James Bond In Skyfall - Part 3

[Marvolo]

I just hope they get rid of the futuristic office M had in Quantum of Solace.

 

[Gold Samurai]

I just hope they get rid of the futuristic office M had in Quantum of Solace.

Bleh. It looks like the set of the enterprise or MIB headquarters

 

[Dark Knight]

Naomie Harris is having a blast on the set of 'Skyfall'

Skyfall (Bond 23) - 27-11-11



http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=9830&t=mi6&s=news

Sounds like a similar training regiment Hathaway went through for TDKRises.

 

[Slushy]

But Tiffany Case is a nobody to Bond in the movies. She's just another Bond girl, and hardly has the same significance as either Vesper Lynd or Tracy. You can't really go by the books, because there isn't a female M in the original Fleming novels. He didn't particularly respect Jill St John's Tiffany.

True, I was just shocked to find out that novel Bond actually tried to settle down with Tiffany after DAF, but it didn't work out and she left him for another man with Bond seemingly heartbroken.

I always got the feeling EON never wanted Bond to look weak (aside from the Moore Era) so Bond's love for Tiffany was cut.



Another case in point, in the Casino Royale novel, the testicular torture scene is so much better. Le Chiffre is more in control of the situation. He takes his time by drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette, and giving a long hopeless speech while using a carpet beater on Bond's balls.

After Bond passes out from the pain, Le Chiffre gets fed up and twists Bond's ears, slaps his face several times then pours the remaining coffee on his face until he comes to. Bond is actually traumatized by the brutal experience as he recalls it in the later books.

In the movie, Bond is tortured for a minute or two by a thick rope knot then shrugs it off by cracking jokes. Ugh!

I loved the Casino Royale movie, but that was one of the few book to movie changes I had a gripe with.

 

[Blue Sugar]

A younger Q is a great choice! Gonna seperate him from Desmond's character as this is bound to be a new take on the character. Unlike Cleese who only tried to be Desmond. And that kind of Q wouldn't fit with Craig's Bond imo.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

EON never wanted Bond to look weak (aside from the Moore Era)

Roger Moore's Bond was anything but weak.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

Another case in point, in the Casino Royale novel, the testicular torture scene is so much better. Le Chiffre is more in control of the situation. He takes his time by drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette, and giving a long hopeless speech while using a carpet beater on Bond's balls.

After Bond passes out from the pain, Le Chiffre get fed up by twisting Bond's ears, slapping his face several times then pouring the remaining coffee on his face until he comes to. Bond is actually traumatized by the brutal experience as he recalls it in the later books.

In the movie, Bond is tortured for a minute or two by a thick rope knot then shrugs it off by cracking jokes. Ugh!

I loved the Casino Royale movie, but that was one of the few book to movie changes I had a gripe with.

Yeah, you're right there, the ball was dropped with that scene. It's not as brutal or difficult as it really should be, and even if the experience doesn't come to haunt Craig's Bond the way it did in the books, he still reverted to brushing it off with wisecracks all too easily. I was not sold on that scene.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Yeah, it was a brutal scene in the book. Made me put it down a few times even on subsequent reads. But truth be told, I never expected it to play the same way in any case. How he even got there was changed, as well as where it happened.

 

[Slushy]

Roger Moore's Bond was anything but weak.

He wasn't Bond. That was the problem. FYEO was the only film they got it right with him and thankfully kept the quips to a minimum.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

He wasn't Bond. That was the problem. FYEO was the only film they got it right with him and thankfully kept the quips to a minimum.

The point is that he was never portrayed as a weak individual. If anything, Roger Moore's Bond was the most superhuman.

 

[Slushy]

Speaking of which, it's been awhile since I've seen Octop****, but I didn't understand why the two villains were in cahoots. On one hand, you had an Afghan prince or rich dude or whatever he was and he's a smuggler of rare jewels. On the other was a Russian general bent on starting World War III. WTF? Why would he want to be partners with such a total whacko?

