The Best of BOND; Let's get this over with - Page 178

No, it's the same guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ford

I'd still love to see what Neil Jordan would do with Bond.

There has been something of a yo-yo pattern to Bond casting over the years: Moore, light; Dalton, dark; Brosnan, light; Craig, dark. Connery, of course, was both. Lazenby was a light guy in a dark film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan 


Exactly, that's why I believe they will go lighter after Craig as a way of keeping things fresh. Going from Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig really stirred things up and got people talking, and it paid off big time. The next actor should be nothing like Craig, otherwise an actor resembling Craig might run the risk of being unfavorably compared to his predecessor. This is why EON has taken that yo-yo method. Dalton was very different from Moore, Brosnan was very different from Dalton, and Craig is very different from Brosnan. The next actor needs to be different from Craig.
And to make it clear, I'm not saying they should dump Craig now. I would be happy Craig got to make five films or more.

I don't think they change things just to keep it "fresh", I think they made an active, conscious decision to return to the spirit of the original novels (which are dark and brooding) with Casino Royale, and firmly leave behind goofy tone of past Bonds. They went so far as to restart the series to achieve this. I'd seriously doubt they'd change for change's sake. They like the kind of Bond Craig represents. They'd stick with that I assume. Bond isn't a light hearted guy. He's a dark, depressive killer. The series shouldn't back away from that.

I'm trying to imagine what a lighthearted Bond film would look like in this day and age. Surely they wouldn't go as light as the Moore entries were, and would probably split the difference between the serious and the jaunty-- which gives you something like the latter Brosnan movies. Not sure how I'd feel about a return to that... Edgar Wright would be a great choice as director, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim Edgar Wright would be a great choice as director, though.

Yes he would. Joss Whedon would work too. The Avengers shows he can add comedy without lowering the stakes. For Your Eyes Only is good at balancing the action and comedy. Also, it had a car chase scene with a crappy car years before Bourne.

I think a return to the winking light-heartedness of Moore's films would be terrible. I'll admit to being a Connery die-hard, but I'll take Dalton over Moore all day long. Bond as written is a stone killer, home-wrecker and all-around not very nice fella. He's rich and does the work because he enjoys it. I love the fact that Craig's Bond harkens back to Fleming, and while I love Edgar Wright, he is absolutely not the right choice for the franchise. I'd love to see a Cronenberg Bond, but since that'll never happen I'll settle for a Joe Carnahan or Winding-Refn interpretation.Would love to see Craig stay on, though.

Wright would have to prove he can make a good movie without winking. He'd be under tremendous pressure to keep his vision from being perceived as a spoof.

Whedon's out because EON doesn't hire Americans.

Now how about Matthew Vaughn? He can do both 'gritty' and 'throwback'.

Vaughn might work. 

Maybe Blomkamp. And I know she's American but Kathryn Bigelow would direct the shit out of Bond.

I assume we're writing off Paul Greengrass because he's already essentially made his 'Bond' films.

Kind of what I was thinking, actually. But maybe he really is the best choice; he knows his way around an action scene and if they let him write it we might get a little thematic weight behind all the gadgets and flash. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by akutagawa 

I think a return to the winking light-heartedness of Moore's films would be terrible. I'll admit to being a Connery die-hard, but I'll take Dalton over Moore all day long. Bond as written is a stone killer, home-wrecker and all-around not very nice fella. He's rich and does the work because he enjoys it. I love the fact that Craig's Bond harkens back to Fleming, and while I love Edgar Wright, he is absolutely not the right choice for the franchise. I'd love to see a Cronenberg Bond, but since that'll never happen I'll settle for a Joe Carnahan or Winding-Refn interpretation.Would love to see Craig stay on, though.

Sorry - I'll have to politely take issue with this. Bond isn't rich - he just spends what he earns and expenses the rest. His aunt put him through Eton, and although likely middle class, private school pre-80s wasn't something reserved for the 1%. Also, his motivation isn't that he enjoys what he does. It's a question of duty, which is where the latent drama comes from in later books, as his increasing distaste for what he does butts up hard against his sense of obligation, and eventually overwhelms it. If there is any satisfaction gained from his work, it's pretty grim in nature and derived from the knowledge that he is dealing severely with his country's enemies. He's a patriotic Edwardian soul fired in the crucible of WW2, not the self-realising, existential individual most modern heroes are templated from.

