Black and White Opening

It's not like it's a flashback. The story continues from that point. Is it self indulgence or a symbol that Bond's life would be colourful now that he's a 00? That didn't happen until he was over the hill in Skyfall.

I thought it was OK as a stylistic choice; the iconic blood down the gunbarrel being the first colour we see.

In the totality of the self-indulgence the Cregg films bathe in, this was a minor episode.

Yeah. Suppose like the rest of CR they were going for "cool".

Campbell was simply going for a noir vibe for the pre-titles, and being a standalone sequence from the rest of the film I thought it worked just fine. I really love the lighting in Dryden's office.

Speaking of standalone sequences, it's probably the only pre-title we had since OCTOPUSSY that didn't tie into the main plot. TND's pre-title almost was, though Gupta appeared at the arms bizaar acquiring that GPS encoder. I'm hoping future films will bring back that standalone element for pre-titles.

FieldsMan wrote:

Yeah. Suppose like the rest of CR they were going for "cool".

Don't all Bond films? I suspect if this wasn't even a Craig title you'd be singing a very different tune over this stylistic choice. I get that you have a major bias against Craig's run, and would probably be a lot harsher on SKYFALL if this forum wasn't as overly fond of it. I get it. I used to have that bias with Moore's run before I mellowed out and began to appreciate what those films offered to the series. I'd hope after B25 when we're moving onto the next Bond era you'll become less sour on CR and start to find more good. Not that it doesn't deserve criticism. God knows that tone deaf sinking house climax couldn't get enough criticism.

If he's going for a noir vibe, he should have kept it consistent with the rest of the film. Probably would have improved it. It's also not a standalone sequence, since his actions in that scene carries on into the titles sequence, as well as referenced throughout the film ("I give him 00 status and celebrates by shooting up an embassy", "I knew it was too early to promote you").

Out of all the PTSs, only GF, FYEO and OP have standalone sequences...

The quotation marks indicated sarcasm. There's a lot of cool explosions and cool stunts and cool feminism in CR without any logic over its inclusion. Same applies to the black and white sequence.

The other Bond films are effortless in that their lead had screen presence and charisma. They'd pop a grape as they smoothly exited a room or sip a martini after dispatching a goon instead of crashing through walls or "not giving a damn". Ooh. Edgy.

MP wrote:

I get that you have a major bias against Craig's run, and would probably be a lot harsher on SKYFALL if this forum wasn't as overly fond of it. I get it.

If you say so.

I only have a major bias against Craig's run insomuch the direction, tone, lead actor and music are disagreeable in 3/4 of his films. Skyfall is the exception but even then I still consider Newman's score to be one of the weakest in the series (despite a few standout tracks) and Craig to be a level below the capabilities of Dench, Bardem, Fiennes and Finney - even Whishaw and Marlohe's A-game outperforms the lead.

Contrary to what you might think, I don't rely on this forum to dictate my opinions - if I did, I wouldn't appreciate Brosnan's era.

I suspect the difference between warming to Moore's era and warming to Craig's era is that the former never commanded its audience to take it seriously. CR hasn't aged well - I used to like it when I was 14-15.

Because I thought it was "cool".

FieldsMan wrote:

If he's going for a noir vibe, he should have kept it consistent with the rest of the film. Probably would have improved it. It's also not a standalone sequence, since his actions in that scene carries on into the titles sequence, as well as referenced throughout the film ("I give him 00 status and celebrates by shooting up an embassy", "I knew it was too early to promote you").

Out of all the PTSs, only GF, FYEO and OP have standalone sequences...

When I mean standalone, I mean as in elements like Dryden's schemes not carrying over onto the main plot like it typically would in any other Bond film. Bond getting promoted was something that happened after the PTS. For all intents and purposes, it's a standalone sequence.

Quote :

The quotation marks indicated sarcasm. There's a lot of cool explosions and cool stunts and cool feminism in CR without any logic over its inclusion. Same applies to the black and white sequence.

I'm really not sure how these hold up when you can apply them to all other Bond films indulging in cartoonish explosions and stunts. As for feminism, this isn't even unique to Craig's tenure anyway. I'd argue it helped keep the series stay alive more than not. It's just one of many acknowledgements of how the world has changed since the 1960s. I don't think Vesper would have turned out as popular as a Bond girl if the filmmakers had only kept her as Fleming originally wrote her being primarily submissive and quiet. Heck, the films were already making the women come off more self reliant and assertive as we saw how they changed Tracy's character from the novel to film, though they fumbled that at times in the past like with Jinx or Camille.

Quote :

The other Bond films are effortless in that their lead had screen presence and charisma.

A lot, including myself, would say Craig has presence and charisma in spades, otherwise his tenure would not have played out as well as it has so far. If you don't see that, fair enough. I don't feel Lazenby had much charisma, but that doesn't stop other fans from thinking he did.

