James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#101 Post by MichaelB » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:26 pm

jt wrote:(but I don't think a 'realistic' representation of an MI6 agent would make for a very interesting 2 hours...).
A friend of mine used to work for the CIA. Practically her entire working day was spent listening to Russian radio broadcasts and highlighting anything interesting to translate and pass on to her superiors. Glamorous it was not.

(Mind you, that's based on what she told me, but I'm sure if she'd told me the exciting parts she'd have had to kill me, so I'm quite glad she made it sound so boring).

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#102 Post by Andre Jurieu » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 pm

adnankhan wrote: ... but what does trouble me (a little) is people trying to over-intellectualise Bond, and especially the new film.
Sorry, but I need some clarification as to how exactly anyone has over-intellectualized Bond when praising the new film. It seems pretty clear to me that the new film follows the same basic framework as any other Bond film, but then it decides to be a little different in terms of character motivations and decides to have a little fun with the basic Bond mythology.

As far as I know from the various reviews I've read, no critic/reviewer has over-intellectualized the film, apart from saying this is a departure from previous Bond films. I have yet to see someone start bringing up "big, important" topics/issues in relation to this Bond film, but they have touched upon the fundamental aspects of what makes the Bond franchise so appealing and resilient - the obsession with masculinity and its supposed imperviousness. From my perspective that's not over-intellectualizing anything so much as it is stating the obvious considering that's the backbone of the franchise. It seems pretty clear that Casino Royale is attempting something a bit different than the rest of the franchise and that's worthy of being pointed out in reviews/analysis/critiques.

I'm also not understanding why it's wrong to over-intellectualize any genre of film. Are we supposed to believe that certain types of films are not meant to be analyzed as to how they function? Isn't this what people have said in the past about chick-flicks and horror movies? Yet there is a wealth of criticism regarding both genres (well, actually, there probably needs to be more writing and analysis regarding chick-flicks). I don't know about everyone else, but I grow really tired of people who greet analysis of film with the objection that such practices shouldn't be done since "it's just a movie."
adnankhan wrote: ... I just don't get the hyper-idealisation of masculinity.
I'm not sure what there is to "get" about this notion. A great deal of filmmaking is based upon the ability to exaggerate and idealize a certain aspect of human nature. Why exactly is masculinity not as worthy of this treatment as countless other aspects of human nature? An expression of masculinity has an inherent appeal to a great deal of people, just as an expression of femininity has am appeal to others. The Bond franchise is based around action-movies which regularly provide a hyper-idealization of masculinity because it's commercially viable.

I'm also a bit confused by your criticism against Casino Royale for being another hyper-idealization of masculinity within the Bond franchise when it's clearly the first Bond film in a while to undermine James Bond's once unshakable masculinity. There are a variety of minor instances where Bond just isn't as invincible as he once was, but the main one is contained within the strand of the story that you has dismissed as tacked-on. The love-story with Vesper Lynd is probably the best display of the film's interest in weakening Bond's steadfast masculinity by showing him to be somewhat vulnerable to femininity. It's also Bond's female boss that informs him he is being unreasonably short-sighted in his characterization of Vesper's actions after he attempts to reclaim his masculine facade.

Anyway, people far more intelligent than I have more to say about Bond here (even if it's been mentioned before).

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#103 Post by Andre Jurieu » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:59 pm

MichaelB wrote:A friend of mine used to work for the CIA. Practically her entire working day was spent listening to Russian radio broadcasts and highlighting anything interesting to translate and pass on to her superiors. Glamorous it was not.

(Mind you, that's based on what she told me, but I'm sure if she'd told me the exciting parts she'd have had to kill me, so I'm quite glad she made it sound so boring).
That's far more reassuring than when I talk to a couple of friends who work for CSIS (Canada's version of the CIA). They refuse to divulge a single hint about what they do for a living, which scares the crap out of me.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#104 Post by cdnchris » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:40 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:
MichaelB wrote:A friend of mine used to work for the CIA. Practically her entire working day was spent listening to Russian radio broadcasts and highlighting anything interesting to translate and pass on to her superiors. Glamorous it was not.

(Mind you, that's based on what she told me, but I'm sure if she'd told me the exciting parts she'd have had to kill me, so I'm quite glad she made it sound so boring).
That's far more reassuring than when I talk to a couple of friends who work for CSIS (Canada's version of the CIA). They refuse to divulge a single hint about what they do for a living, which scares the crap out of me.
It's weird but CSIS actually scares me more than the CIA. I have no idea why and have no basis for it, but it might be related to what you said, the fact they really don't want you to know they exist or what they do.

