Goldeneye in Review

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I saw it before Batman Forever, which made the GE trailer the highlight of that particular cinema trip .

I imagine a blank silver screen would be an even bigger highlight than that movie being played on it. :D

Indeed - Keaton/Burton and Bale/Nolan Bats ... happy days. Kilmer/Clooney/Schumacher ... dear oh dear.

Question that maybe Gravy or Harms or others may be able to answer, but who is Simon L Aturif? I have a copy of Goldeneye's screenplay (a third draft: dated 7 January 1995) that is credited to France, Caine and Simon L Aturif. Google reveals basically nothing to this name, though he is credited on a copy of the first draft of Tomorrow Never Dies up for sale on a fairly reputable script website.

I found this, from an ancient CBn article:

Quote :

The questions ranged from asking about Simon Aturif’s contributions to GoldenEye, which Wilson explained were very early on and therefore not used...

I have misplaced the Michael France first draft (again) but is he credited on that draft as well? What were his contributions and why was he brought back for a stab at TND? Or is it a case (like the re-use of many of Michael France's action scenes in his first GE draft in TWINE) of reuse?

Also interesting how this draft pretty much resembles the final film in its entirety and it would seem to predate Feirstein's contribution

(and M is a woman in this one, though she smokes along with her bourbon)

My toughts...

I find GOLDENEYE the perfect Bond film. It has two beautiful girls (Izabella Scorupco and Famke Janssen) that mind blinded a seven year old boy by 1998, a cynical villain (Sean Bean) who comes from the same place as Bond and spectacular action scenes like the bungee jump and facility escape, the tank chase scene, and the antenna showdown between gladiators 007 and 006. Yes, okay, Eric Serra’s music is very far from John Barry and David Anold, but I like it. Just hear “We Share The Same Passions”, “For Ever James” and “Run, Shoot and Jump” - lovely! No film I think will ever erase from my mind GOLDENEYE, from the white dots from the gunbarrel to the “Darling, what could possibly go wrong” line. 10/10

After 17 years, GE is certainly solidifying its classic status, NS.

Indeed! Well said Perilagu Khan :)
Has anybody seen my site The GoldenEye Dossier (goldeneyedossier.blogspot.com)

Always hated Scorupco from the get go. Her hair is ridiculous, her clothes sucks, and the scene where she tries to tell her name to the door to open it is absolutely embarrasing when she loses it. She is acting exceptionnaly bad the whole movie (the scene where she loads the gun and says she can handle it... gosh... Broz musta have seen the boat sinking already)

Stamper wrote:

Always hated Scorupco from the get go. Her hair is ridiculous, her clothes sucks, and the scene where she tries to tell her name to the door to open it is absolutely embarrasing when she loses it. She is acting exceptionnaly bad the whole movie (the scene where she loads the gun and says she can handle it... gosh... Broz musta have seen the boat sinking already)

Your first sentence vitiates your so-called "critique."

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Stamper wrote:

Always hated Scorupco from the get go. Her hair is ridiculous, her clothes sucks, and the scene where she tries to tell her name to the door to open it is absolutely embarrasing when she loses it. She is acting exceptionnaly bad the whole movie (the scene where she loads the gun and says she can handle it... gosh... Broz musta have seen the boat sinking already)

Your first sentence vitiates your so-called "critique."

More eloquent than my planned 'You're talking through your arse' response, Khanners. But nonetheless a complimentary sentiment, I feel.

:*h*:

Stamper wrote:

Always hated Scorupco from thget go. Her hair is ridiculous, her clothes sucks, and the scene where she tries to tell her name to the door to open it is absolutely embarrasing when she loses it. She is acting exceptionnaly bad the whole movie (the scene where she loads the gun and says she can handle it... gosh... Broz musta have seen the boat sinking already)

Largo's Shark wrote:

Stamper wrote:

Always hated Scorupco from thget go. Her hair is ridiculous, her clothes sucks, and the scene where she tries to tell her name to the door to open it is absolutely embarrasing when she loses it. She is acting exceptionnaly bad the whole movie (the scene where she loads the gun and says she can handle it... gosh... Broz musta have seen the boat sinking already)

That was terrible... but kinda catchy.