Quote :

They'd pop a grape as they smoothly exited a room or sip a martini after dispatching a goon instead of crashing through walls or "not giving a damn". Ooh. Edgy.

I'm not buying the idea that Bond has never been shown to be brazen or rude prior to Craig's run. Crashing through a wall? Connery did that in 1967. Bond has never been shy of doing things bluntly when the situation calls for it. You should know that well, as a decade before Craig hijacked a bulldozer Brosnan was hijacking a tank. Bond not being a by the book kind of agent is part of why Q complains about him so much "you have a licence to kill, not to break the traffic laws!"

Quote :

CR hasn't aged well - I used to like it when I was 14-15.

Because I thought it was "cool".

The way you phrase it like that, makes it sounds like you never truly liked it in the first place. You must have had plenty of reasons to like it besides just perceiving it as "cool".

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

If he's going for a noir vibe, he should have kept it consistent with the rest of the film. Probably would have improved it. It's also not a standalone sequence, since his actions in that scene carries on into the titles sequence, as well as referenced throughout the film ("I give him 00 status and celebrates by shooting up an embassy", "I knew it was too early to promote you").

Out of all the PTSs, only GF, FYEO and OP have standalone sequences...

When I mean standalone, I mean as in elements like Dryden's schemes not carrying over onto the main plot like it typically would in any other Bond film. Bond getting promoted was something that happened after the PTS. For all intents and purposes, it's a standalone sequence.

Given CR06 is less about Le Chiffre's scheme and more about Bond becoming Bond, there's no question that the PTS is tied to the rest of the film. It's about Bond's journey, and his earning of his 007 number definitely ties into the rest of the film. This is the epitome of plot vs story. Where Bond films have mostly been plot driven, CR (and all of Craig's films) deviates by giving Bond an arc for audiences to emotionally connect to. Unfortunately it takes a little more than some bruises, cuts and pouting for smarter audiences to engage with.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

The quotation marks indicated sarcasm. There's a lot of cool explosions and cool stunts and cool feminism in CR without any logic over its inclusion. Same applies to the black and white sequence.

I'm really not sure how these hold up when you can apply them to all other Bond films indulging in cartoonish explosions and stunts. As for feminism, this isn't even unique to Craig's tenure anyway. I'd argue it helped keep the series stay alive more than not. It's just one of many acknowledgements of how the world has changed since the 1960s. I don't think Vesper would have turned out as popular as a Bond girl if the filmmakers had only kept her as Fleming originally wrote her being primarily submissive and quiet. Heck, the films were already making the women come off more self reliant and assertive as we saw how they changed Tracy's character from the novel to film, though they fumbled that at times in the past like with Jinx or Camille.

Where other Bond films invite the viewer to go along for the outrageous ride that a Bond film is, CR06 demands the audience that this is a no-nonsense, serious filum. That's why the Madagascar sequence is more ridiculous than, say the volcano lair shoot up: both have rather illogical moments leading up to the action set piece however since YOLT's tone is more tongue in cheek, it becomes a much more palatable affair. As CR06 asks us to take it seriously, I question the logic. Why doesn't Carter know not to touch his ear? Is he a junior agent to Bond? If so, why does he have a gun - he wouldn't have a licence to kill. Why is Bond a mentor to such an agent when he just got promoted. What does all this say about M's ability as their chief? Haven't even got onto the chase itself yet.

The difference is, Tracy never psychoanalysed Bond. She never dressed him - and the way the film plays on that makes it seem like Bond's never worn a suit prior to that moment. Tracy was a charming, likeable, and yet tragic character. Nu-Vesper's neo-gothic personality has no place in a Bond film. Doesn't help that the love story is undercooked. But the feminism doesn't stop there. It's the omission of Moneypenny with Villiers in her place. Can't women work in secretarial positions anymore? She was in the novel. Why not in the film?

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

They'd pop a grape as they smoothly exited a room or sip a martini after dispatching a goon instead of crashing through walls or "not giving a damn". Ooh. Edgy.

I'm not buying the idea that Bond has never been shown to be brazen or rude prior to Craig's run. Crashing through a wall? Connery did that in 1967. Bond has never been shy of doing things bluntly when the situation calls for it. You should know that well, as a decade before Craig hijacked a bulldozer Brosnan was hijacking a tank. Bond not being a by the book kind of agent is part of why Q complains about him so much "you have a licence to kill, not to break the traffic laws!"

You mean Connery broke through a paper wall in Japan? Because paper is tantamount to plaster. Again, there's a bit of a difference between Bond tearing the down the streets to rescue a key witness in a country that was England's main enemy for fifty years and who may be behind the threat of a destructive space weapon, again in a film where we can smile along with Bond, than what happens in Madagascar. In the end, Bond shoots him anyway. A shot in the leg would not have sufficed? Could have saved the entire chase sequence and helped develop the Vesper relationship.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

CR hasn't aged well - I used to like it when I was 14-15.

