New Bond Film: Skyfall (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by MattFini
That's one thing that does tick me off about CR. Are we supposed to assume that Bond was never in the British Royal Navy now? Does that mean we'll never hear him referred to as 'Commander Bond' again.

That's what it means.
The newly redefined James Bond makes a point of steering away from any reference that would remind us of previous incarnations. The producers / writers make a point of not mentioning a British Royal Navy background in two films now. So don't expect to hear "Commander Bond" spoken in the future films. To make James Bond a Commander is to give him dignity and responsibility, the two traits this new reboot designs to obliterate.

Daniel Craig's Bond is the only actor in the franchise that I cannot imagine having served, unless he was an S.A.S guy or something and that constitutes the same thing.

What's an S.A.S. service?
Edited by Richard--W - 8/13/2009 at 03:15 am GMT

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What's an S.A.S. service?

Special Air Services. It is a commando unit similar, I would suppose, to the Navy S.E.A.L.S

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Only better /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif">

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

 

[Richard--W]

Empire magazine advocates that Bond 23 should be directed by a woman.
The woman they've selected is Kathryn Bigelow, director of Near Dark, Blue Steele, Strange Days, K-19, and last year's The Hurt Locker.
Read the reasoning here:
www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp
What does everyone think of Bigelow directing Bond?

 

[Zack Gibbs]

The way the article framed it is a little sickening, but ultimately I think what they're really saying is that "Kathryn Bigelow could do a good Bond flick, oh, and she's a woman."

I can go along with that, she's as capable for the material as anyone. I don't think she would want to though.

 

[MattFini]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /img/forum/go_quote.gif
What does everyone think of Bigelow directing Bond?

Bigelow has made some very stylish and interesting films in the past (Near Dark, Blue Steel, Strange Days), and I think she'd be a solid fit for Bond. She certainly couldn't do any worse than Mark Forster, right?
The thing is, I'm tired to the gimmicky directors. I wish they'd find a director that's tuned into the material and stick with that person. I would like to see another John Glen - someone who can stick with the franchise for a few films. I never understood why Eon feels the need to hire 'trendy' directors like Forster to make these films.

 

[cineMANIAC]

The Bond movies don't need to be upgraded to "modern standards" or to conform or even compete with films like Bourne Identity. The reason why there are more than 20 of these movies is because people like them just the way they used to be. I see a trend toward shorter, faster-paced and jarringly-edited Bond movies and I don't like it. The title of the next film should be The Bond Identity

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /forum/thread/289286/bond-23/60#post_3595305
Bond may be famous as a movie character, but he should not be famous within his dramatic universe. This was one of two or three mis-steps that began in the film version of Thunderball. It begins at the 123 minute-mark after Bond and Fiona, the enemy agent and his counterpart, have just slept together, and her henchmen have taken his gun away:

While I disagree with your take on Craig and his films, I very much agree on this point. An even more egregious example of this can be found in The Man With The Golden Gun. In that film, Bond is greeted by the manufacturer of the golden gun who says "Mr. Bond! Your reputation precedes you!" The most basic storyline in the film involves an international assassin not only knowing who Bond is and his double-0 designation, but his lover (Andrea) as well! There's a wax figure of Bond in Scaramanga's HQ, representing one of Scaramanga's greatest challenges!
I hate breaking the fourth wall in movies. That kind of self-referential nonsense destroys any tension that might have been created with good drama, by winking at the audience and trying to get a laugh. And it may sometimes get a laugh, but it never makes for a good movie, unless maybe it's an Austin Powers movie.
On another matter, the grim and glum characteristics you associate with Craig, I see in Dalton's Licence To Kill, a movie I did not like very much (as opposed to, say, The Living Daylights, which in 1987 I thought was the best film in 20 years). We watched LTK recently on BD, and my wife pointed out that it seemed like a generic '80s revenge thriller, not unlike the sort that could have starred Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal. That very much beneath Bond.
I agree that the next films in the series should not be "personal."
Edited by Sam Favate - 8/13/2009 at 01:20 pm GMT

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /forum/thread/289286/bond-23/60#post_3595461
What does everyone think of Bigelow directing Bond?

That she's a woman shouldn't matter. That's she's made very good films should. It could be interesting - would she be the first American to direct?
Bringing new visions to Bond has been a part of the series since Goldeneye, and it is designed to keep each one fresh. I also liked the days with a stable of directors - Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, John Glen, etc. - but I think the movie business and the Bond franchise are in very different places now.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Ironically, Bigelow has made better films about masculinity than many of her male contemporaries; her male protagonists tend to be intelligent, complex while still being intense as all get out.

