Wasn't it Live and Let Die where Bond defeats a guy by inflating him? And Solitaire has supernatural tarot card reading gifts, until Bond enters the picture.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bond 24 Announcement: SPECTRE
- Thread starter Rich!
- Start date
- Status
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Yeah LALD has #KanangaBalloon, bond jumping over crocodiles to escape death, Baron Samedi (who was clearly killed then came back at the end for the final shot of him laughing) and the Tarot cards that predicted the future perfectly until Solitaire lost her virginity.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
They got the guy from Layer Cake to essentially play a quieter version of the guy from Layer Cake. It's not an outlandish thing, the thing I'm saying.
Because it's not his real name? Because that at least gives our hero one step of remove from who he actually is? Why allow your superspy to use his birth name while acting as a covert operative?
Logic doesn't hold up on that particular note no matter which way you go.
Discotheque
Banned
so why did the script get so much shit? anybody want to elaborate without spoiling plot details?
was it just that the events that occur in it weren't very good or what?
was it just that the events that occur in it weren't very good or what?
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I want to know this too. All I know is that there's some good build-up with no pay off.
I don't agree with this assessment at all.
Metallix87
Member
He doesn't use his birth name on missions. Any time he's going undercover in the films, he uses aliases. The question is: Why would his alias be a name that all the villains are aware of as being connected to the British secret service?
I suppose the crocodile thing isn't that ridiculous, since the stunt was done for real. Of course, it's unlikely that they'd be lined up perfectly to make such an escape possible in real life.
They regularly give Bond other names to use, like in Casino Royale, he was supposed to use a different name, but he checks into the hotel using his real name because that's just the kind of guy he is.
Discotheque
Banned
yeah, I wouldn't say Daniel Craig has amazing range or anything but I don't see his Layer Cake persona in Bond at all aside from the fact that they both dress well.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Same here, does any one know the details of the script?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The general details should be pretty easily searchable online, if not here on GAF itself.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Why not? If they're going to adhere this tightly to a continuity (and they are, and they have) then the option is there.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the approach. Not to say it can't be botched, but there's nothing that makes that route less valid than the "it's the same guy, he just looks different now."
"There are only six James Bonds" doesn't sound as cool as "there is only one James Bond." Going forward, they could do it with new Bond actors, but I think it would take away something.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Official teaser poster:
WHAT THE SHIT HE STOLE MY IDEA. I was the one who came up with using the turtleneck as a tactical garment-the tacticalneck.
Discotheque
Banned
aye have you seen the man from UNCLE trailer. henry cavill looks a lot like archer in it.
badcrumble
Member
Best possible way to do that would have been to have Pierce Brosnan play the villain in Skyfall, imo (and would have instantly elevated it to become the darkest, smartest, best, most subversive Bond ever).
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Connery through Brosnan all referenced each other's histories in whatever vague or overt ways. But Craig's is pretty clearly a wipe-the-slate-clean reboot in a totally new continuity; it's not leading into Dr. No and the Cold War unless he ends up traveling back in time. Not to mention it'd be a hell of a coincidence if Judi Dench's M was replaced with a male M only to eventually be succeeded by another female M who happens to look just like Judi Dench!
Because it ruins the core of what James Bond represents - the ultimate male fantasy. He's it; he's the pinnacle... like ascii42 mentioned, having multiple Bonds would just dilute that. Currently each actor brings their own take to the character, but it's still the same character with the same backstory, same flaws, same characteristics, same accomplishments, etc. Part of the fun of Bond is the great familiarity you have with the character... you know going into it what you're getting, you know you'll enjoy the basic premise, and it's a character most fans have already shared adventures and memories with for decades. I don't want multiple Bonds played by multiple people bringing multiple takes and multiple origin stories... it allows for way too much deviation from what Bond should be. It isn't a franchise that should overly concern itself with timeline continuity, it just needs to keep serving up the character that people love in exciting new adventures. There are plenty of other spy movies out there I can watch if I just want to watch a spy doing their thing... when I watch a Bond movie I'm specifically there for James Bond.
'Don't be bitter Sterling. It's not like Christmas when you were 8.'
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm not going to let facts or reasonable opinions get in the way of my fondness for Roger Moore. 
Well said. The idea that there are so many other men who could just step in a fill the shoes of a previous James Bond neuters the character. Is Moneypenny a codename then too? Because she just came back...