Because I thought it was "cool".

The way you phrase it like that, makes it sounds like you never truly liked it in the first place. You must have had plenty of reasons to like it besides just perceiving it as "cool".

Because I thought there was a good story there, and that the marriage between drama and action was solid. I wasn't perceptible enough to see how stupid the film actually is.

FieldsMan wrote:

Given CR06 is less about Le Chiffre's scheme and more about Bond becoming Bond, there's no question that the PTS is tied to the rest of the film. It's about Bond's journey, and his earning of his 007 number definitely ties into the rest of the film. This is the epitome of plot vs story. Where Bond films have mostly been plot driven, CR (and all of Craig's films) deviates by giving Bond an arc for audiences to emotionally connect to. Unfortunately it takes a little more than some bruises, cuts and pouting for smarter audiences to engage with.

I'd say it was pretty successful at connecting with audiences emotionally, not because of "some bruises, cuts and pouting". Or maybe everyone is just not smart enough like you, as you seem to imply.

Quote :

Where other Bond films invite the viewer to go along for the outrageous ride that a Bond film is, CR06 demands the audience that this is a no-nonsense, serious filum. That's why the Madagascar sequence is more ridiculous than, say the volcano lair shoot up: both have rather illogical moments leading up to the action set piece however since YOLT's tone is more tongue in cheek, it becomes a much more palatable affair. As CR06 asks us to take it seriously, I question the logic. Why doesn't Carter know not to touch his ear? Is he a junior agent to Bond? If so, why does he have a gun - he wouldn't have a licence to kill. Why is Bond a mentor to such an agent when he just got promoted. What does all this say about M's ability as their chief? Haven't even got onto the chase itself yet.

I think you're taking the film a lot more seriously than it's actually asking. Is it more grim than past films? Yeah, but not enough that it never has the capacity to have fun along the way. I would never call this a no-nonsense film in the same manner like Jason Bourne film. If it's a step too far for you, fine, we're just not on the same boat. Now, QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Yeah, I can definitely see that taking itself too seriously, though that's a different discussion.

Quote :

The difference is, Tracy never psychoanalysed Bond. She never dressed him - and the way the film plays on that makes it seem like Bond's never worn a suit prior to that moment. Tracy was a charming, likeable, and yet tragic character. Nu-Vesper's neo-gothic personality has no place in a Bond film. Doesn't help that the love story is undercooked. But the feminism doesn't stop there. It's the omission of Moneypenny with Villiers in her place. Can't women work in secretarial positions anymore? She was in the novel. Why not in the film?

What does Vesper psychoanalyzing Bond have to do with feminism? I took it as the writers trying to bring out some of that introspective narration Fleming was known for by having characters comment about him. What exactly is "neo-gothic" about Vesper's personality? I do agree that the love story is pretty undercooked and gets underminded by stuff like the sinking house, but it's not like Fleming's wasn't either, as it was just a lot of lovey dovey stuff in the novel with Bond and Vesper constantly calling each other "my darling". There's a lot to improve from that, and I don't think the film goes far enough on that note.

I took Moneypenny's absence, along with Q, as something EON wanted to integrate in a later film so to focus more on the Bond/M dynamic, not because of feminism.

Quote :

You mean Connery broke through a paper wall in Japan? Because paper is tantamount to plaster. Again, there's a bit of a difference between Bond tearing the down the streets to rescue a key witness in a country that was England's main enemy for fifty years and who may be behind the threat of a destructive space weapon, again in a film where we can smile along with Bond, than what happens in Madagascar. In the end, Bond shoots him anyway. A shot in the leg would not have sufficed? Could have saved the entire chase sequence and helped develop the Vesper relationship.

Dry wall, paper wall, it's something you can break through, so Bond does, what's the difference there? It's also a bit of comic relief, seeing this villain do a trick to slide through a small space only for Bond to casually break through it. Maybe the humor didn't work for you there, again, fair enough. I do think the first act is rather too long, so that I can agree with you on.

Quote :

Because I thought there was a good story there, and that the marriage between drama and action was solid. I wasn't perceptible enough to see how stupid the film actually is.

If only you'd be this tough on TWINE.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Given CR06 is less about Le Chiffre's scheme and more about Bond becoming Bond, there's no question that the PTS is tied to the rest of the film. It's about Bond's journey, and his earning of his 007 number definitely ties into the rest of the film. This is the epitome of plot vs story. Where Bond films have mostly been plot driven, CR (and all of Craig's films) deviates by giving Bond an arc for audiences to emotionally connect to. Unfortunately it takes a little more than some bruises, cuts and pouting for smarter audiences to engage with.