There is something quintessentially old-fashioned and English about Bond. A tough, sadistic, brutal bastard, with deep seated emotions and with enough ingrained charm and social grace to not immediately offend in polite company. Whilst Carnahan and/or Refn would bring the hard edge, I'm not sure they'd get the smoothness. Refn, maybe. Craig and Campbell certainly did.

ETA: of all the names thrown around above, Matthew Vaughn, Edgar Wright or Joe Wright are the three most immediately obvious choices. Although, from a personal perspective, I'd like to see an Edgar Wright movie that is either outside the North London wheelhouse or less geek-bait than "Scott Pilgrim" before he was handed the reins on a Bond film.

^I have to politely disagree to some extent with the above portrait of Bond. Yes he operates out of duty, but he's also an adrenaline addict. He loves (yet also loathes) what he does for a living. All through the novels he gets excited about going into action: but he also "lives it up" before and after almost as a totemic way of staving off death. In Live and Let Die he smokes a carton of cigarettes, eats a lobster dinner with a bottle of booze, and then swims across a bay to plant a limpet mine on Mr Big's boat (and then gets discovered and has to submit to one of many torture scenes in the Bond novels). That isn't a man with a Stiff Upper Lip Doing His Duty: it's a man daring Death to take him.

Also, Bond lives off a Government expense account, so in a sense he operates much like an adolescent. None of the normal mundane responsibilities, which perhaps is why he has that "Patriotic Edwardian soul". He lives in the 00 bubble.

best line ~ "Names is for tombstones baby"

Stockslivevan, I know the Bond films have over the years adopted differing tones, often veering into slapstick and comedy. I do appreciate that these films have their supporters and fans. I just happen to be a big fan of the Bond character as envisioned by Ian Flemming, and the Bond of the Moore films couldn't be more different than the man we meet in the novels. The Bond films I like best are the ones that show us the man so aptly described by Cylon: the fatalistic adrenaline addicted killer. On a basic level it just makes no sense to me that that guy would be out there quipping and yucking it up. That's why I am really hoping that Eon doesn't choose to sabotage the integrity of the Flemming esque Bond we've gotten with Craig, and keeps things on an even keel in the post Craig era.

Of course, there's more to consider than how serious or lighthearted Bond's character and the the films themselves are-- there's also how fantastical the plots and other story elements are allowed to be.

Granted, the level of fantasy often goes hand-in-glove with the level of goofiness. But take "From Russia With Love" followed by "Goldfinger": fairly consistent in tone and in Connery's portrayal, but differing pretty sharply from each other in terms of scale, stakes and fantastic (for the time) technology. The difference between a briefcase with a hidden gas canister and a machine gun-armed Aston Martin, say-- or between securing a Russian cypher machine and nuking Fort Knox.

The two Craig adventures so far have been relatively small-scale and grounded, despite some big action beats. But I'm starting to get the impression that "Skyfall" will be more expansive in this regard. You're not going to see Craig in a "Moonraker" (or a "Die Another Day" for that matter), but maybe we will be getting Craig's "Goldfinger" with the new film. 

So I'm finding myself more and more excited to see what they do with "Skyfall" and what they do afterward to keep the franchise fresh. I would agree with Mr. S that the changeable nature of the Bond series is one of things that makes it so interesting, and has sustained it for five decades.

 Casino Royale does have humor. There is "The last hand nearly killed me" and "Everybody is going to know that you died scratching my balls." What I liked about those lines was it was Bond's way of saying you can kill me, but you won't break me. Craig's Bond movies can have humor without ruining the movie. I'm looking at you Octopussy.

Fleming's Bond was not without his quips, either... For some reason, I always remember Bond's visit to the college of heraldry in the novel "OHMSS", when the curator shows him the Bond coat of arms, with three bezant-- explaining that it has three golden balls.

Bond: "That's certainly a valuable bonus." 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

Of course, there's more to consider than how serious or lighthearted Bond's character and the the films themselves are-- there's also how fantastical the plots and other story elements are allowed to be.

 

Granted, the level of fantasy often goes hand-in-glove with the level of goofiness. But take "From Russia With Love" followed by "Goldfinger": fairly consistent in tone and in Connery's portrayal, but differing pretty sharply from each other in terms of scale, stakes and fantastic (for the time) technology. The difference between a briefcase with a hidden gas canister and a machine gun-armed Aston Martin, say-- or between securing a Russian cypher machine and nuking Fort Knox.