I agree that Iza's wardrobe was not the best, but since she was a computer programmer she wasn't supposed to be glamorous or hot, she's just good looking. You got Famke for the hot, sexyful and evil Bond gal.
Gosh! Famke just turned 47! And she still looks pretty hot. Can't believe it <3

This popped up as "recommended" on Youtube and I'm so glad it did. Not only does it sing praises of Brosnan's era, but also of his two best Bond movies. Since I posted it here, I'm sure you can guess which one edges out.

One thing I don't like is the brief slagging off of Natalya, but a minor gripe if the rest of the film is lauded.

"006 is now working for Moscow."

Wut?

Anyway rest of the review is OK I guess.

Yeah some of the finer details are muddled. Also the idea that the mother/son dynamic between Bond and M originated in GE and that he's reckless. Nah.

But given the fondness of both of these films, I will overlook. :)

Yeah, don't know why anyone would praise the mummy M shit.

FieldsMan wrote:

Also the idea that the mother/son dynamic between Bond and M originated in GE and that he's reckless. Nah.

It's there, as much as M served as the stern father figure in previous films. Of course, they would later pronounce that dynamic for SKYFALL.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Also the idea that the mother/son dynamic between Bond and M originated in GE and that he's reckless. Nah.

It's there, as much as M served as the stern father figure in previous films. Of course, they would later pronounce that dynamic for SKYFALL.

No it's a professional relationship in the films from DN-DAD, just like SF. Only in CR/QOS does the mother/son dynamic become prevalent, thus stupid.

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Also the idea that the mother/son dynamic between Bond and M originated in GE and that he's reckless. Nah.

It's there, as much as M served as the stern father figure in previous films. Of course, they would later pronounce that dynamic for SKYFALL.

No it's a professional relationship in the films from DN-DAD, just like SF. Only in CR/QOS does the mother/son dynamic become prevalent, thus stupid.

You may find this very interesting then...

Quote :

There is reason for thinking that a more telling lead to the real identity of M lies in the fact that as a boy Fleming often called his mother M. ... While Fleming was young, his mother was certainly one of the few people he was frightened of, and her sternness toward him, her unexplained demands, and her remorseless insistence on success find a curious and constant echo in the way M handles that hard-ridden, hard-killing agent, 007.

John Pearson, The Life of Ian Fleming

I honestly find it hard not to see that dynamic, and your refusal to acknowledge it even more baffling, especially in the case of SF. I hope that quote at least opens your mind to that interpretation. IMO, it's what sets M apart from any other fictional exposition spouting boss. The way Fleming writes those debriefing scenes. The way it's acted in the films. It's mostly subtextual.

M and Bond have always had the paternal and at times with devotional elements relationship in Fleming's writing. The films underplayed this but had the inherent quality by casting Lee who could embody that notion without it being on the written page in every scene. The mother-son dynamic established with the licensed robot character was agonizingly stupid because it was so blatant and overplayed. At least it was until they went for the lowest blow and cribbed the plot reveal of Goldmember in SPECTRE's denouement.

I saw that video too Fields, and it was also in my recommended section. While I did appreciate that it was discussing films that are no longer brought up as they should be-I did feel it was far too simplistic in its purported analysis. But then again, nothing outside of me doing hours of analysis would satisfy my need for meaningful Bond content.


Skimming through the last few posts made me realize just how much I came around to enjoy Natalya as a character. Watching the film constantly as a kid made me feel as if the character was a drag on the film's pacing and this combined with the 64 game's AI left a long negative impression that has now thankfully dissipated. While she is there to fill the obligatory female companion role, there is a reason for her to be there and it is intrinsic to the story-AND her by play with the other characters fits with the "let's shake Bond up into the 90's" aesthetic.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Also the idea that the mother/son dynamic between Bond and M originated in GE and that he's reckless. Nah.

It's there, as much as M served as the stern father figure in previous films. Of course, they would later pronounce that dynamic for SKYFALL.

No it's a professional relationship in the films from DN-DAD, just like SF. Only in CR/QOS does the mother/son dynamic become prevalent, thus stupid.