I'd say it was pretty successful at connecting with audiences emotionally, not because of "some bruises, cuts and pouting". Or maybe everyone is just not smart enough like you, as you seem to imply.

We'll go with the latter.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

Where other Bond films invite the viewer to go along for the outrageous ride that a Bond film is, CR06 demands the audience that this is a no-nonsense, serious filum. That's why the Madagascar sequence is more ridiculous than, say the volcano lair shoot up: both have rather illogical moments leading up to the action set piece however since YOLT's tone is more tongue in cheek, it becomes a much more palatable affair. As CR06 asks us to take it seriously, I question the logic. Why doesn't Carter know not to touch his ear? Is he a junior agent to Bond? If so, why does he have a gun - he wouldn't have a licence to kill. Why is Bond a mentor to such an agent when he just got promoted. What does all this say about M's ability as their chief? Haven't even got onto the chase itself yet.

I think you're taking the film a lot more seriously than it's actually asking. Is it more grim than past films? Yeah, but not enough that it never has the capacity to have fun along the way. I would never call this a no-nonsense film in the same manner like Jason Bourne film. If it's a step too far for you, fine, we're just not on the same boat. Now, QUANTUM OF SOLACE? Yeah, I can definitely see that taking itself too seriously, though that's a different discussion.

You could certainly liken CR06 to a Jason Bourne film, especially Supremacy onwards. Stupid and redundant disguised as faux-gritty.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

The difference is, Tracy never psychoanalysed Bond. She never dressed him - and the way the film plays on that makes it seem like Bond's never worn a suit prior to that moment. Tracy was a charming, likeable, and yet tragic character. Nu-Vesper's neo-gothic personality has no place in a Bond film. Doesn't help that the love story is undercooked. But the feminism doesn't stop there. It's the omission of Moneypenny with Villiers in her place. Can't women work in secretarial positions anymore? She was in the novel. Why not in the film?

What does Vesper psychoanalyzing Bond have to do with feminism? I took it as the writers trying to bring out some of that introspective narration Fleming was known for by having characters comment about him. What exactly is "neo-gothic" about Vesper's personality? I do agree that the love story is pretty undercooked and gets underminded by stuff like the sinking house, but it's not like Fleming's wasn't either, as it was just a lot of lovey dovey stuff in the novel with Bond and Vesper constantly calling each other "my darling". There's a lot to improve from that, and I don't think the film goes far enough on that note.

I took Moneypenny's absence, along with Q, as something EON wanted to integrate in a later film so to focus more on the Bond/M dynamic, not because of feminism.

Instead of embracing the character Fleming written, they made Vesper something she isn't because of the feminist trend. Vesper of the books would never speak to Bond in the manner she did in the film, and while we're at it, the Bond of the book would never engage in such conversation with any woman, either. Which highlights how feminism manifested itself not just in female characters, but also in Bond himself.

That's fine, regarding a focus on the M/Bond dynamic. Just don't do it at the expense of the characters' integrity and intelligence.

I recall Eon saying that Moneypenny didn't feature in the novel so there was no place for her in the film. But she was in the book. So that makes me wonder about their real intention behind her omission. Having Villiers there means there was a place for Moneypenny. Having the microchip guy there means there was a place for Q, also.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

You mean Connery broke through a paper wall in Japan? Because paper is tantamount to plaster. Again, there's a bit of a difference between Bond tearing the down the streets to rescue a key witness in a country that was England's main enemy for fifty years and who may be behind the threat of a destructive space weapon, again in a film where we can smile along with Bond, than what happens in Madagascar. In the end, Bond shoots him anyway. A shot in the leg would not have sufficed? Could have saved the entire chase sequence and helped develop the Vesper relationship.

Dry wall, paper wall, it's something you can break through, so Bond does, what's the difference there? It's also a bit of comic relief, seeing this villain do a trick to slide through a small space only for Bond to casually break through it. Maybe the humor didn't work for you there, again, fair enough. I do think the first act is rather too long, so that I can agree with you on.

A paper wall is thin, it won't cause injury and if you want to go there, someone else had already weakened it by sticking a knife through it. Bond's decision to run through a wall is both stupid and reckless, which is, of course, fine if you subscribe to the idea that a naval commander who has moved through the ranks of intelligence to the most elite section of MI6 needs to go on a personal journey of maturity, discipline and self discovery. All with the help of the great women in his life - Vesper and M. Just how did he cope before they came into his life?

And just how did Bond manage to work his way through the same plot points in the book without this arc and without the gender politics? That alone should demonstrate the manufactured nature of the "drama". Compare that with Skyfall, where everything is played with a lot more restraint, written with a lot more logic, resulting in much more organic dramatic and character moments.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Quote :

Because I thought there was a good story there, and that the marriage between drama and action was solid. I wasn't perceptible enough to see how stupid the film actually is.