 

The two Craig adventures so far have been relatively small-scale and grounded, despite some big action beats. But I'm starting to get the impression that "Skyfall" will be more expansive in this regard. You're not going to see Craig in a "Moonraker" (or a "Die Another Day" for that matter), but maybe we will be getting Craig's "Goldfinger" with the new film. 

 

So I'm finding myself more and more excited to see what they do with "Skyfall" and what they do afterward to keep the franchise fresh. I would agree with Mr. S that the changeable nature of the Bond series is one of things that makes it so interesting, and has sustained it for five decades.

I think the Bond movies should as a rule not exceed the boundaries of the reality established by Ian Flemming. It's OK for the villain to put Bond through a punishing torture gauntlet, or for a psychopathic killer with delusions of grandeur to stroll around in Samurai armor, but the gadgets shouldn't devolve into sci fi, and the stakes should always feel punishing and deadly dangerous. Bond should remain human, fragile and not a super man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

 Casino Royale does have humor. There is "The last hand nearly killed me" and "Everybody is going to know that you died scratching my balls." What I liked about those lines was it was Bond's way of saying you can kill me, but you won't break me. Craig's Bond movies can have humor without ruining the movie. I'm looking at you Octopussy.

I quite liked the humor in Casino Royale. It seemed to reflect Craig's fatalistic attitude. It was gallows humor. His line about ball scratching is a perfect character moment, it feels incredibly true to the character Flemming envisioned.  I have no problem with quips like "It's time to get out" (smirk), I just can't really imagine what people have in mind when they want Bond to be even quippier and funnier. Moore, and Brosnan towards the end of his run, acted like a guy who used his missions as an excuse to try out lines he'd been saving for the improv comedy club. I can't really see a Bond that quips more than Craig being someone you could take seriously as a government assassin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

Fleming's Bond was not without his quips, either... For some reason, I always remember Bond's visit to the college of heraldry in the novel "OHMSS", when the curator shows him the Bond coat of arms, with three bezant-- explaining that it has three golden balls.

 

Bond: "That's certainly a valuable bonus." 

That sequence with the College of Arms guy illustrated Bond's disgust with the self important snobbery the obsession with family lineage represented to him. His comments about the golden balls was not so much a joke, it was saying that a bunch of golden balls on a coat of arms are meaningless and of no practical value to him. He was being sarcastic and biting. I imagine he had a humorless scowl on his face when he said it.

As to the rumored parallels between Skyfall and Goldfinger mentioned by Slim, suggesting that there is a grander, heightened tone to this latest Bond film, this shot from the teaser calls to mind the lair of Dr No or Stromberg's ocean palace:

If they are gonna go for a Moore type film with Craig they have to follow the FYEO or TSWLM template. They both have the right mixture of serious and lighthearted.

You can't go as silly as Moonraker or A View to a Kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

 Casino Royale does have humor. There is "The last hand nearly killed me" and "Everybody is going to know that you died scratching my balls." What I liked about those lines was it was Bond's way of saying you can kill me, but you won't break me. Craig's Bond movies can have humor without ruining the movie. I'm looking at you Octopussy.

I also love the dark humor like the guy who passes Bond his keys to park his car thinking he's valet and Bond without missing a beat says "Right away sir" and crashes the guy's car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul755 

If they are gonna go for a Moore type film with Craig they have to follow the FYEO or TSWLM template. They both have the right mixture of serious and lighthearted.

 

You can't go as silly as Moonraker or A View to a Kill.

I don't think AVTAK was trying to be light and silly. I think it wanted to be taken serious, the problem was you had a Bond that was waaaaaaay to old to play the part. Moore should have retired his license to kill after FYEO. Still, I don't think even Dalton or even Brosnon could have saved the shitty script and ridiculous plot that was AVTAK, and this is from someone that liked the movie

Quote:

Originally Posted by History Buff 

I don't think AVTAK was trying to be light and silly. I think it wanted to be taken serious, the problem was you had a Bond that was waaaaaaay to old to play the part. Moore should have retired his license to kill after FYEO. Still, I don't think even Dalton or even Brosnon could have saved the shitty script and ridiculous plot that was AVTAK, and this is from someone that liked the movie

Snowboarding to The Beach Boys.  That idiotic San Francisco cop.  All the Walkenisms.  It's not outer-space-silly, but VIEW is definitely silly.  

