Bond 23 Delayed "Indefinitely" (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

"Good afternoon, my arse. You Bosch bastard. Put your 'ands up, go on, put 'em up" You mean they don't sound like that in the Bond films? Oh dear. Anyone know what film that quote is from and what connection it might have with um Goldfinger? Inception director Chris Nolan would love to direct a Bond film.

Christopher Nolan has told the BBC that, to him, James Bond is one of the great characters in contemporary fiction. Speaking before last night’s world premiere of his much anticipated Inception in London, Nolan said that 007 is a huge influence on his mental heist thriller. “I’ve loved the Bond films since I was a kid. For me, they’re always about the expansiveness of cinema. The first Bond films set up infinite possibilities about the world they create. I’d love to do a Bond film.” Nolan also told the BBC that the James Bond movies had a strong influence on his new movie Inception, whose marketing campaign describes the pic as "James Bond meets The Matrix". "The Bond influence on the film was very intentional because, for me, growing up with the Bond films -- they've always stood for grand-scale action," said Nolan who helmed The Dark Knight and Batman Begins. Like the Bond films, Inception was shot in various locations around the globe including Morocco, France, Japan and Canada. Nolan said the Bond films had always "stood for the promise of being taken to some place bigger than you could have imagined" and added: "In dealing with the human mind and dreams, my mind naturally gravitates towards the Bond films as that sort of expression of cinematic potential. By the end of the film you feel that Inception could go anywhere and do anything."

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/nolan-says-hed-love-to-do-bond/

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by IanD

Aside from writing for a really despicable newspaper, is Moore forgetting (perhaps not) that Connery spoke with a Scottish accent, and Lazenby with an Australian accent?

There is a difference between accent and dialect. Both of the actors may have had an accent; however, the English they spoke was clear and understandable or in other word's the "Queen's English". When Moore referred to the use of Cockney, he wasn't referring specifically to accent; he was referring to the use of regional speech patterns that render what ever was being said as understandable only to a person familiar with that region's slang. In other word's, if a person has to sit and attempt to interpret what was being said or needs subtitles turned on to understand what is ostensibly "English" then a clear problem exists: a problem that is overcome by the use of, as Moore puts it, by the "Queen's English".


That is why I believe it is an incorrect interpretation for anyone to think that Moore was inferring that Daniel Craig wasn't right for Bond. Craig may have an accent (I didn't really notice) but his English is clear and understandable. He doesn't use regional speech or slang. Every word that Craig says is understandable without the use of subtitles. A person doesn't have to sit for ten minutes replaying a section of speech spoken by Craig just for the purpose of trying to interpret what he said: unlike, say, Brad Pitt's Pikey in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels".


One of Moore's biggest laments is that the ability to speak clear, understandable English without regional inflections and slang is now a liability for English actors and actresses looking for work; whereas, at one time it would have been a virtue.

 

[IanD]

Ah I see, the headline is misleading (why am I not surprised? lol)

 

[Don Solosan]

"unlike, say, Brad Pitt's Pikey in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"."


That was "Snatch."

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

"unlike, say, Brad Pitt's Pikey in "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"."


That was "Snatch."

Whoops! Yah.....you're right. I slipped up. It should have been Snatch.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou


Inception director Chris Nolan would love to direct a Bond film.


http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/nolan-says-hed-love-to-do-bond/

I'd like to see what Christopher Nolan does with a Bond film. Actually, there are some red flags, but he's just the man for the job. He has dropped these hints in interviews before. It will never happen, though. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson only hire obedient "yes men" they can control.

 

[Richard--W]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

"Eon's Casino Royale is not about a new spy being trained and tested in the intelligence service. We are shown none of that."


Nope, got it wrong again. It's about a new spy making the emotional adjustments to become suitable in his new job. That's what the whole movie is about.

A new spy making the emotional adjustments to become good at his job? Seriously? Sort of like a new waitress on her first day? or a surgical nurse at her first operation? or a male gofer for one of those all-female law firms? is that what you mean? If that's what Casino Royale is about, it's not a James Bond film. It's just another episode of every program on the Lifetime network. Listening to the dialogue in this movie is like listening to the gal pals on Oprah commiserate about what horrid beasts they married.