If only you'd be this tough on TWINE.

If only you'd be that tough on CR06.

FieldsMan wrote:

You could certainly liken CR06 to a Jason Bourne film, especially Supremacy onwards. Stupid and redundant disguised as faux-gritty.

The Bourne films definitely got more redundant as the went along, I can agree with you on that.

Quote :

Instead of embracing the character Fleming written, they made Vesper something she isn't because of the feminist trend. Vesper of the books would never speak to Bond in the manner she did in the film, and while we're at it, the Bond of the book would never engage in such conversation with any woman, either. Which highlights how feminism manifested itself not just in female characters, but also in Bond himself.

Honestly, what's to embrace? As much as I love the Fleming books, they're not sacred texts. The Vesper in Fleming's novel wasn't even that much of a character as far as Bond girls go, and wouldn't have been all that appealing on screen if the writers just stuck to what Fleming laid out and not expand from there. Having Vesper be more assertive and intellectually challenging gives her more of a reason for Bond to fall for her.

Quote :

I recall Eon saying that Moneypenny didn't feature in the novel so there was no place for her in the film. But she was in the book. So that makes me wonder about their real intention behind her omission.

I'm sure it's a nefarious feminist plot to submit males into breeding stock.  

Quote :

Having Villiers there means there was a place for Moneypenny. Having the microchip guy there means there was a place for Q, also.

Since they're essentially non characters in CR, it would have been just a waste to make them Moneypenny and Q. For what it's worth, I think it paid off with their reintroduction being held off until SKYFALL. They weren't essential in the CR film.

Quote :

A paper wall is thin, it won't cause injury and if you want to go there, someone else had already weakened it by sticking a knife through it. Bond's decision to run through a wall is both stupid and reckless, which is, of course, fine if you subscribe to the idea that a naval commander who has moved through the ranks of intelligence to the most elite section of MI6 needs to go on a personal journey of maturity, discipline and self discovery. All with the help of the great women in his life - Vesper and M. Just how did he cope before they came into his life?

It's a gag. It's a fragile wall that you could break through and not hurt yourself. I really don't see the issue.

Quote :

And just how did Bond manage to work his way through the same plot points in the book without this arc and without the gender politics? That alone should demonstrate the manufactured nature of the "drama". Compare that with Skyfall, where everything is played with a lot more restraint, written with a lot more logic, resulting in much more organic dramatic and character moments.

I think it's fine, but whatevs.

Quote :

If only you'd be that tough on CR06.

Get me talking about the third act and I'll show you how savage I can be on it.


Seriously though, I think the film is fine as it is at least up to that point. It's really the sinking building that hurts it. I wish EON had been a little more ballsy by sticking to the book's structure by focusing on the deterioration of Bond and Vesper's relationship and her suicide. The action climax just distracts from that. It's after that that I think the film recovers a bit. Bond's capture of White feels like the perfect summation of how Fleming's Bond vowed to attack "the arm that held the whip and the gun", Bond standing on top of him with confidence. It's a perfect ending... until QOS decided to undo that.

Maybe start with embracing the character and honouring the material that made the Broccoli family billionaires? Maybe don't feel threatened by current cinematic trends that you sacrifice the Bondian conventions that sets apart the longest running series from others (and before you mention TMWTGG banking on kung fu films, LALD on blaxploitation films, etc., they did so without compromising what made Bond, Bond.)? People loved James Bond for all the things that we were deprived of in CR06.

It's no wonder CR06 earned the phrase: 'the James Bond film for people who don't like James Bond'.

Expanding on Vesper's character and adjustments wouldn't have been an issue if they'd made her at least likeable. Eon was more concerned about making a political statement instead of fleshing out a three dimensional character that doesn't suddenly fall in love with Bond because of his little finger. There seemed to be a lot of shame surrounding their ownership of the James Bond series by ridding of the sense of colour, joie de vivre, sex, charm and bizarre that characterises a 007 film. Q and Moneypenny, not exclusively, fall into that. Villiers and Microchip Technician could have easily been altered to reference the legendary, iconic characters, so that they aren't non-characters.

The film deviated so much from its source material that the falling house doesn't seem all that ludicrous. Again, the Madagascar chase is more offensive despite the excellent, yet blinding stuntwork.



EDIT: MP: I goofed. I hit the edit button instead of the quote button, so the original quotations of me were lost, but your post is still retained

FieldsMan wrote:

Maybe start with embracing the character and honouring the material that made the Broccoli family billionaires? Maybe don't feel threatened by current cinematic trends that you sacrifice the Bondian conventions that sets apart the longest running series from others (and before you mention TMWTGG banking on kung fu films, LALD on blaxploitation films, etc., they did so without compromising what made Bond, Bond.)? People loved James Bond for all the things that we were deprived of in CR06.

