The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Kristatos]

Just a quick question to the guys that compare Casino Royale to Bourne and 24, and the Miami airport scene to the truck scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark ( ), do you get any enjoyment from films or do you just like to nit pick?

Well, EON themselves said that they were adapting Bond in order to woo the Bourne/24 audience, so it's hardly nitpicking. I probably wouldn't have even thought "oh, this is like Bourne" if they hadn't mentioned it in pretty much every press release since pre-production on CR began. I did notice the similarity between the airport chase and Raiders, but I didn't think too much about it. The Bond films have borrowed liberally from other movies since the 70s, is commenting on these similarities no longer allowed?

[The Sweeney]

Just a quick question to the guys that compare Casino Royale to Bourne and 24, and the Miami airport scene to the truck scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark ( ), do you get any enjoyment from films or do you just like to nit pick?

The airport sequence was not just Raiders Of The Lost Ark. It was a bit Die Hard 2 . I used to get a lot of enjoyment out of Bond films but Casino Royale was a load of po-faced cobblers for me. And if Eon are going to surround the rest of the Craig era with the same sort of bulls**t they drummed out for CR then I think they are more open to a bit of nitpicking. The pretentious drivel they spewed out in 2006 turned me off almost as much as the casting of Daniel Craig.

I agree totally James. The question remains how long before Bond films return to normalcy, or do they continue on this tangential trek to oblivion?

So from the way CR has been received, you really think the franchise is heading to oblivion...?

I would have agreed with you had you said that after DAD......

[Kristatos]

I agree totally James. The question remains how long before Bond films return to normalcy, or do they continue on this tangential trek to oblivion?

Well, EON are responding to current trends in cinema, so if a film that owes an obvious debt to "old Bond" becomes a sizeable box-office hit, then I guess the pendulum will swing back. How long that will be is anyone's guess though. These things tend to be cyclical, so I'm sure that audience tastes will move away from gritty realism and towards more escapist fare at some point. It could be some years before it happens, though.

[The Sweeney]

I agree totally James. The question remains how long before Bond films return to normalcy, or do they continue on this tangential trek to oblivion?

Well, EON are responding to current trends in cinema, so if a film that owes an obvious debt to "old Bond" becomes a sizeable box-office hit, then I guess the pendulum will swing back. How long that will be is anyone's guess though. These things tend to be cyclical, so I'm sure that audience tastes will move away from gritty realism and towards more escapist fare at some point. It could be some years before it happens, though.

Well said, and I agree with this.

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11. Maybe one day audiences will revert back to the OTT comedy action flicks of the 70's (Smokey and the Bandit, Every Which Way But Loose) or the cheesy, pop-driven glamour of the 80's (Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop) but its hard to say at this moment in time when audiences will want a change from the current trend.

[Kristatos]

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11.

Ironically, if the current troubles continue, that could actually be the catalyst for people seeking to escape into fantasy. Look at the cinema of World War 2 - the longer the war dragged on, the more escapist films became.

[bjmdds]

I agree totally James. The question remains how long before Bond films return to normalcy, or do they continue on this tangential trek to oblivion?

Well, EON are responding to current trends in cinema, so if a film that owes an obvious debt to "old Bond" becomes a sizeable box-office hit, then I guess the pendulum will swing back. How long that will be is anyone's guess though. These things tend to be cyclical, so I'm sure that audience tastes will move away from gritty realism and towards more escapist fare at some point. It could be some years before it happens, though.

Well said, and I agree with this.

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11. Maybe one day audiences will revert back to the OTT comedy action flicks of the 70's (Smokey and the Bandit, Every Which Way But Loose) or the cheesy, pop-driven glamour of the 80's (Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop) but its hard to say at this moment in time when audiences will want a change from the current trend.

Sweeney,your type of Bond film may be shortlived, and would never have lasted the 40 years Bonds 1-20 did, with this style of content and actor. Will it last until 2008, 2010? We will see. (Will you be seeing the Rolling Stones in the UK?)

[bjmdds]

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11.

Ironically, if the current troubles continue, that could actually be the catalyst for people seeking to escape into fantasy. Look at the cinema of World War 2 - the longer the war dragged on, the more escapist films became.

To me, escapism and fantasy is what Bond films should be all about. Your assumption may be proven correct. It depends on how much world turmoil and terrorism people want to see on films, as opposed to every day real world problems.

[stockslivevan]

Sweeney,your type of Bond film may be shortlived, and would never have lasted the 40 years Bonds 1-20 did, with this style of content and actor. Will it last until 2008, 2010? We will see. (Will you be seeing the Rolling Stones in the UK?)