 

[Homer J. Fong]

Saying, "That's not Bond," or "He wasn't Bond," is about as silly to me as saying, "That's not/he's not Batman." There have been so many interpretations, some subtly different, some wildly different, of the character for one to be more correct than another. Moore's Bond was Moore's Bond (it took two movies to figure out what that meant, by the way): super-suave, super-charming, super-witty (sometimes super-smug), and just about superhuman. Not a lot of pathos or danger to him, although he could be a cold bastard if you pushed him just enough (as Mr. Locque would agree). Not my favorite portrayal - I prefer a take that has a better balance of debonair and dangerous - but it is what it is.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Roger Moore's Bond was anything but weak.

Yeah, Moore's Bond isn't weak either.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

Saying, "That's not Bond," or "He wasn't Bond," is about as silly to me as saying, "That's not/he's not Batman." There have been so many interpretations, some subtly different, some wildly different, of the character for one to be more correct than another. Moore's Bond was Moore's Bond (it took two movies to figure out what that meant, by the way): super-suave, super-charming, super-witty (sometimes super-smug), and just about superhuman. Not a lot of pathos or danger to him, although he could be a cold bastard if you pushed him just enough (as Mr. Locque would agree). Not my favorite portrayal - I prefer a take that has a better balance of debonair and dangerous - but it is what it is.

Roger Moore's Bond was appropriate for the times. Hence the box office success. He even beat Sean Connery in 1983 when "Never Say Never Again" was released opposite "Octopussy." That says everything you need to know about that time period. People preferred to watch Moore.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Saying, "That's not Bond," or "He wasn't Bond," is about as silly to me as saying, "That's not/he's not Batman." There have been so many interpretations, some subtly different, some wildly different, of the character for one to be more correct than another. Moore's Bond was Moore's Bond (it took two movies to figure out what that meant, by the way): super-suave, super-charming, super-witty (sometimes super-smug), and just about superhuman. Not a lot of pathos or danger to him, although he could be a cold bastard if you pushed him just enough (as Mr. Locque would agree). Not my favorite portrayal - I prefer a take that has a better balance of debonair and dangerous - but it is what it is.

Here's the problem with that, Homer:

Batman's many interpretations can be seen in the comics books, which are nominally the "source material." Bob Kane's original Batman stories set a certain tone, and yes, the style of the stories changed with the time. There HAVE been many interpretations, and as they have all been seen in the comics, and as the comics are the canon here, it's hard to argue that there is one definitive Batman, and the character, on the screen, has changed with the times as well.

But Bond...Bond is the protagonist of a series of novels written by Ian Fleming. THAT is the canon. Sure, the films have changed with the times, but if we're being honest there are only a handful of films that adhere to the canon of who and what James Bond is supposed to be. The first two or three Connery films, certainly; Lazenby's single effort; arguably Timothy Dalton's two and for certain Daniel Craig's.

Roger Moore may be to Bond as Adam West is to Batman, but the difference is there are Batman comics that match what Adam West did. There are no Fleming novels that bear a resemblance to the Bond that Moore portrayed. And I know because I've read them all.

Roger Moore was a bad James Bond. Although, as a spoof...it's pretty funny at times. Brosnan I think could have done a passable job if he'd had better films to be Bond in. But he didn't, so we'll never know for sure.

 

[Spoonman]

Here's the problem with that, Homer:

Batman's many interpretations can be seen in the comics books, which are nominally the "source material." Bob Kane's original Batman stories set a certain tone, and yes, the style of the stories changed with the time. There HAVE been many interpretations, and as they have all been seen in the comics, and as the comics are the canon here, it's hard to argue that there is one definitive Batman, and the character, on the screen, has changed with the times as well.

But Bond...Bond is the protagonist of a series of novels written by Ian Fleming. THAT is the canon. Sure, the films have changed with the times, but if we're being honest there are only a handful of films that adhere to the canon of who and what James Bond is supposed to be. The first two or three Connery films, certainly; Lazenby's single effort; arguably Timothy Dalton's two and for certain Daniel Craig's.