You may find this very interesting then...

Quote :

There is reason for thinking that a more telling lead to the real identity of M lies in the fact that as a boy Fleming often called his mother M. ... While Fleming was young, his mother was certainly one of the few people he was frightened of, and her sternness toward him, her unexplained demands, and her remorseless insistence on success find a curious and constant echo in the way M handles that hard-ridden, hard-killing agent, 007.

John Pearson, The Life of Ian Fleming

I honestly find it hard not to see that dynamic, and your refusal to acknowledge it even more baffling, especially in the case of SF. I hope that quote at least opens your mind to that interpretation. IMO, it's what sets M apart from any other fictional exposition spouting boss. The way Fleming writes those debriefing scenes. The way it's acted in the films. It's mostly subtextual.

Did Miles Messervy dish out the psychobabble that Dench's M did to Bond in CR's apartment scene? Or constantly chastise him throughout the entirety of the story? Of course you can read a paternal aspect to M's relationship with Bond (that's why it's interpretation/subtext and not fact/text), but it's always been a professional relationship until Craig came along. I don't see much of a maternal element in SF when M tells Eve to take the shot, or when Bond turns up to report for duty, or when she sends out Bond to the field without passing the tests. You could make a case for their last scene together before hell breaks lose in Scotland, but it still just moment's reflection between two professionals in this dangerous world. A very beautiful, human moment. Much like Bond and M cutting the crap in the GE briefing before moving onto the mission. Just two adults working together toward a common goal.

And I imagine that's a more progressive way to look at these films. I'm surprised, MP, that you feel any older female character must be maternal. That's very conservative of you.

Funnily, I felt CR and QOS were still relatively subtextual like all the previous films when it comes to the paternal/maternal aspect between Bond and M, it's only in SF that it stood out as overt. You insist they were just being professional adults in that particular film... um... sure. M sending Bond on a mission because she believes in him despite that he failed the evaluation tests. Yeah, she was strictly professional there. To be clear, that's not a criticism against the film. I don't have this stagnant view that Bond films should be about strictly professional people "just doing their jobs" where things never get personal, because the 24+ films have demonstrated otherwise, and that's part of the fun.

Makeshift Python wrote:

You insist they were just being professional adults in that particular film... um... sure. M sending Bond on a mission because she believes in him despite that he failed the evaluation tests. Yeah, she was strictly professional there.

She made a judgement based on knowing her agent. That's a professional making a decision. A more maternal figure would never send her son figure into the field when the numbers suggest he's not ready.

Interestingly, if we considered the trajectory of Dench's M (without getting into one of those debates about timelines and continuity), she begins in Goldeneye by saying Bond's assessment of her suggests she trusts her numbers than Bond's instincts. In Skyfall, she ignores the stats and uses her own intuition.

Makeshift Python wrote:

To be clear, that's not a criticism against the film. I don't have this stagnant view that Bond films should be about strictly professional people "just doing their jobs" where things never get personal, because the 24+ films have demonstrated otherwise, and that's part of the fun.

Neither do I. Just not every damn film and without plot contrivance, which is what CR/QOS/SP offer. Skyfall's is more organic.

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

You insist they were just being professional adults in that particular film... um... sure. M sending Bond on a mission because she believes in him despite that he failed the evaluation tests. Yeah, she was strictly professional there.

She made a judgement based on knowing her agent. That's a professional making a decision. A more maternal figure would never send her son figure into the field when the numbers suggest he's not ready.

I'm not sure it's that simple, but you seem to be set against the maternal angle simply on principle for some reason, so you ignore it when it's relevant to the films you actually like and suggest "it's just professional". Even the cue that plays when Bond hold's M as she dies is titled "Mother".

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

You insist they were just being professional adults in that particular film... um... sure. M sending Bond on a mission because she believes in him despite that he failed the evaluation tests. Yeah, she was strictly professional there.

She made a judgement based on knowing her agent. That's a professional making a decision. A more maternal figure would never send her son figure into the field when the numbers suggest he's not ready.

I'm not sure it's that simple

Well perhaps one should only argue points he's sure about before reducing another's opinions to simple pettiness, as your post erroneously implies.