Why do you keep trying to put all the 20 previous films all together vaguely just to slag on CR? There have been so many changes to the Bond movies like from Connery to Moore to Dalton. Was LALD a lot like DN? TLD like TSWLM? TND like LTK? All the movies have been changing and CR is no different of a major change than Roger Moore's Bond was from Connery.

A type of Bond film like Dr. No didn't last for a decade, neither did a lot of those films. 1-20 were not the same type, how could you compare the first film Dr. No to Die Another Day? That's just as big of a leap as CR is to DAD.

[The Sweeney]

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11.

Ironically, if the current troubles continue, that could actually be the catalyst for people seeking to escape into fantasy. Look at the cinema of World War 2 - the longer the war dragged on, the more escapist films became.

To me, escapism and fantasy is what Bond films should be all about. Your assumption may be proven correct. It depends on how much world turmoil and terrorism people want to see on films, as opposed to every day real world problems.

But CR is fantasy and escapism. How many times do you climb up a 200 feet crane and fight someone, or leap from building to building, or sleep with exotic women after beating her boyfriend at cars and winning an Aston Martin DB5, or stop a baddie at an airport by jumping onto the roof of a truck, or playing a high poker game involving millions of pounds to stop an evil baddie, or cause an old Venice building to completely disappear under water, etc. etc.

Some of you are making out as though CR is some kind of gruseome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD.

It's not. CR is fantasy too, the same as all the other Bond films are. It's just that we now see Bond bleed after a fight, rather than stand up, not a hair out of place, raise one eyebrow, wink at the camera and utter some smartass one-liner. The action is still OTT and highly implausable, but now related to the audience in a slightly more realistic manner.

All the elements of a Bond film are firmly in place with CR. Some of you may keep forgetting that.

Pre credit sequence (check)
Binder-type opening titles with song (check)
Exotic locations (check)
Beautiful women (Solange - check)
Evil baddie (check)
Bond in a tux (check)
Super-doopa fast Bond car (check)
Bond in a casino (check)
Bond performing OTT spectacular stunts (check)
Humour (slightly darker, but still evident - check)
Scenes from a Fleming novel (the majority of one novel - check)

The only thing that has strayed slightly from the formula is -

The actor playing Bond has blonde hair, and is not as pretty-boy as some of the other actors, but physically looks tough, and apparently has sex appeal (I'm not only basing this on what my wife and mother have told me - two women's opinions I obviously trust - but also the countless polls that have voted him top of the tree too).

The story has been rebooted - mainly beacuse it is based on the first Fleming novel, which involves Bond at the beginning of his 00 career, where he inevitably makes a few mistakes that define him as the Bond we have all come to know and love. To ignore these elements would not do the novel interpretation any justice.

No gadgets - hardly groundbreaking, as we have seen this in quite a few other Bond films too.

No Q - who wasn't in Dr. No or LALD either.

No Moneypenny - Shock! Horror! The customary Carry On 2 minute scene that we have all greatly missed....

Slightly darker, less humour and more realistic - also check out Dr. No, OHMSS and FRWL.

[Skywalker]

Fair play Sweeney. A well thought out post.
























Dont agree with you though.

[Kristatos]

No Q - who wasn't in Dr. No or LALD either.

Nit-pick time: he was in Dr. No, jiust played by a different actor (Peter Burton).

[Kristatos]

Some of you are making out as though CR is some kind of gruseome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD.

Good post, Sweeney, and a lot of food for thought there. Sorry to respond in such a bitty fashion, but there were just a couple of points I wanted to discuss. Further to our discussion yesterday on the pendulum swinging back towards fantasy, your quote above did actually make me think of another scenario that could cause this, and that's a version of the Peter Principle in which elements of a movie get promoted to the point at which the audience rebels against them. How many times have you seen a sequel where you can practically hear the filmmakers in the background saying "the audience liked this in the first film, let's give them more of the same, only bigger and better"? But what seemed fresh and original in the first film seems forced in the second. Now, suppose EON start thinking "well, the audience like grim and gritty, let's give them grim and gritty" and up the grimness and grittiness in each successive film to the point where Bond actually becomes "some kind of gruesome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD"? Eventually, the audience would vote with their feet and start saying "you know, I remember when Bond films used to be fun". Then EON would be forced to listen. I hope that EON would be too savvy to let such a scenario come about, but you never know.

[Skywalker]

Some of you are making out as though CR is some kind of gruseome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD.