This sudden "they dishonor the source!" cry really falls flat for me when looking at the liberties the past films did with the stories and characters. I like LTK, but I wouldn't go as far to call it faithful to Fleming Bond, if we have to be so strict about what you can and cannot do with the character. And what's this nonsense about EON "feeling threatened" by cinematic trends? This is you projecting.

Fun fact, after viewing DR. NO, Fleming actually regarded it as "dreadful". Sounds like EON "dishonored" him there. Oops! Luckily, I don't care so much because like CR I enjoy that flick, in spite of some flaws that prevent it from ranking higher.

Quote :

It's no wonder CR06 earned the phrase: 'the James Bond film for people who don't like James Bond'.

To be fair, that's just coming from a very fringe group of Bond fans that utterly despise CR06, which is a convenient way of dismissing its popularity not just among Bond fans but audiences as well, as if to imply audiences today would not enjoy Bond films of the past. I know this place has become something of an echo chamber and you've all gotten used to regarding CR as some kind of embarrassment for the series with Ambler leading the charge since the olde MI6 forums, but let's not get carried away.

Quote :

Expanding on Vesper's character and adjustments wouldn't have been an issue if they'd made her at least likeable. Eon was more concerned about making a political statement instead of fleshing out a three dimensional character that doesn't suddenly fall in love with Bond because of his little finger. There seemed to be a lot of shame surrounding their ownership of the James Bond series by ridding of the sense of colour, joie de vivre, sex, charm and bizarre that characterises a 007 film. Q and Moneypenny, not exclusively, fall into that. Villiers and Microchip Technician could have easily been altered to reference the legendary, iconic characters, so that they aren't non-characters.

Which is fair if you don't find this iteration appealing. Again though, you're doing a lot of projecting to suggest they were more concerned of making a political statement with Vesper's expansion rather than just merely fleshing her out more to make her a richer and appealing character for Bond and audiences to become invested in. Ridding Moneypenny and Q temporarily because they felt ashamed? Again, projecting. Besides, it's not like one of them wasn't absent from the films in the past. Life went on fine.

Quote :

The film deviated so much from its source material that the falling house doesn't seem all that ludicrous. Again, the Madagascar chase is more offensive despite the excellent, yet blinding stuntwork.

I'm fine with the Madagascar stuff because that's all just a prologue to the casino job, and it gives a new and fun context to the card game essentially being a rematch between Bond and Le Chiffre, this time face to face. The book is pretty light as it is, where it literally just starts with Bond getting briefed, so showing stuff that happened prior to Bond getting the mission is fine by me as I thought it worked. Also, my issue with the sinking house isn't because it deviates from the novel but that it distracts from the betrayal. Here we have Bond realizing Vesper is a double and she's going to commit suicide because she doesn't believe she can be saved even by him from those she was coerced into working for. This is all pretty powerful stuff, only undercut by an action sequence featuring a gag with Bond shooting a nail into someone's eye hole. I can see why the original Purvis & Wade draft had the sinking house and betrayal be separate events so that they could easily stand on their own. I'm not sure if that would have worked, but as it is the film wasn't too successful in blending the two together IMO.

And HEY! You just gave CR a compliment! I hope that didn't hurt too much to type that.

What exactly am I projecting? If you don't think there's a political force behind Babs' decisions - you know, the producer who dressed Daniel Craig's Bourne Bond up in a frock for International Women's Day - then you're choosing what you want to see instead of what's actually there. Guess I'm projecting again there, though, right?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the difference between CR and 20 of the other Bond films is that CR asks you to take it seriously, and especially take it seriously as a stricter return to the source. However, when it doesn't do that beyond the main plot points and some characters (and shoehorns an unnecessary personal story to link them together), it doesn't deliver on its promise. The other Bond films that faithfully adapted Fleming's works - i.e. DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS, etc. - still made changes to improve the flow for the cinematic counterpart while staying faithful to the original tone. They're focused films but aren't "serious" by any stretch of the imagination, which is what CR mistakes as a return to Fleming. Films like YOLT, TSWLM, LTK, etc. capitalise on the all the Bondian conventions that made the cinema 007 popular, all of which originated from the novels. In that way they honour the material. Why? Because they were outrageous fun. They're not Le Carre. They have girls named Pussy Galore and Honeychile Ryder. They have villains who dressed up Japanese armour who run a 'Garden of Death' or throw razor edged bowler hats. And they have situations where Bond kills a villain by dumping bird dung on him... or bankrupting a terrorist banker at the tables, which for a spy, is a wonderfully ridiculous way to defeat the villain. Up until CR, there was no insistence on taking the Bond films seriously, hence the "liberties the past films did with the stories and characters" are not only forgiven, but welcome.