Quite honestly, the love scenes in View to a Kill are among the most creepy scenes ever filmed. I recall liver spots, and the "bubbles tickle my..." Russian broad.  Bond was into watersports, definitely.
 

Because Moore was so old that's why it seemed so creepy. Though not quite as skin crawling as the ice capades scenes in FYEO.

He's STILL got it

Double Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

That sequence with the College of Arms guy illustrated Bond's disgust with the self important snobbery the obsession with family lineage represented to him. His comments about the golden balls was not so much a joke, it was saying that a bunch of golden balls on a coat of arms are meaningless and of no practical value to him. He was being sarcastic and biting. I imagine he had a humorless scowl on his face when he said it.

 

 

That may all be so... I'm still pretty sure it's a joke about nads, drily sarcastic or not.

Keeping in mind, though, that Fleming wrote OHMSS after the film series had started and he had come around on Connery as Bond. I understand that's why he gave Bond Scottish ancestry and had Ursula Andress make a cameo appearance in the book. Perhaps he was working in the Connery-style dry quip as well-- the Bond mot, as I'm pleased to call it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul755 

If they are gonna go for a Moore type film with Craig they have to follow the FYEO or TSWLM template. They both have the right mixture of serious and lighthearted.

The Moore films do tend to vary the most widely when it comes to tone, it seems. I'm not sure the series could withstand it while Craig is the star. I could see him in something on the order of FYEO, but TSWLM may be pushing it a bit. Again, I think this is more about the level of fantasy than the amount of humor involved-- could we really picture Craig's Bond prowling around some equivalent of Stromberg's underwater headquarters?

I'm right there with you, Mr. S. I was only seconding your assertion that the franchise could stand to take on a lighter tone in the future-- after Craig has departed. But in the meantime, I do think there's room to expand the Craig movies into a bigger arena in terms of stakes and cutting-edge technology. Finding that balance could be a trick, though.

As for the degree to which the films adhere to Fleming's vision-- Mankiewicz did start in on the series later on. I'd almost reverse his percentages on the first four films-- they all follow pretty closely to the books, while still taking great liberties.

Then, I'd argue that almost all the changes were improvements on the source material. Having SPECTRE involved in FRWL is pretty brilliantly worked out, when you set aside that the old pitting-the-superpowers-against-each-other plot has been done to death since. And Goldfinger irradiating the US reserves at Ft. Knox is far more ingenious than simply trying to cart it away, as in the novel. That's some good screenwriting.

It's funny that Bond even comments on how impractical it would be to try to steal all that gold in the film... Thirty years later, villains did precisely that in "Die Hard: With a Vengeance"-- and thanks to "Goldfinger", that shit always bugged me.

I take your point on DR. NO-- though I just assumed the good doctor had better things to do in the film (like toppling missiles) than fuck around with Bond... Hell, either scenario begs the question of why Dr. No didn't just have some henchman park a bullet behind Bond's ear-- and that's question you're better off not asking in a Bond adventure.

Still, you have to give the advantage to the film on Dr. No's death: drowning in the reactor pool, his robot hands slipping for purchase... vs... buried by a ton of bat guano, wasn't it--?

A scene from the book I would have liked to see in CASINO ROYALE: the two bombers, one with the blue case, one with the red. That was some exciting shit in the novel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

 

That may all be so... I'm still pretty sure it's a joke about nads, drily sarcastic or not.

You're free to believe whatever you want to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

 

Keeping in mind, though, that Fleming wrote OHMSS after the film series had started and he had come around on Connery as Bond. I understand that's why he gave Bond Scottish ancestry and had Ursula Andress make a cameo appearance in the book. Perhaps he was working in the Connery-style dry quip as well-- the Bond mot, as I'm pleased to call it. 

 

That's a good point, it's true that Bond certainly had his fair share of quips once he met up with the allergy afflicted women atop the mountain base.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

I'm right there with you, Mr. S. I was only seconding your assertion that the franchise could stand to take on a lighter tone in the future-- after Craig has departed. But in the meantime, I do think there's room to expand the Craig movies into a bigger arena in terms of stakes and cutting-edge technology. Finding that balance could be a trick, though.