Good post, Sweeney, and a lot of food for thought there. Sorry to respond in such a bitty fashion, but there were just a couple of points I wanted to discuss. Further to our discussion yesterday on the pendulum swinging back towards fantasy, your quote above did actually make me think of another scenario that could cause this, and that's a version of the Peter Principle in which elements of a movie get promoted to the point at which the audience rebels against them. How many times have you seen a sequel where you can practically hear the filmmakers in the background saying "the audience liked this in the first film, let's give them more of the same, only bigger and better"? But what seemed fresh and original in the first film seems forced in the second. Now, suppose EON start thinking "well, the audience like grim and gritty, let's give them grim and gritty" and up the grimness and grittiness in each successive film to the point where Bond actually becomes "some kind of gruesome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD"? Eventually, the audience would vote with their feet and start saying "you know, I remember when Bond films used to be fun". Then EON would be forced to listen. I hope that EON would be too savvy to let such a scenario come about, but you never know.

Bond 22 has to have a more refined Bond. Even the most ardent Pro-Craigers would have to admit this. They have got away with it in CR as this was a reboot, but with Bond ageing badly (Craig does look old) a move to more refinement is needed.

[bjmdds]

The problem may then be Craig, for refinement is NOT his forte, a brash, wild character, is.

[bjmdds]

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11.

Ironically, if the current troubles continue, that could actually be the catalyst for people seeking to escape into fantasy. Look at the cinema of World War 2 - the longer the war dragged on, the more escapist films became.

To me, escapism and fantasy is what Bond films should be all about. Your assumption may be proven correct. It depends on how much world turmoil and terrorism people want to see on films, as opposed to every day real world problems.

But CR is fantasy and escapism. How many times do you climb up a 200 feet crane and fight someone, or leap from building to building, or sleep with exotic women after beating her boyfriend at cars and winning an Aston Martin DB5, or stop a baddie at an airport by jumping onto the roof of a truck, or playing a high poker game involving millions of pounds to stop an evil baddie, or cause an old Venice building to completely disappear under water, etc. etc.

Some of you are making out as though CR is some kind of gruseome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD.

It's not. CR is fantasy too, the same as all the other Bond films are. It's just that we now see Bond bleed after a fight, rather than stand up, not a hair out of place, raise one eyebrow, wink at the camera and utter some smartass one-liner. The action is still OTT and highly implausable, but now related to the audience in a slightly more realistic manner.

All the elements of a Bond film are firmly in place with CR. Some of you may keep forgetting that.

Pre credit sequence (check)
Binder-type opening titles with song (check)
Exotic locations (check)
Beautiful women (Solange - check)
Evil baddie (check)
Bond in a tux (check)
Super-doopa fast Bond car (check)
Bond in a casino (check)
Bond performing OTT spectacular stunts (check)
Humour (slightly darker, but still evident - check)
Scenes from a Fleming novel (the majority of one novel - check)

The only thing that has strayed slightly from the formula is -

The actor playing Bond has blonde hair, and is not as pretty-boy as some of the other actors, but physically looks tough, and apparently has sex appeal (I'm not only basing this on what my wife and mother have told me - two women's opinions I obviously trust - but also the countless polls that have voted him top of the tree too).

The story has been rebooted - mainly beacuse it is based on the first Fleming novel, which involves Bond at the beginning of his 00 career, where he inevitably makes a few mistakes that define him as the Bond we have all come to know and love. To ignore these elements would not do the novel interpretation any justice.

No gadgets - hardly groundbreaking, as we have seen this in quite a few other Bond films too.

No Q - who wasn't in Dr. No or LALD either.

No Moneypenny - Shock! Horror! The customary Carry On 2 minute scene that we have all greatly missed....

Slightly darker, less humour and more realistic - also check out Dr. No, OHMSS and FRWL.

Sweeney, IF Dame Dench was absent from CR, would you truly recognize the film as a James Bond film? Perhaps Dench was utilized just to convey that very point, given her plot content conflicted with her previous 4 films of having already been on adventures with Bond. There was just too much discrepancy to deem CR with Dench plausible, from the prior 4 films. Craig portraying Bond is plenty of fantasy for me, good buddy.

[Connery007]

Right now the trend is gritty realism, due to 9/11.

Ironically, if the current troubles continue, that could actually be the catalyst for people seeking to escape into fantasy. Look at the cinema of World War 2 - the longer the war dragged on, the more escapist films became.

To me, escapism and fantasy is what Bond films should be all about. Your assumption may be proven correct. It depends on how much world turmoil and terrorism people want to see on films, as opposed to every day real world problems.