And here's a fun fact for you. Fleming liked Connery so much that he gave Bond part Scottish roots.

And Ambler's crusade has been more against the Brosnan era than anything else from what I've encountered recently. So much for an echo chamber.

Here's another Christmas present for you: CR has a great title sequence and I like the scene where Bond dresses his wounds with alcohol. And Solange riding the horse.

FieldsMan wrote:

What exactly am I projecting? If you don't think there's a political force behind Babs' decisions - you know, the producer who dressed Daniel Craig's Bourne Bond up in a frock for International Women's Day - then you're choosing what you want to see instead of what's actually there. Guess I'm projecting again there, though, right?

I'm kind of glad EON did that ad, as the outrage it caused was very amusing to watch. As I said, Vesper needed an upgrading from her original 1953 counterpart, whether you like it or not. If you wanna chalk that down to feminism (a concept any civilized human being would be behind), go ahead.

Quote :

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the difference between CR and 20 of the other Bond films is that CR asks you to take it seriously, and especially take it seriously as a stricter return to the source. However, when it doesn't do that beyond the main plot points and some characters (and shoehorns an unnecessary personal story to link them together), it doesn't deliver on its promise. The other Bond films that faithfully adapted Fleming's works - i.e. DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS, etc. - still made changes to improve the flow for the cinematic counterpart while staying faithful to the original tone. They're focused films but aren't "serious" by any stretch of the imagination, which is what CR mistakes as a return to Fleming. Films like YOLT, TSWLM, LTK, etc. capitalise on the all the Bondian conventions that made the cinema 007 popular, all of which originated from the novels. In that way they honour the material. Why? Because they were outrageous fun. They're not Le Carre. They have girls named Pussy Galore and Honeychile Ryder. They have villains who dressed up Japanese armour who run a 'Garden of Death' or throw razor edged bowler hats. And they have situations where Bond kills a villain by dumping bird dung on him... or bankrupting a terrorist banker at the tables, which for a spy, is a wonderfully ridiculous way to defeat the villain. Up until CR, there was no insistence on taking the Bond films seriously, hence the "liberties the past films did with the stories and characters" are not only forgiven, but welcome.

You're really not gonna sell me on the idea that CR takes itself as seriously Le Carre of all things, so might you as well give up on that.

Quote :

And here's a fun fact for you. Fleming liked Connery so much that he gave Bond part Scottish roots.

Indeed he did.

Quote :

Here's another Christmas present for you: CR has a great title sequence and I like the scene where Bond dresses his wounds with alcohol. And Solange riding the horse.

IT'S A CHRISTMAS MIRACLE!!!

CR is still the worst film I've ever seen. (Though admittedly each successive nightmare becomes far worse with SPECTRE taking that crown so badly its a wonder how much lower they can go.)
I felt as if I were being tortured in the theater and staggered out into a darker world. Still there.

CR '06 is a soulless sell out, an attempt to work the Bond "franchise image" into a cross variant of Bourne Supremacy and Batman Begins because those had been financially successful in the recent past. The multitudes of drafts and writers particularly all the Haggis material are indomitably awful and have no place in a Bond adventure. Most crucial besides the film's inconceivably bad sense of pacing and storyline is that it has no sense of who Bond is at any stage. Instead of pulling back the curtain and showing Bond 1.0 to entice audiences much as Wilson and Maibaum wanted to do with TLD, this time they went and removed every vestige of Bond and his world and replaced it with...nothing.
As for Vesper, Ms. Green can play enticing and charming in her sleep but the role in the film is not one iota the soul of Fleming's creation. As always the women of Fleming fall short in the film adaptation. Even in the abominations.

SP at least had a sense of style about it. Still, it's 23 on my list, right next to CR, which is dead last.

HGTB wrote:

As always the women of Fleming fall short in the film adaptation. Even in the abominations."]

Even Tanya, Pussy and Tracy?

And also, what do you think re: the black and white opening, HGTB?

FieldsMan wrote:

And also, what do you think re: the black and white opening, HGTB?

I think it's safe to say it probably killed his dog.

Haha very funny.

It's overdone in the bathroom with the faux grain plate added and badly feels slipshod in the office. The whole thing feels amateurish and cobbled together as if they hadn't had an opening and merely tacked it on. I groaned aloud in the theater and then you have the coup de grace of the stylized angled bad gunbarrel with the CG dripping blood as if to be a middle finger to the series that had come before.