 

It just seems like cutting edge technology is the purview of the Mission Impossible series, rather than Flemming's Bond. The movies have had their share of high tech over the years, but the man Flemming wrote about was a down and dirty cold war killer, and more suited to dangerous missions behind Soviet lines (FRWL) than science fiction gadgets.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

Then, I'd argue that almost all the changes were improvements on the source material. Having SPECTRE involved in FRWL is pretty brilliantly worked out, when you set aside that the old pitting-the-superpowers-against-each-other plot has been done to death since. And Goldfinger irradiating the US reserves at Ft. Knox is far more ingenious than simply trying to cart it away, as in the novel. That's some good screenwriting.

 

It's funny that Bond even comments on how impractical it would be to try to steal all that gold in the film... Thirty years later, villains did precisely that in "Die Hard: With a Vengeance"-- and thanks to "Goldfinger", that shit always bugged me.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan 

Yeah some movies made improvements from the source. GOLDFINGER is the finest example. Only in a couple of cases I wish the films came closer to the books are like DR. NO. The book had a great sequence with Bond crawling through the air ducts and the movie makes no real good use of it, turning it from an experiment Dr. No is playing on Bond to a simple escape sequence which only ruins the credibility of the villain placing his prisoner in a cell that is ridiculously easy to escape.
I think CASINO ROYALE would have benefited from taking more pages out of the book.

It's a big shame the Connery films were not closer in spirit (and sequence) to the Flemming novels. Starting the film franchise with Dr No makes little sense, and I think Smersh is a better villain for FRWL than Spectre. Bond's journey through No's psychological gauntlet of torture is one of the highlights of the series, and it's a shame they didn't replicate it on film. 20 000 Leagues proved you could do a damn scary giant squid with practical FX, so I don't doubt it would have been a brutal and nightmarish ordeal for Connery to survive. It says everything about his character that he just refuses to give up, living to claim his revenge.

You're right about Goldfinger. It's not a particularly enjoyable book, and the material with the mafia seems endless, and the plot is hard to take seriously. The film is a definite improvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

I take your point on DR. NO-- though I just assumed the good doctor had better things to do in the film (like toppling missiles) than fuck around with Bond... Hell, either scenario begs the question of why Dr. No didn't just have some henchman park a bullet behind Bond's ear-- and that's question you're better off not asking in a Bond adventure.

 

Still, you have to give the advantage to the film on Dr. No's death: drowning in the reactor pool, his robot hands slipping for purchase... vs... buried by a ton of bat guano, wasn't it--?

 

A scene from the book I would have liked to see in CASINO ROYALE: the two bombers, one with the blue case, one with the red. That was some exciting shit in the novel.

I do give advantage to the film for No's death, but the torture scenario is one No had put men through before, and he had no reason to suspect Bond would survive. He pretty much condemned him to death. It was a matter of scientific curiosity how long he'd endure, but as far as No was concerned, the ultimate conclusion was inevitable. Bond only survives with luck, a small length of wire he fashions into a spear (something the Doctor could not have anticipated) and a nearly superhuman ability to absorb punishment - a refusal to give in to weakness.

The bomb scene in Casino Royale was a good one, but the film was pretty over stuffed as it was. Without drastically reworking the screenplay I don't think there would be room for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan 

Not with Craig's Bond. Maybe whoever gets the job next and has the right sense of humor to pull it off. We'll see.
The Bond films have not always been slavish to Fleming's books. Even the Craig films while coming more close to it took plenty of liberties. Tom Mankiewicz once said that Bond films only had 10% of something from the novels and the rest of the 90% was its own prerogative, especially after GOLDFINGER changed the game. That's pretty accurate. CR kept the tone and basic premise intact but it definitely went for its own in how it all plays out (the premise of the book doesn't even start until midway through the flick), keeping a lot of the staples that made the series popular such as the emphasis on stunts and extravaganza that the Moore films solidified.

I'm not sure why the series should be beholden to how they treated the novels in the past, especially after they went back and rebooted the character from the beginning with the specific prerogative to go back to the character as envisioned by Flemming - which is antithetical to the lighter, funnier Bond of the late 60s and 70s.