The background Ian Fleming provided -- in the clear text, in brief asides, in hints and references -- is still relevant, still perfectly valid. Young Englishmen from upper / working class parents still matriculate through Eaton, still become commanders in the Royal Navy, and still serve in the intelligence services. That's life today as it was when Fleming sprinkled it in bits and pieces throughout the novels. It hasn't dated. This particular definition of James Bond raises a particular set of dynamics and a particular character arc. He is morally centered, confident, honest, and intelligent. He knows the difference between right and wrong and he does the right thing. His social skills come by nature of his background and upbringing, and are assumed character traits. Within this parameter a script writer can fill in, flesh out, expand one aspect while contracting another, invent new business, conflicts, and challenges. Plenty of room to maneuver.


Like it or not, Fleming defined James Bond. The DNA is what it is. To change the definition of James Bond is to write about somebody else, to create a different character. The originating film makers and previous actors understood that much, and worked with it successfully. The first cinematic James Bond was not an arbitrary thing. The originating filmmakers worked hard on the character to create a franchise that would endure.


Who is he NOT? Bond is not "a maladjusted orphan who went to Harvard by the grace of someone else's charity" as Casino Royale portrays him.. He is not an uncouth thug. He is not so stupid that he invades an embassy to catch "one bomb maker." He is not a stone-cold killer who must be taught sensitivity. He is not so self-destructive that he would blow his own cover by checking into a hotel saying "Bond traveling as Somerset." Teaching the male protagonist how to be a better man and a kinder, gentler spy is NOT the subtext for a James Bond film. That subtext is an extremist value judgment, motivated by Barbara Broccoli's sexual politics. It belongs in some other film. It is absolutely unacceptable. That is potty training, not character arc.


All the material from the novel that shows Bond's strategy and preparation for the card game (not to mention the card game itself), his cautionary words to M and the head of Station S that in order to win the game he must first lose a few hands, his concern for Vesper, his rapport with his intelligence team and his sparring with the enemy, are all avoided by the film. Why? Because it demonstrates Bond's humanity, intelligence, and professionalism. The producers want a reckless, undisciplined, stupid James Bond to justify the excoriations M and Vesper subject him to. The heart of the film is in those excoriations. The film is really about M and Vesper potty training Stupid. The stupifying of James Bond is couched in a larger context -- all the male characters are deconstructions, they are reprehensible. There is not one smart, decent, good male character in the film. Not only are the male roles deconstructed, but so are the mechanics of espionage. Casino Royale does not believe in its own genre.


The relationship between Bond and Vesper is more adult, more mature, and more sophisticated in the novel. Ian Fleming planted the seeds of Vesper's betrayal near the beginning, which gradually becomes apparent as her love for Bond grows. Vesper is conflicted, and her suffering grows in proportion to the escalating love and tension between them. It's very cinematic. Fleming knew how to plot a suspense thriller and a romantic tragedy, unlike the hack writers under Babs' supervision. In Bab's version, Vesper's participation in the capture and torture of Bond is what we call in this business "finessed" i.e. ignored. Why bother to explain it if the film has another agenda. Then Vesper falls in love with Bond after insulting him and scowling at him for two hours. There is no hint of a romance brewing. Next, Vesper suddenly betrays Bond a second time by stealing the money without any foreshadowing. It just happens out of the blue (later in the film the missing pieces get patched up in another long lecture from M). So not only is James Bond dumbed down, but so is Vesper. Why? To justify those lectures she gives Bond on his ego and his recklessness. The excoriating of James Bond is the most important thing to Barbara Broccoli.

And since it's an origin story, we have to see him change from one thing into another.

You mean, like from a moth into a butterfly? a wolf into a sheep? a man into a wus? a five-year-old jumping to a fifteen-year-old with no years inbetween? Casino Royale is not an origin story. It has none of the exposition of an origin story.

Is he a dork? Yes. You don't like that decision, fine.

So you admit that he's a dork. That's a big first step. What you don't understand is that if James Bond is a dork at any stage of the story, then he's not James Bond at any stage of the story. Because James Bond is not a dork. To turn him into a dork is no different than shoving an ice-cream stick up a dead cat's bum and parading it around in a tuxedo calling it James Bond. The point being that if you, as a member of the audience, can accept such a complete reversal and subversion of the character, you will accept anything. Nothing matters.

But he's not a dork at the end, and apparently from what you said about Quantum, you appreciated his further growth in that movie.

No, he's not a dork at the end. He's merely a better-dressed dork with a bigger gun. It ends the way it begins, with the character asserting his identity with a gun.