As much as I like all of the female characters of the film series I have come to realize that the way they get shortchanged in the scripts is perhaps the single greatest continual weakness of the overall series. At least earlier on they were given more to do and stayed as the plot function that Fleming had them in each story as but eventually it all boiled down to formula. The only thing seemingly any good about 25 is that Seydoux is returning. Despite not having a real character she blew Craig off the screen with ease.

hegottheboot wrote:

It's overdone in the bathroom with the faux grain plate added and badly feels slipshod in the office. The whole thing feels amateurish and cobbled together as if they hadn't had an opening and merely tacked it on. I groaned aloud in the theater and then you have the coup de grace of the stylized angled bad gunbarrel with the CG dripping blood as if to be a middle finger to the series that had come before.

It warms my heart that you felt tortured watching CR.

Makeshift Python wrote:

hegottheboot wrote:

It's overdone in the bathroom with the faux grain plate added and badly feels slipshod in the office. The whole thing feels amateurish and cobbled together as if they hadn't had an opening and merely tacked it on. I groaned aloud in the theater and then you have the coup de grace of the stylized angled bad gunbarrel with the CG dripping blood as if to be a middle finger to the series that had come before.

It warms my heart that you felt tortured watching CR.

Any communist would feel that way regarding someone's torture.

Capitalist, you swine. I've bought enough senators to play by my rules!

Even the thought of anything 2006 and after is torture to me and anyone who knows me tries to torture me by flipping onto broadcast airings or images. They think it's funny. I thought I could endure anything afterwards though.

I was wrong. SPECTRE happened. If you were to take every complaint I ever had about CR06 and magnify it 1000 times the end result would still be nothing compared to that nightmare. It was an ungodly mess and yet I broke down a bought a copy in a used shop this month and honestly felt nauseated. I have the other three in the main boxset in a taped off section so that if ever desired I can study their horrors in order to ensure it never happens again.

Sure they're not the worst things ever made. But they're not Bond films, they're not of the series or character and the fact they exist is to me a continual insult. CR06 is my line in the sand but SPECTRE is so bad I think its really indefensible. Deaver's CARTE BLANCHE has more Bond in it. Mic drop.

It's not wrong to have a Bond 50 set where the entire end is covered in photos of the main crew heroes is it? Didn't think so. I covered the front so that the five actors are joined by Cubby, Harry, Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Hunt, Glen etc.

hegottheboot wrote:

Even the thought of anything 2006 and after is torture to me and anyone who knows me tries to torture me by flipping onto broadcast airings or images. They think it's funny. I thought I could endure anything afterwards though.

I was wrong. SPECTRE happened. If you were to take every complaint I ever had about CR06 and magnify it 1000 times the end result would still be nothing compared to that nightmare. It was an ungodly mess and yet I broke down a bought a copy in a used shop this month and honestly felt nauseated. I have the other three in the main boxset in a taped off section so that if ever desired I can study their horrors in order to ensure it never happens again.

Sure they're not the worst things ever made. But they're not Bond films, they're not of the series or character and the fact they exist is to me a continual insult. CR06 is my line in the sand but SPECTRE is so bad I think its really indefensible. Deaver's CARTE BLANCHE has more Bond in it. Mic drop.

It's not wrong to have a Bond 50 set where the entire end is covered in photos of the main crew heroes is it? Didn't think so. I covered the front so that the five actors are joined by Cubby, Harry, Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Hunt, Glen etc.

I used to worry that my Ultimate Edition box set would no longer fit all Bond films. I can just take out CR, QOS and SP to make room for Bond 26 onwards.

hegottheboot wrote:

I covered the front so that the five actors are joined by Cubby, Harry, Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Hunt, Glen etc.

I always took you as someone that regards the films between 62-89 as the only "true" Bond films. I suppose Wilson has become a traitor in your eyes as you neglect to put his name among them.

Oh no, I think the Brosnan era was a mixture of good ideas and missed opportunities but none of the films are ostensibly"bad" or untrue (the silliness stuck in DAD notwithstanding.)

I think LTK marked the end of an era and that there is a noticeable difference from GE onwards, but never that they were not of the series.

Nah, it was just trying to avoid naming every major player and writing a text block!
You know, it's hard to pin Michael down. He never intended to be involved, and yet came on board and wound up as co-writer, co-producer with great success-then eventually took the reigns and really seems to care much as Barbara does. They've really done a Herculean task in keeping the series going and navigating the legal nightmares and I will forever admire them for that. Plus they seem like genuinely good people which is an absolute rarity in the business. I don't think there is a person alive I would go into fanboy shock over meeting more than Wilson. Well, perhaps Sean, George, Timothy, Pierce, key crew members, Michael Caine (because of course) etc. (It absolutely kills me that I never had the chance to meet Roger but of course what could I do other than faint or stammer incomprehensibly?)

But I just cannot understand what has been going on with the films. Especially since they've been active participants for decades and tried to keep the flag flying with honor pre CR06. They seem be blind to the direction things have gone in. I went through the "it must be me" phase, I tried to understand it, I tried to reason it out but ultimately just have to go with "maybe they just lost their way".