Not quite sure where you're coming from re: FRWL. It's perhaps the most faithful adaptation of all the films, unless you really get hung up on the SPECTRE/SMERSH thing. I was going to say that the film could have retained more of Red Grant's backstory, but then I remembered the film totally opens on a sanctioned murder by moonlight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

Not quite sure where you're coming from re: FRWL. It's perhaps the most faithful adaptation of all the films, unless you really get hung up on the SPECTRE/SMERSH thing. I was going to say that the film could have retained more of Red Grant's backstory, but then I remembered the film totally opens on a sanctioned murder by moonlight.

Is this post directed towards me? I have no problem with FRWL. It's one of my favorite Bond films.

Just this bit. Forgive me if I misread it:

The dedicated Cold Warrior in me has always been a little dismayed by the fact that the Soviets and SMERSH were never the real adversary in the film series. The Russians were more often than not the innocent dupes of the madman du jour. But the early films were making a stab at continuity, building a world, that I appreciated. And having SPECTRE behind the plot in FRWL gave the story a nice twist that the novel didn't have. Plus it gave us that exchange on the train:

Bond: ""Old Boy'? Is that what the chaps in SMERSH are calling each other these days?" Grant: "SMERSH--? <tsk, tsk, tsk>"... Robert Shaw's delivery there is great, as is Connery's reaction, realizing that it's been SPECTRE all along and he's been played. Of course, the entire scene is so fantastic-- my favorite moments from my absolute favorite Bond film. 

As far as high technology being the province of Mission: Impossible, Dr Harford-- well, that show was one of many taking its cues from what the Bond films had already started.

Look, I love the Fleming books. In some sort of alternate universe, I'd love to see an on-going, period piece television series adapting the novels in order, with all the delving into Bond's psyche that that implies. But the film series has been a separate beast for half a century now, with its own set of tropes and expectations. There's no percentage in being a Fleming purist at this stage of the game.

FRWL is probably the most-grounded entry in the series, and my favorite-- but I also appreciate the grandiose, world-beating elements that the subsequent films have given us over the years. I suppose what I'm saying is-- I want a fucking super doomsday weapon in a Bond film in the near future. If not with Craig, then I'm prepared to wait for the next guy. <crying> Is that so wrong--?

.........

Something else in CASINO ROYALE I wish they'd pulled from the books, over-stuffed as the film may already be: I think they completely bungled Mathis at the end, in order to remove any suspicion from Vesper. I can understand why they did it, but it was handled somewhat sloppily, and deprived us of that great scene in the book when Mathis visits Bond in hospital, after Bond's torture at Le Chiffre's hands.

Bond is slipping into a morass of depression and moral relativism, and Mathis gives him a pretty nifty "Why We Fight" speech (made even more remarkable, in my opinion, because it's delivered by a Frenchman), and winds it up with:

"Surround yourself with humans, my dear James. They're easier to fight for than principles... But don't become human yourself. We would lose such a wonderful machine."

Maybe that's too corny and on the nose to put in a movie these days, but it's one of my favorites. Since Mathis is now dead in the films, maybe Leiter could deliver it in some future entry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

The dedicated Cold Warrior in me has always been a little dismayed by the fact that the Soviets and SMERSH were never the real adversary in the film series. The Russians were more often than not the innocent dupes of the madman du jour. But the early films were making a stab at continuity, building a world, that I appreciated. And having SPECTRE behind the plot in FRWL gave the story a nice twist that the novel didn't have. Plus it gave us that exchange on the train:

 

Bond: ""Old Boy'? Is that what the chaps in SMERSH are calling each other these days?" Grant: "SMERSH--? <tsk, tsk, tsk>"... Robert Shaw's delivery there is great, as is Connery's reaction, realizing that it's been SPECTRE all along and he's been played. Of course, the entire scene is so fantastic-- my favorite moments from my absolute favorite Bond film. 

 

 

I think early on the Connery films did have a good sense of continuity. I think if they'd followed the books more closely it would have been even stronger, but I appreciate the world building they attempted right from the start. You're right, that scene with Red Grant is ace, just like the rest of FRWL. Unfortunately by the late 60s the series had tossed the continuity out the window and films that should have had emotional weight based on what came before in the series were instead missed opportunities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

 

As far as high technology being the province of Mission: Impossible, Dr Harford-- well, that show was one of many taking its cues from what the Bond films had already started.