This should never happen and thankfully never will.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It doesn't "ruin" anything, especially since you yourself admit each actor is essentially portraying a different character each time, the only thing unifying their performances being the loose, barely mentioned continuity that doesn't even apply anymore. The hop from that level of deviation to actually making the character an actual legacy character is pretty damned tiny. Its not that big in the slightest. And if it ever was a big leap, the fandom has shrunk it most of the way in the last 20 some-odd years.
He's also not "the ultimate male fantasy" anymore, either. Hasn't been for quite awhile. It can be argued that chasing that ideal has led to most of the shittiest, stupidest, lamest moments in the entire series, if not whole films and/or runs.
The reasoning against making him legacy has always been superficial conservatism at best. Its basically just "I don't like it cuz"
That all said, it doesn't really matter to me whether he does or doesn't. I'm just arguing that this isn't the sea change it's being argued as, and they apparently have considered it, and if they were gonna pull the trigger on it, it would happen with Craig, or not at all.
And yes I watch Archer.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
Casino Royal felt so refreshing after the terrible goofiness of DAD.
While QoS might not be the best movie ever, it works suprisingly well in conjuncture with Casino Royale. And a couple of scenes in QoS are among the best of all Bond movies (imo off course).
The whole build up in the Tosca scene for example, starting with the music when Bond is driving to the opera house and after that aquiring the earplug and then getting out of the building is some of the best stuff in the whole franchise for me.
After being hyped for Skyfall like there was no tomorrow, I felt bitterly disappointed after leaving the cinema.
Just a couple of points:
* It's the Uncharted 3 of Craig Bonds. It feels, like they had some beautiful set pices, and built the movie around it.
* It has the most daft trope of them all: Protagonist gets himself into a situation he cannot possibly control (like deliberately ending up as a hostage, etc) just for the sake of a bad story. Bond could have just followed Silvas henchmen to his island on a boat instead of getting himself arrested by them. Getting himself into a situation where he could get killed almost every second doesn't make any sense, and feels flat out wrong for the character.
* The story and its characters motivations just don't make ANY sense at all. I was sitting in the cinema and kept thinking "why are they all acting so stupid?"...
* What happened to Quantum? You know, the crime organization you were carefully developing in the first two movies?
* Ben Wishaw as "nerdy young hacker" Q... They might have as well pulled out all of my teeth simultanously. It's that cringe worthy.
The movie works as a collection of very well shot scenes, with incredible cinematography. But it completely destroys what they tried to built up within the first two movies.
While QoS might not be the best movie ever, it works suprisingly well in conjuncture with Casino Royale. And a couple of scenes in QoS are among the best of all Bond movies (imo off course).
The whole build up in the Tosca scene for example, starting with the music when Bond is driving to the opera house and after that aquiring the earplug and then getting out of the building is some of the best stuff in the whole franchise for me.
After being hyped for Skyfall like there was no tomorrow, I felt bitterly disappointed after leaving the cinema.
Just a couple of points:
* It's the Uncharted 3 of Craig Bonds. It feels, like they had some beautiful set pices, and built the movie around it.
* It has the most daft trope of them all: Protagonist gets himself into a situation he cannot possibly control (like deliberately ending up as a hostage, etc) just for the sake of a bad story. Bond could have just followed Silvas henchmen to his island on a boat instead of getting himself arrested by them. Getting himself into a situation where he could get killed almost every second doesn't make any sense, and feels flat out wrong for the character.
* The story and its characters motivations just don't make ANY sense at all. I was sitting in the cinema and kept thinking "why are they all acting so stupid?"...
* What happened to Quantum? You know, the crime organization you were carefully developing in the first two movies?
* Ben Wishaw as "nerdy young hacker" Q... They might have as well pulled out all of my teeth simultanously. It's that cringe worthy.
The movie works as a collection of very well shot scenes, with incredible cinematography. But it completely destroys what they tried to built up within the first two movies.
GAF is the first and only place I've seen this much disdain for Skyfall. I honestly haven't met anyone that doesn't like it. Not everyone I know gushes over it but the overwhelming consensus has been that it's a very solid film. Opinions and all but I'm glad it isn't just me.
I don't see the big deal about this. Does Quantum need to be behind every villainous act in a Bond movie? It's not like they weren't already front and center in QoS.