User avatar
a.khan
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:28 am
Location: Los Angeles

#105 Post by a.khan » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:58 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:
adnankhan wrote: ... but what does trouble me (a little) is people trying to over-intellectualise Bond, and especially the new film.
As far as I know from the various reviews I've read, no critic/reviewer has over-intellectualized the film, apart from saying this is a departure from previous Bond films

...It seems pretty clear that Casino Royale is attempting something a bit different than the rest of the franchise and that's worthy of being pointed out in reviews/analysis/critiques.

I'm also not understanding why it's wrong to over-intellectualize any genre of film. Are we supposed to believe that certain types of films are not meant to be analyzed as to how they function?
You're right here. When I said people were over-intellectualising I actually meant to draw attention to the general sugar rush reaction to "Casino Royale." But, as you have clearly demonstrated, I walked into this one naked. I must eat humble pie. A lot of it.

To clarify, my *main* problem with the film is that just because its different from the previous version of Bond doesn't, in my humble opinion, entitle it to a kind of state of grace. I must also confess that part of the frustration lies in my own disappointment and apathy towards the film; "Casino Royale" held a certain measure of appeal even for an old fogey like me. Technically the film does kick a lot of ass but, on the same merit, it's a perfunctory action film at best. Mechanical, showing at the seams. I'm hoping now that they are done with introducing this new Bond, the next film will hopefully have less, for a lack of a better term, teething problems. And that's the last thing I have to say on the subject.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#106 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:10 pm

cdnchris wrote:
Andre Jurieu wrote:
MichaelB wrote:A friend of mine used to work for the CIA. Practically her entire working day was spent listening to Russian radio broadcasts and highlighting anything interesting to translate and pass on to her superiors. Glamorous it was not.

(Mind you, that's based on what she told me, but I'm sure if she'd told me the exciting parts she'd have had to kill me, so I'm quite glad she made it sound so boring).
That's far more reassuring than when I talk to a couple of friends who work for CSIS (Canada's version of the CIA). They refuse to divulge a single hint about what they do for a living, which scares the crap out of me.
It's weird but CSIS actually scares me more than the CIA. I have no idea why and have no basis for it, but it might be related to what you said, the fact they really don't want you to know they exist or what they do.
As long as the CIA are capable of flying people around the world to secret prisons, they will scare me a helluva lot more than CSIS.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#107 Post by Andre Jurieu » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:23 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:As long as the CIA are capable of flying people around the world to secret prisons, they will scare me a helluva lot more than CSIS.
I bet Antoine's just another CSIS operative trying to distract Chris and I from uncovering all their unsavory business. Save yourself Chris! It might already be too late for me.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#108 Post by Antoine Doinel » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:26 pm

The mongoose will meet the eagle at midnight.

You've been warned.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#109 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:38 am

adnakhan wrote:To clarify, my *main* problem with the film is that just because its different from the previous version of Bond doesn't, in my humble opinion, entitle it to a kind of state of grace.
I don't think I've encountered anyone who likes this film because it's different from the latest Bond trajectory. On the contrary, with a beloved and long-lasting film series such as this, alterations can be fatal since the likelihood of rejection is so much higher. Saying that, from what I've heard, most people were very skeptical at the new choices being made for this film (including me); some were even downright hostile. I don't think anyone values this movie as change for change's sake; I think its success is that the changes were in the right direction and have produced a solid, exciting film in a series often burdened with dreck.

But then we should look at these so-called changes in perspective. Part of the motivation was to recentre Bond and get back to the feel of the original Ian Fleming novels, hence we have the first in a long time of actual adaptations of his work. Secondly, it is not the first Bond to try something new or move in a different direction than previous Bonds. With each new actor there seems to be a shift in sensibility. The Moore Bonds, of which I have never seen a whole film, but whose parts generally irritate me, were less hard-edged and more goofy. With Dalton we had another of these moves back to the grittier edge of the Fleming novels (so Casino Royale's approach is hardly novel). Casino Royale it must be admitted is not a radical departure from Bond as a whole. I prefer to see it as a recentering after the monumental missteps that were the last two Bonds. It comes out of I think a negative reaction to Bond's then current trajectory.