But CR is fantasy and escapism. How many times do you climb up a 200 feet crane and fight someone, or leap from building to building, or sleep with exotic women after beating her boyfriend at cars and winning an Aston Martin DB5, or stop a baddie at an airport by jumping onto the roof of a truck, or playing a high poker game involving millions of pounds to stop an evil baddie, or cause an old Venice building to completely disappear under water, etc. etc.

Some of you are making out as though CR is some kind of gruseome, harrowing, all-too-real documentary which makes Schindler's List look like DAD.

It's not. CR is fantasy too, the same as all the other Bond films are. It's just that we now see Bond bleed after a fight, rather than stand up, not a hair out of place, raise one eyebrow, wink at the camera and utter some smartass one-liner. The action is still OTT and highly implausable, but now related to the audience in a slightly more realistic manner.

All the elements of a Bond film are firmly in place with CR. Some of you may keep forgetting that.

Pre credit sequence (check)
Binder-type opening titles with song (check)
Exotic locations (check)
Beautiful women (Solange - check)
Evil baddie (check)
Bond in a tux (check)
Super-doopa fast Bond car (check)
Bond in a casino (check)
Bond performing OTT spectacular stunts (check)
Humour (slightly darker, but still evident - check)
Scenes from a Fleming novel (the majority of one novel - check)

The only thing that has strayed slightly from the formula is -

The actor playing Bond has blonde hair, and is not as pretty-boy as some of the other actors, but physically looks tough, and apparently has sex appeal (I'm not only basing this on what my wife and mother have told me - two women's opinions I obviously trust - but also the countless polls that have voted him top of the tree too).

The story has been rebooted - mainly beacuse it is based on the first Fleming novel, which involves Bond at the beginning of his 00 career, where he inevitably makes a few mistakes that define him as the Bond we have all come to know and love. To ignore these elements would not do the novel interpretation any justice.

No gadgets - hardly groundbreaking, as we have seen this in quite a few other Bond films too.

No Q - who wasn't in Dr. No or LALD either.

No Moneypenny - Shock! Horror! The customary Carry On 2 minute scene that we have all greatly missed....

Slightly darker, less humour and more realistic - also check out Dr. No, OHMSS and FRWL.

The all reboot thing is a big mistake. Now every freakin movie is about reboot. Michael Myers, Star Wars, The Chainsaw Massacre. When will this stop. As a fan, I don't need to know how someone was before. It kills the character. To me, James Bond was simply not there in CR. The only thing Bond like was the exotic locations. What about the scene when Bond lost the first poker game and went outside while Vesper joined him.
Bond to Vesper: "Look at my eyes. You know I can beat this man."
What the hell was that?
Since when does James Bond needs to justify himself to anyone. The real James Bond in that situation would give a comic line to Vesper because he knows that he will win no matter what.

Moneypenny is a important character. Because she and Bond teased each other which is fun.

[stockslivevan]

The problem may then be Craig, for refinement is NOT his forte, a brash, wild character, is.

Then what do you call his performance at the very end of the film with him all suited up acting very Pre-Goldfinger Connery? We're going to have more of that, even the filmmakers at one point said that Bond would be more refined, the dots and oldschool gunbarrel and main-title girls will return but remain true to the Fleming elements like FRWL. We're not going to have Bond keep wearing the same wardrobe he wore in that african chase.

[The Sweeney]

What about the scene when Bond lost the first poker game and went outside while Vesper joined him.
Bond to Vesper: "Look at my eyes. You know I can beat this man."
What the hell was that?
Since when does James Bond needs to justify himself to anyone. The real James Bond in that situation would give a comic line to Vesper because he knows that he will win no matter what.

The real James Bond? Are you referring to the Fleming Bond when you say that, because this scene was exactly like the Bond of the novels....with not a comic line in sight.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Stocksilvian wrote:Then what do you call his performance at the very end of the film with him all suited up acting very Pre-Goldfinger Connery? We're going to have more of that,

(To quote someone in The Sopranos) Get the f**k out of here! The opinion that Daniel Craig's James Bond is any way like Connery's in the early movies is a very strange one and not one I subscribe to.

[Skywalker]

Stocksilvian wrote:Then what do you call his performance at the very end of the film with him all suited up acting very Pre-Goldfinger Connery? We're going to have more of that,

(To quote someone in The Sopranos) Get the f**k out of here! The opinion that Daniel Craig's James Bond is any way like Connery's in the early movies is a very strange one and not one I subscribe to.

I think the performance at the start (Killing of Dryden) and the ending with Mr White gives me hope that Daniel 'Rambo' Craig could perform like the early Connery Bond.

I live in hope.