Roger Moore may be to Bond as Adam West is to Batman, but the difference is there are Batman comics that match what Adam West did. There are no Fleming novels that bear a resemblance to the Bond that Moore portrayed. And I know because I've read them all.

Roger Moore was a bad James Bond. Although, as a spoof...it's pretty funny at times. Brosnan I think could have done a passable job if he'd had better films to be Bond in. But he didn't, so we'll never know for sure.

Certainly Lazenby and arguably Dalton? That's got to be a joke, both Dalton and Craig have portrayed Bond the closest to the novels than any other actor.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Lazenby's characterization of Bond was close to the novels. His performance was meh.

And with Roger Moore, I believe his performance in TSWLM mirrored novel Bond in some ways. I wouldn't call Moore a bad Bond because to me, the James Bond movies are a whole different beast compared to other movies based on adaptations. I like all the Bonds for different reasons. I honestly couldn't care less about how faithful the series is, no offense to CS.

I don't get how people watch tswlm and fyeo, and still call Moore a joke.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Certainly Lazenby and arguably Dalton? That's got to be a joke, both Dalton and Craig have portrayed Bond the closest to the novels than any other actor.

Oh, I definitely am a fan of Timothy Dalton. The two movies he was in have pretty shoddy production value - but Dalton nailed it. Those movies are better than they get credit for, mostly due to Dalton. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Edit: Also, just for the record - the "certainly" applied to Connery, not Lazenby. Lazenby was in a good Bond movie, but as Parker Wayne pointed out, Lazenby was an underwear model and not a very good actor. OHMSS was a damn good movie, though.

 

[Kurosawa]

True, I was just shocked to find out that novel Bond actually tried to settle down with Tiffany after DAF, but it didn't work out and she left him for another man with Bond seemingly heartbroken.

I always got the feeling EON never wanted Bond to look weak (aside from the Moore Era) so Bond's love for Tiffany was cut.



Another case in point, in the Casino Royale novel, the testicular torture scene is so much better. Le Chiffre is more in control of the situation. He takes his time by drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette, and giving a long hopeless speech while using a carpet beater on Bond's balls.

After Bond passes out from the pain, Le Chiffre gets fed up and twists Bond's ears, slaps his face several times then pours the remaining coffee on his face until he comes to. Bond is actually traumatized by the brutal experience as he recalls it in the later books.

In the movie, Bond is tortured for a minute or two by a thick rope knot then shrugs it off by cracking jokes. Ugh!

I loved the Casino Royale movie, but that was one of the few book to movie changes I had a gripe with.

I thought it would be the most memorable scene in the movie, but instead it was just a typical hero torture scene. A rare miss in a movie that is almost totally hit.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

Bond is the protagonist of a series of novels written by Ian Fleming. THAT is the canon. Sure, the films have changed with the times, but if we're being honest there are only a handful of films that adhere to the canon of who and what James Bond is supposed to be.

The novels are source material, but I wouldn't call them canon per say. The movies have always been treated as a seperate thing. Sean Connery gave charm and humor to the role of Bond. Characters like Moneypenny and Q were given larger roles. The action has always been a little... out there.

In the movie-verse, the films themselve are canon, not the novels. The movies play by their own rules, even at the expense of the books. In "Casino Royale" for example, we see Bond chasing free-runners in Africa, stopping a bomb in Miami airport, and fighting the villain in a falling building. None of that happens in the novel. In fact, nothing really happens. In the book, Bond plays a card game and then gets his manhood beaten. That's as exciting as it gets.

That just comes to show you that in the movies, Bond is presented differently. And the audience expectation is quite different than what the novels deliver. So, the best thing is to keep the movies and book seperate.

 

[Slushy]

Roger Moore's Bond was anything but weak.

He was potrayed as a superhero, but came off as a pansy for the most part.

I don't get how people watch tswlm and fyeo, and still call Moore a joke.

Live And Let Die - A Shaft movie starring Bond

The Man With The Golden Gun - A good villain doesn't save it.

The Spy Who Loved Me - You Live Only Twice remake

Moonraker - Roger Moore's Die Another Day

For Your Eyes Only - Exactly what Moore needed to be.