I think its changes are being overemphasized. If the movie is catching a lot of interest, it is not because it has changed, but because what it has changed works, and with enormous success. Of course you don't feel it works very well yourself, fair enough. But those who do feel that it is solid moviemaking and that as a movie as a contained whole it is sucessful in its aims. I think people value that success and judge it against its newness. Thus it is not about the new so much as it is about the success of the endeavour.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#110 Post by Andre Jurieu » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:22 pm

Plus, it essentially includes an hour long no-limit Texas Hold 'Em poker movie in between an hour long action movie, which I'm guessing is perfectly suited to the sensibilities of the majority of males under 50. Actually, probably a lot of males over 50 as well.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#111 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:34 pm

[quote="a.khan"]A pivotal scene betrays the tone of the new Bond film: Daniel Craig's muscular spy has just crippled a nemesis with a bullet. As the injured man writhes in the dust, his unseen assailant hovers over him - sniper rifle slung over shoulder - and then suddenly introduces himself: “Bond. James Bond.â€

patrick
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Quantum of Solace (Marc Forster, 2008)

#112 Post by patrick » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:08 pm

News from the NY Times:
Marc Forster to Direct Next Bond Film

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 19, 2007

Filed at 3:54 p.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- James Bond has a new handler.

Marc Forster will direct the next Bond adventure, due out Nov. 7, 2008.

''I have always been drawn to different kinds of stories and I have also always been a Bond fan, so it is very exciting to take on this challenge,'' Forster said in a statement Tuesday from Sony Pictures, one of the studios behind the Bond franchise.

''The new direction that the Bond character has taken offers a director a host of fresh possibilities,'' said Forster, director of last fall's Will Ferrell comedy ''Stranger Than Fiction,'' ''Monster's Ball,'' which won Halle Berry the best-actress Academy Award, and ''Finding Neverland,'' a best-picture Oscar nominee.

Daniel Craig will return to play Bond after his debut as the British superspy in last year's ''Casino Royale,'' a hit with critics that became the top-grossing Bond movie with nearly $600 million worldwide.

The not-yet-titled 22nd Bond movie begins shooting in London this December.

Forster worked with Sony on ''Stranger Than Fiction,'' which starred Ferrell as a meek tax accountant suddenly able to hear the voice of a mysterious narrator in his head recounting his life and foretelling his death.

''He's an actor's director,'' said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures. ''He approaches material with intelligence and taste. What makes him the perfect choice for `Bond 22' is that he will bring to this film all the elements Bond audiences expect -- action, humor, suspense and thrills.''

The Bond films are produced by Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli for Sony and MGM.

Sony Pictures is a unit of Sony Corp.; MGM is owned by a consortium of Providence Equity Partners, Texas Pacific Group, Sony Corp., Comcast Corp., DLJ Merchant Banking Partners and Quadrangle Group.
I really enjoyed Stranger Than Fiction; I'm pretty ambivalent about Forster's other work. Since this film is supposed to be a direct sequel to Casino Royale, it would have been nice if Martin Campbell had returned to direct.
Last edited by patrick on Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#113 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:01 pm

Forster does seem an odd choice to direct what is primarily an action film, given that his output favours intimate character dramas.

Given Campbell's track record with Bond, I would feel much safer with him as the director. After the high of Casino Royale it would be very easy to wreck this movie; indeed, the past forty years have amply demonstrated how easy it is to make a shitty Bond film.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#114 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:16 pm

This sort of is a first for the series to have a "name" director, that's made successful films outside the franchise, is it not?

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

#115 Post by Jeff » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:32 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:This sort of is a first for the series to have a "name" director, that's made successful films outside the franchise, is it not?
Michael Apted had received a lot of attention for Coal Miner's Daughter, Gorillas in the Mist, Gorky Park, and especially the Up series long before he directed The World is Enough.

But yeah, it's kind of unusual.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#116 Post by MichaelB » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:19 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:This sort of is a first for the series to have a "name" director, that's made successful films outside the franchise, is it not?
Lewis Gilbert has also had some big non-Bond hits (Reach for the Sky and Alfie preceded his Bond involvement, Educating Rita and Shirley Valentine followed it) - and, like Forster, he wasn't (and isn't) recognised as an action director.

To be honest, applying the auteur theory to Bond films is pretty pointless. I seem to recall an interview with Apted in which he said that he wasn't bothered by his lack of action movie experience as the second unit would be handling pretty much everything in that department, leaving him to concentrate on the drama.