I'll give you that, I am just saying that while I don't mind Bond using cutting edge tech (steal helicopters like those used in the Bin Laden raid, for example), I balk at the idea of Bond donning a fake out face mask, MI style. I think at a certain point if the tech is stealing the show than the drama takes a back seat. It needs not to be a distraction. Bond isn't defined by the tools he uses, but by the kind of man he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

As far as high technology being the province of Mission: Impossible, Dr Harford-- well, that show was one of many taking its cues from what the Bond films had already started.

 

Look, I love the Fleming books. In some sort of alternate universe, I'd love to see an on-going, period piece television series adapting the novels in order, with all the delving into Bond's psyche that that implies. But the film series has been a separate beast for half a century now, with its own set of tropes and expectations. There's no percentage in being a Fleming purist at this stage of the game.

 

 

FRWL is probably the most-grounded entry in the series, and my favorite-- but I also appreciate the grandiose, world-beating elements that the subsequent films have given us over the years. I suppose what I'm saying is-- I want a fucking super doomsday weapon in a Bond film in the near future. If not with Craig, then I'm prepared to wait for the next guy. <crying> Is that so wrong--?

I'm not a total Flemming purist. Bond is more of a man of direct action in the films than he is in the books, and that doesn't bother me at all (when the action and stunts are grounded and gritty, at least). I just think Flemming wrote a fascinating character, and it's a shame when Bond is reduced to a series of quips and quirks. I also happen to find the idea of espionage more exciting when it's grounded in the real world, rather than steeped in fantasy scenarios. Just a personal preference. If they wanted to send Craig's Bond on a mission to prevent a rogue nuclear terrorist attack, I'd be fine with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

 

Something else in CASINO ROYALE I wish they'd pulled from the books, over-stuffed as the film may already be: I think they completely bungled Mathis at the end, in order to remove any suspicion from Vesper. I can understand why they did it, but it was handled somewhat sloppily, and deprived us of that great scene in the book when Mathis visits Bond in hospital, after Bond's torture at Le Chiffre's hands.

 

Bond is slipping into a morass of depression and moral relativism, and Mathis gives him a pretty nifty "Why We Fight" speech (made even more remarkable, in my opinion, because it's delivered by a Frenchman), and winds it up with:

 

"Surround yourself with humans, my dear James. They're easier to fight for than principles... But don't become human yourself. We would lose such a wonderful machine."

 

Maybe that's too corny and on the nose to put in a movie these days, but it's one of my favorites. Since Mathis is now dead in the films, maybe Leiter could deliver it in some future entry.

The handling of Mathis at the end of CR was indeed a muddled affair. They had so much plot to get through, while plausibly setting up the reveal, that it became hard for them to close out that character properly. I think they did an admirable job, but perhaps the script could have used further tweaking. You're right that it's one of the top Bond scenes from the books, and it's unfortunate they couldn't include it in the movie. Hopefully that dialog can be repurposed and used later in the series like you say.

Nothing EON does with Bond is out of the blue.  Hell, rebooting the franchise with "Young Bond" wasn't even a new idea.  Wilson & Co. pushed very hard to do it back when Moore finally exited the role, but Cubby ultimately decided against it at the time.  Wilson moved forward with it after DAD because Brosnan contract was up and the opportunity was there.  They easily could have made a fifth gonzo (or serious) entry with Pierce, but they decided against it because this was an itch he'd been wanting to scratch for almost 20 years at the time.

As for Craig's eventual replacement?  They will come up with a story and then tailor the role to whoever the choose.  I also won't be shocked in the slightest if it has a lighter tone overall.  That doesn't mean they will go silly with it; just that it will be less grim and grounded.  The formula is in place and they have yet to break it.  Connery set the standard and poor Lazenby wasn't around long enough to differentiate himself.  Moore reset the tone and I'd like to remind everyone that things didn't start getting ridiculous until his fourth turn as Bond.  Hell, they didn't truly go off the deep-end until his sixth and seventh appearances in the role.  Dalton was once again a complete 180 back to overall seriousness.  They tried to combine the two with Brosnan and ended up with an uneven run.  His first two are fairly serious and the latter two brought the silly in spades.  Craig set the tone back to serious again and I have no reason to believe that the next Bond won't be at least slightly more lighthearted than Craig's tenure.

Again though, it all comes down to whoever they choose to become Bond #7 when the moment arrives years from now.

Thank God!

I was seriously afraid they would wait until the last minute again (ala QoS).