 

[Richard--W]

I think the point is that a James Bond movie should not be "about masculinity" no more than it should be about deconstructing masculinity, which is what Casino Royale does. Avoid the issue and let James Bond do what James Bond does.

Bigelow is no better or no worse than other directors who helmed the recent Bonds. I saw Near Dark which was a fairly original take on vampires, Strange Days about the millenium which was overly noisy, busy, and aimless, and K-19 which mis-cast Harrison Ford as a Russian and was generally not very good. Haven't seen anything recent. I actually prefer Bigelow over Martin Campbell because he specializes in deconstructing iconic characters and she doesn't.

My real concern is with who writes the story and how the story is told.
Purvis and Wade write what the producers tell them to write.
Their scripts are talk fests with reams of explanatory, expository, declarative, and redundant dialogue.
If you analyze Peter Morgan's previous work, he writes about strong powerful women and weak, confused, misguided men.
If that's what the director is required to direct, it doesn't matter who directs it.
This indicates that Bond 23 will be more of the same, another chapter in the "Stop! Or My M Will Shoot!" era of Bond films with Dench and Craig once again standing in for Getty and Stallone.

Richard

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /forum/thread/289286/bond-23/60#post_3603986


If you analyze Peter Morgan's previous work, he writes about strong powerful women and weak, confused, misguided men.
If that's what the director is required to direct, it doesn't matter who directs it.
This indicates that Bond 23 will be more of the same, another chapter in the "Stop! Or My M Will Shoot!" era of Bond films with Dench and Craig once again standing in for Getty and Stallone.

Richard

Is there anything wrong with "strong powerful women?" Its about time we actually saw some in a Bond film.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Is there anything wrong with "strong powerful women?" Its about time we actually saw some in a Bond film.

Why? Bond has always been a male power fantasy: fast cars, faster women, and being the hero. Frankly, this new Bond era where he constantly has to compete with a bunch of female support characters for power and control has virtually wrecked the series. What was a vehicle for male power has been turned into a screed for women's liberation. At one time, Bond was the dominant figure. Now? It seems like a litany of battleaxes constantly putting him in his place, and that is especially true of Dench's "M". Her constant lecturing of Bond, like he is some sort of deficient man-child, has become tiresome in these films. It is about time for "M" to return to being a male character, but IMO you won't see it as long as Barbara Broccoli is producing these films, because for her it is all about wiping out the idea that males have any sort of real power over women. To demonstrate that, she has taken the ultimate male power character, Bond, and made him answer to a woman.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well said, Edwin. As someone who grew up with the older Bonds, I would agree with you. The more recent Bond movies are far too "politically correct". That's just not James Bond.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

I actually agree there. The Bond films seem a bit afraid to depict him as the anti-hero he used to be.

My point is: is there anything wrong with a strong female character alongside Bond? Provided this is not at the expense of the Bond character - and for all the lecturing of the Judi Dench M, he still runs rings around her, just as for all the PC ideals various Bond women extol, he still ends up killing them or having his way with them. The producers and writers may want to have a bit of a soap box, but they still end up coming second fiddle to the requirements of the genre. I suppose its a case of having your cake and eating it too.

And I ask the OP again: why is it bad for Judi Dench to chew Bond out, but OK for Robert Brown to do so? True, there is an agenda behind Dench, but really, is a feminist agenda really such a terrible thing? Especially when, as I constantly repeat, Bond kicks the agenda's ass at the end of each film?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Because, like it or not, right or wrong, Bond just doesn't take that kind of stuff from women (though I guess it could be said he does defy Dench). Even if it was refreshing once or twice for Judi Dench to chew Bond out as his new female boss, I think her schtick has worn thin by now. I always liked Dench at first, but she's got no business being in the films anymore, and I think if they were going to "reboot the whole franchise" with CASINO ROYALE 2006 then she should have been left out along with the Brosnan Era.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Yeah I'm not saying Bond should take it, I'm not saying it has to be there, I'm just saying is "it" a bad thing in itself?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Nevermind.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Oh?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Sam Mendes in negotiations to direct 23rd Bond adventure
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I've always felt that he makes very well-crafted pictures. On the other hand, they feel very crafted, much like stage productions do. I never get lost in the world of the film with his pictures; I'm always away of the auteur's hand at work. That could impede the fantasy of Bond for me.