Octop**** - Unfortunately, it was back to Moore nonsense

A View To A Kill - See TMWTGG


I always thought TSWLM was overrated, but 2 good films don't make up for a bunch of crap.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Oh, I definitely am a fan of Timothy Dalton. The two movies he was in have pretty shoddy production value - but Dalton nailed it. Those movies are better than they get credit for, mostly due to Dalton. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Edit: Also, just for the record - the "certainly" applied to Connery, not Lazenby. Lazenby was in a good Bond movie, but as Parker Wayne pointed out, Lazenby was an underwear model and not a very good actor. OHMSS was a damn good movie, though.

It certainly was, and it was do to all the strong actors around Lazenby. Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas (The best Blofeld), Gabriele Ferzetti, and Ilse Steppat all did excellent job giving out great performances. The best thing I can say about Lazenby is that his performance didn't ruin the movie. I can still say that it is one of the best Bond movies.

I thought it would be the most memorable scene in the movie, but instead it was just a typical hero torture scene. A rare miss in a movie that is almost totally hit.

I would say they did that because they didn't want to make Bond look too bad. I don't think Bond ever begged for his life in any film. The closest he came to doing that is Goldfinger.

The novels are source material, but I wouldn't call them canon per say. The movies have always been treated as a seperate thing. Sean Connery gave charm and humor to the role of Bond. Characters like Moneypenny and Q were given larger roles. The action has always been a little... out there.

In the movie-verse, the films themselve are canon, not the novels. The movies play by their own rules, even at the expense of the books. In "Casino Royale" for example, we see Bond chasing free-runners in Africa, stopping a bomb in Miami airport, and fighting the villain in a falling building. None of that happens in the novel. In fact, nothing really happens. In the book, Bond plays a card game and then gets his manhood beaten. That's as exciting as it gets.

That just comes to show you that in the movies, Bond is presented differently. And the audience expectation is quite different than what the novels deliver. So, the best thing is to keep the movies and book seperate.

This.

 

[Slushy]

Here's a good song "Forever" (although I would've liked to have listened to that Amy Winehouse song we never got)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2dXY9TOKA

No, that's not Shirley Bassey. That's unknown Swedish singer, Eva Almer.



But then again, Kerli's "When Nobody Loves You" kicked ass:

[YT]IDWby8VmeGA[/YT]

 

[Call Me Darkman]

Live And Let Die - A Shaft movie starring Bond

Agreed.

The Man With The Golden Gun - A good villain doesn't save it.

The first half is actually pretty good.

The Spy Who Loved Me - You Live Only Twice remake

Remake is a strong word. They used the same "idea" but the two movies are very different.

Moonraker - Roger Moore's Die Another Day

This movie is closer to YOLT then TSWLM since it deals with space travel. Basically... Lewis Gilbert did the same movie three times but with three very different results.

For Your Eyes Only - Exactly what Moore needed to be.

He wasn't the right actor for it.

Octop**** - Unfortunately, it was back to Moore nonsense

Sometimes... you can't critique things with modern eyes. At the time, this is what people wanted. As I said earlier, in 1983, audiences had two choices: Roger Moore in "Octopussy" or Sean Connery in "Never Say Never Again." They went with Moore.

A View To A Kill - See TMWTGG

I have a soft spot for this film. I don't know why. I guess between Christopher Walken, May Day, and Duran Duran, I find myself very entertained by this flick.

2 good films don't make up for a bunch of crap.

Roger Moore was a weak Bond and his time with the franchise was very flawed. But... he was a neccessary evil. The man kept the franchise alive for 12 years. That's more than you can say for most actors who have played Bond.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I mostly despise the Moore era, but I don't particularly blame Roger moore. It took him two films to figure out who his Bond was, but once he did, the results were terrific in The Spy Who Loved Me. He's on autopilot in Moonraker (and again in A View to a Kill), but very good in For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy. The writing in most of his Bond movies was terrible, though, and the bad ones sunk the series into camp territory, which is sad to watch. The good Roger Moore Bonds are, still, pretty terrific.