In any event, it looks like they're following the same pattern as the early Connery movies: establish criminal organization in first film (Dr. No/Casino Royale), bring them into the spotlight for the second (From Russia With Love/Quantum of Solace), detour into an unrelated villain for the third (Goldfinger/Skyfall), bring them back for the fourth (Thunderball/Spectre).
Agreed on CR, well put.
Regarding Quantum, the actor that played Mr. White has signed on for Spectre and it's theorized there will be some connection made between Quantum and Spectre.
There was definitely a different tone to Skyfall but I don't think it destroyed anything. I'm keeping my hype in check for Spectre but I'm very curious to see what they do with the new film.
count me in. I think Skyfall is the best Bond alongside OHMSS (second best), Goldfinger, Goldeneye and CR. The criticism on Gaf baffles me but I got used to it, since apparently I'm the only one here who also thinks Skyward Sword was the GOTG and the SW prequels weren't that bad...they are good, in fact
Ha, you had me until the star wars prequels...
No, I said each actor brings their own take to the same character. The core tenants of that character remain the same throughout.
Clearly we disagree, because it would certainly ruin the Bond franchise for me.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The core tenets don't really stay the same. In fact, the filmmakers will often make it a point to call out when those tenets have shifted somewhat, as if the actor's portrayals wouldn't be enough evidence of that.
Roger Moore is supposed to be the same guy as Lazenby and Connery, but he sure as hell doesn't feel like it, and Lazenby doesn't feel like the same guy as Connery or Dalton. I can see where maybe Dalton is the same guy as Connery, or that Brosnan is the same guy as Moore, but they're absolutely unique enough to be their own quantifiable things. We KNOW they're the same guy because they have the same name, but the aims of the actors and the writers and the directors are different enough that one can easily argue (and a multitude of fans often do) that each Bond is its own thing, really only sharing between them a sketched out continuity that seemed to mostly exist in those older movies out of a sense of tradition more than anything.
The whole thing just feels surface-level/superficial to me. Codename or no codename, the swapping in and out of actors who don't really bother to try and be the same person the last guy was (and in fact go out of their way to separate themselves as noticeably as they can) has already set the table for an in-continuity explanation for why that is. There's nothing all that special about adhering to the tradition, nor is that tradition so precious that losing it would cause the series to lose what makes it popular. But the tradition isn't all that detrimental to the films either, so if it stays, no big deal.
No, we know that they're the same guy because of everything they share that has nothing to do with their name. And other than that awful line from Lazenby, again I'd disagree with your entire premise. The things that make the character who he is remain relatively consistent throughout. Some of the actors emphasize certain parts over others, but it's all tied together in a way that I can suspend belief and buy into each of the actors being the same person.
What would even be the point of the franchise if James Bond isn't James Bond? Just make a different spy franchise if you want to shake up the formula that much.
Right, Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield didn''t play Peter Parker exactly the same, but they were still both Peter Parker.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I think the differences between Maguire and Garfield were a lot less pronounced than the differences between Connery & Moore, or Moore & Dalton, etc. etc.
You act like James Bond is anything other than a brand name at this point.
He isn't.
He's just as malleable as any other superhero, honestly. If, in this reboot, they introduce the idea that after Craig has left, James Bond is just the name given to whatever superspy succeeds him, nothing fundamental about why these movies maintain popularity really changes. People don't go to James Bond because they think the actors are maintaining some sort of fidelity to the character as he appeared in the Fleming novels, or even as he was portrayed by Connery. They go because "James Bond" means "smartass in a tux with a gun, a theme song and a fast car," and they've done so since the 1970s.
To be clear - I'm just making the argument for why that choice isn't as out of bounds as people may think. If that choice isn't made, I'm not going to be disappointed or upset or anything like that. If they do as they've done the last 50 years, and just recast the role, I'm cool with that too. Lord knows I've had more than enough time to get used to the idea, right?
NeonZ
Member
I don't think there's any direct official statement saying that it's a reboot, but you won't see any official statement saying that it's part of the old continuity either. And there have been some statements from staff members that suggest that it was intended to be a reboot.
Skyfall had that one scene with the original Aston Martin rather than Casino Royale's, suggesting that it might be the same Bond from the older movies. However, at least going by the leaked script, Spectre would make it blatantly clear that it's all a reboot since it's written like Bond's first encounter with SPECTRE and Blofeld, yet it takes place after Skyfall.
Production Thread is up!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked