the mirror and drinking bourbon. Everything else is generic and could be from anything, not just a Fleming novel. The "bitch is dead" line is fan service... It's not the good pay off to a tragic relationship that it should be. I also don't recall Bond jumping off cranes in the novel - with or without hesitation - so I fail to see how that is as 'Fleming as you can get'.

Bond passing out after a car crash, screaming out in pain at a horrific torture, Bond recovering in hospital? I don't recall many moments like these in the films, which were a regular occurrence in the novels (just about every book, I think). The jumping with hesitation was the point I was making, not the crane itself, and you know it was....naughty FieldsMan!  

FieldsMan wrote:

Perhaps in its premise, but it could have been handled so much better. Moodier/more vibrant cinematography, the actual character of James Bond, and not some personal journey that lets Vesper dress him so that he becomes Bond (someone recently told me that she found that sexy? ) all the while learning lessons from M as she visits him across the globe just to brief him after he breaks into her apartment. The torture could have even been handled better, with the torture itself being the focus of the scene, and not the joke which is what many remember it for. Some development of the love story wouldn't have gone astray, either. Swap Bond's personal journey development with focus on the love story, and the film becomes infinitely better. The poker game should have been brought forward in the film, and spend the second half of the film continuing to develop Vesper's relationship. Instead, the film makers wanted us to swallow the bitter pill of watching Bond become Bond (a tedious venture of many recent films exploring every aspect of an usually enigmatic character) hence the core love story suffers.

A more melodic score would have been more welcomed too.

Some of this I agree with, but I understand with modern audiences now and their expectations, that the poker scenes had to make way in the film for some generic box ticking action in the first half of the movie. What I didn't mind is that the action was handled more in a realistic context (Bond looks bloody and battered after each ordeal), rather than looking immaculate and straightening ties in tanks, underwater, etc.

As for the score, I think Arnold really delivers in this one. It is pretty much spot on in its sweeping Barry type sound in Venice, although I still don't care for the generic action music in the Miami airport scene.

You got me but I never really registered hesitation in that moment - more Bond gauging the jump. Craig Bond doesn't hesitate - he goes in balls to the wall without thinking (see aforementioned moment, running through the wall, entire Miami Airport sequence, Venice brawl in the falling building, boat chase in QOS, "you and I had a mutual friend!", charging the plane down the maintain in SP, charging the plane through Hinx's car, jeopardising Dr Swann's life for references).

Aside from a few cues (City of Lovers is probably the notable standout), I rank Arnold's Casino Royale as one of the weakest scores of the series - and I'm an Arnold fan. Quantum of Solace was a marked improvement, but his work for Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day are infinitely better, particularly the former two.  

I'm not keen on the work Arnold did on the Brosnan films. For me his strongest score is CR, and I'd go as far as saying its one of the best scores in the series, up there with OHMSS, DAF and MR. The Vesper love theme, dinner jacket scene, Bond driving his Mondeo - they are all on par with Barry at his very best.

QoS is also a great score too (particularly the Night at the Opera, circa Barry 1971) and it really annoys me that he had to make way for Newman, just when he was finally finding his way with the franchise.

CR - the music and film itself - is as anaemic and sterile as they come, in my opinion. Brosnan films had a joie de vivre about them, and Arnold's music complimented that. And this is including Die Another Day.

I agree about QOS boasted a solid score, and was a little sad to hear about Newman coming in. Never liked his music in his non-Bond efforts and unfortunately, it mostly transferred over to SF and SP as well, aside from a few excellent standout tracks. I do like Tennyson, Shanghai Drive, Breadcrumbs, Severine's Theme, the music in Macau, Donna Lucia, Hinx's motif and the Mexican Bond theme rendition.

Joie de vivre? In TWINE?!?

Granted, it has its moments. But Apted has to be one of the series' blandest directors.