If Bond has an auteur at all, the surname's most likely Broccoli.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#117 Post by DrewReiber » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:04 am

MichaelB wrote:To be honest, applying the auteur theory to Bond films is pretty pointless.
I could do that with any of the films by John Glen.
I seem to recall an interview with Apted in which he said that he wasn't bothered by his lack of action movie experience as the second unit would be handling pretty much everything in that department, leaving him to concentrate on the drama.
And thanks to brilliant filmmakers like Apted, the franchise nearly collapsed. I remember how absolutely tedious every bit of Enough was and the action was so lifeless it seemed as if there wasn't anyone behind the camera. I'm also pretty sure it's the only film where Bond can be seen walking past machine gun fire within 7 feet (over and over) and not pretend they are anything more than blanks. If there was ever an argument for how directors should at least converse with 2nd unit, it was Apted's waste of celluloid. My favorite memory of seeing that movie theatrically was watching my father walk in the first 10 minutes, rambling about how he couldn't take it anymore.

As much as I can't stand his work, I must admit that Haggis is about the only thing left to hold this franchise together beyond Campbell's departure. I just hope he's getting enough financial reward to make up for having to actually read and write over material from Purvis and Wade. I also pray that Robert Rodriguez's career isn't sunk by their contributions to Barbarella. Man, it still boggles my mind that the writers of classics like Die Another Day were valued more highly than Brosnan. Ugh.
If Bond has an auteur at all, the surname's most likely Broccoli.
I just hope you're not implying Barbara as well.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#118 Post by Antoine Doinel » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:26 pm

Matt Zoller Seitz nominates the film for best gay porn movie of the year.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#119 Post by Matt » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:37 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Matt Zoller Seitz nominates the film for best gay porn movie of the year.
That post was written by Lauren Wissot.

Roger_Thornhill
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:35 pm

#120 Post by Roger_Thornhill » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:58 am

The "Hi I'm from CIA, we're brothers", "Great! Let's work together!" moment was strictly for kids. In fact the whole film felt like a video-game coordinated, corporate sponsor friendly, Anglo-American feelgood excercise to rally around our common dark-skinned enemies (the MonteNEGRO ally had to be a turncoat since he had an accent) like the Africans, and those dark skinned, Mediterranian something or others.. Arabs I guess... who like to blow up planes and shit.
I know this reply is eons late and for that I apologize, but I felt compelled to reply. Anyhow, you mention that you felt one of the problems with "Casino Royale" is that it rallies white Anglo-Americans against "our common dark-skinned enemies." You even mention the bit with Felix Leiter teaming up with Bond before going into your views of race in the picture. It's been quite a while since I've seen "Casino Royale," but if I recall Felix Leiter is played by Jeffrey Wright, who's an African-American actor. You also suggest that the "MonteNEGRO" character (who's paler than Bond) is a turncoat because he has an accent. If I remember correctly, the "MonteNEGRO" character turns out to be likely innocent as it wasn't him but Vesper who betrayed Bond to save her French-Algerian boyfriend.

I also find it odd to suggest that because a Bond villian has an accent that the film is somehow denigrating towards non-Anglo-Americans as Bond works for MI-6, which is the international spy agency of the United Kingdom as opposed to their domestic spy agency MI-5. Bond is supposed to be spying on people who aren't British. In any event, there are also a number of Bond villians throughout the series of either American (Walken's Max Zorin in "A View To A Kill") or British (Sean Beans' Alec Trevelyan in "Goldeneye") nationality. And, in any event, most of the Bond villians during the Connery and Moore years sported British accents even if their character weren't from the British Isles.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#121 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:50 pm

Shooting started on January 3rd and the studio is eyeing a November 7th release date. Jeffrey Wright is returning as the CIA agent and Gemma Arterton has been cast as an MI6 agent. The Bond girl will be Hitman thong wearer Olga Kurylenko.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#122 Post by Antoine Doinel » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:31 pm

First pics.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#123 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:27 am

According to the BBC news the next Bond will be titled The Quantum of Solace.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

#124 Post by John Cope » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:36 pm

This is great news because to me it indicates that the project is on the right track after all and somebody involved is serious about continuing in the vein established last time around.

Between this and the Amalric news things are shaping up very nicely.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#125 Post by Antoine Doinel » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:46 pm

Xan Brooks at the Guardian digs a bit deeper into the title and finds out that in the actual short story, 007 is nothing more than a bit player. Moreover, he is concerned what bearing the title have on the usually awful theme song.

I say the producers should go for someone in the Philip Glass or Brian Eno sphere to compose the music for such a......interesting title.

Post Reply