Stop kidding yourself about "the further growth" in Quantum of Solace. That's not "further growth" you are seeing. It's an entirely different interpretation of the character. In his second film Craig plays Bond the way he should have in the first place, but it's still nothing more than a Sean Connery impersonation because Craig doesn't have the attributes the part requires.

The problem, it seems to me, is that you can't see the movie for what it is, because you're focusing on what it isn't.

I see the movie for what it is, an exercise in deconstruction and misandry. I appreciate the energy of the action scenes, but good action alone is not sufficient for a Bond film, nor is it enough to make this poison go down easily. The film is an exercise in reverse discrimination. This is a woman's revenge on Bond for slapping Maude Adams and making Britt Ekland wait in the closet. If Barbara Boccoli threw a brick at your skull, would it bounce off or leave an impression? Would you get the message?


This is why I'm not anxious to see Bond 23 revived (although I'm sure it will be in short order). It's just going to be more of the same.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Not liking a good movie is all fine and dandy, but sometimes one has to just admit they are just not able to come to terms with the well-regarded critical consensus and call it a day. Not everyone can like everything.

 

[Richard--W]

I'm easily pleased. I like almost everything. Casino Royale might be easier to like if the producers had the integrity to change the title and the character names. If they had changed the title and the character names, I could accept it as an individual spy film, but I would still find it a sour, discouraging movie. The notion of excoriating the hero to teach him how to be a better man and a kinder, gentler spy is just ludicrous. And insulting. I could stay home and watch Oprah for that. As for the consensus, there isn't one. You'd be surprised how many people don't like Casino Royale. Too, the critics are not examining the film very closely.

 

[Steve Christou]

I don't mind Richard slating Casino Royale or Solace of Quantum, but if he says anything nasty about my favourite Bond movie, You Only Live Twice... [bites fist]


I Keed! [/url]


"It won't be the nicotine that kills you Mr. Bond!"

 

[Don Solosan]

Sorry everyone if I set him off. He has the same opinion of The Green Hornet and he hasn't even seen it.

 

[Richard--W]

I reacted to the trailer. I've seen that, and it's not promising.

Be igorant and be glad.

The less you know the more you'll enjoy.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan

Sorry everyone if I set him off.

That would be like blaming you for the sun rising. When it comes to Casino Royale, it's just going to happen no matter what.

 

[Richard--W]

Keep your head down in the basement of the FBI building, Travis.

Above ground life gets confrontational.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Gentlemen: There has already been one warning.


This thread is about the future of the Bond franchise.


Let's lay the personal comments aside and move forward.

 

[Richard--W]

MI6 offers an accurate summary on the situation:

It Takes Two To Tango Danjaq owns the rights and trademarks to the James Bond film series. MGM took control of half of Danjaq when the studio bought United Artists, who had bought their share from Bond producer Harry Saltzman back in December 1975. The other half is owned by EON Productions. A source integral to the Bond franchise told the site, “You are absolutely right, there is no new news. Development will resume once MGM is viable again, as Danjaq can't go anywhere without them. So all bets are off. No idea when this will get resolved.”

The rest is here: http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=8723&catid=107&t=mi6&s=news

 

[Douglas Monce]

I have often watched British TV and have had to stop and think, what the heck did he just say. Not because I couldn’t understand him, but rather because he used a particular slang term or phrase that as an American I’m not familiar with. The Bond films have been for the most part devoid of any particular slang from any character. Most people in Bond films tend to speak with a somewhat generic mid-Atlantic dialect. (not talking accents here) This is not surprising for when you consider that the vast majority of the early Bond films were written my American writers, with American producers, and they are trying to appeal to a much wider audience than something like British TV would be. Doug

 

[Richard--W]

Does anyone know what a "blinger" is?

It's in the title song to Casino Royale.


I'd like to see John Glen go back to work in action. movies. He should team up with Daniel Craig. They'd make a great team and their action movies (non-Bond) would light up the box-office.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Does anyone know what a "blinger" is?

It's in the title song to Casino Royale.


I'd like to see John Glen go back to work in action. movies. He should team up with Daniel Craig. They'd make a great team and their action movies (non-Bond) would light up the box-office.

I just looked up the lyrics and don't find the word "blinger" in the title song.


Doug


Edit: I found the reference, but its the theme from Quantum of Solace, not Casino Royale. Not sure what it means.

 

[Steve_Pannell]

Could be this:


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blinger