› ›

Would you rather Dave Bautista OR Javier Bardem return to the Bond universe?

1…206207208209210212»

Comments

  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 2,124
    Roger Deakins for sure.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,395
    2016's Skyfall.

    Ah, here's a film I don't know 😊.

    Deakins' cinematography is unrivalled, so yes, anytime. I still think that a Hans Zimmer score in an otherwise good movie is generally akin to pouring ketchup on a three-star dinner course.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,866
    Deakins for sure. He’s the GOAT at what he does.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 16,141
    Seve wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    How many of these deaths are central to the plot or inciting incidents? They happen within the story, are a result of the plot, but the plot itself is not revenge driven. Even in YOLT, Bond goes to Japan oblivious that he will find Blofeld there. It's the straightest revenge story of the novels (although FRWL is one film SMERSH's perspective), yet him finding Blofeld is completely coincidental.

    As I said, more than one thing can be true

    Look beyond the surface at the mechanics of writing
    The author chooses the circumstances by which his character will approach the subject

    Clearly YOLT the novel is about how Tracey's death affects Bond and the revenge motive is a central theme.

    As I quoted previously
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's are some comments, relating to Book-Bond's SMERSH revenge motivation, from Jamesbond.fandom.com

    "Since these incidents Bond has sought revenge on a number of occasions beginning with Fleming's second novel Live and Let Die where Bond is almost completely uninterested in disrupting Mr. Big's setup to finance Soviet operations until he learns that Big is an agent of SMERSH. After learning this Bond makes it a personal mission of vengeance against the organisation."

    "He had another mission of personal vengeance in Goldfinger after learning Auric Goldfinger is the treasurer of the agency."

    Fleming was writing in the spy / secret agent genre, and revenge is one ingredient among many that he could deploy in order to vary the flavour.

    So IMO you're splitting hairs, even Charles Bronson / Paul Kersey doesn't begin "Death Wish" seeking revenge until events trigger it. After what happens to his family, his intial expectation is that the police will handle it, he doesn't go out and buy a gun, he is given one as a gift by a friend and carrys it for self defence. There is more depth to DW than it's given credit for, which set it apart from most of the subsequent knock-offs it inspired.

    NB Death Wish the book is an examination of an aspect of urban American society in the 1970s, not intended to be the "personal revenge wish fulfillment fantasy" it has become known as. In the film the original questions are still there, but the emphasis, and thus the implied conclusion drawn, is very different.

    Wikipedia says

    "In 1975, Brian Garfield (the author) was disappointed in the 1974 film adaption. He described it as "incendiary", because he felt upset that the film's audience was encouraged by the violence and vigilantism, despite the story being against both topics in his book, in which Charles Bronson agreed with.

    Garfield thought that Bronson was miscast as Paul Kersey, because when the action-star appeared on screen, Garfield commented "you knew he was going to start blowing people away", which spoiled the plot-twist of his story for the audience who had never read the book.

    Paul was originally depicted in the novel as something of a pacifist weakling, with no previous life experience dealing with issues of revenge or violence.

    Bronson noted that, given he was really known better as a customary Hollywood tough guy, he was ill-suited for the part, saying, "I was really a miscast person. It was more a theme that would have been better for Dustin Hoffman or somebody who could play a weaker kind of man. I told them that at the time." The screenplay went through several writers and revisions to better adapt the role for Bronson."

    Did I say that it was mutually exclusive? I said, on the whole, and not to split hair or trying to defend an argutie, all I said, with all the nuance I can bring, is that Bond plots as a whole are generally not very revenge centric. Yes, there can be revenge elements in it, in some stories more than others. But they are rarely strict, "heavy" revenge stories the way, say, I, The Jury or Get Carter are. And that is all I'm saying.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,132
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    2016's Skyfall.

    Ah, here's a film I don't know 😊.

    Deakins' cinematography is unrivalled, so yes, anytime. I still think that a Hans Zimmer score in an otherwise good movie is generally akin to pouring ketchup on a three-star dinner course.

    Winner winner chicken dinner! You caught my error, I was wondering if anyone ever reads the text with the question. I know know at least one person does. LOL!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,395
    thedove wrote: »
    I know know at least one person does. LOL!
    Know know is a no-no. 😁
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,653
    Hands down, Deakins
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 28 Posts: 19,239
    I would go Deakins, but it’s not happening so I don’t mind Zimmer doing another. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with NTTD’s score, indeed it’s got some nice thematic stuff for my money, so I’d be fine with it. I’d be more excited by others perhaps, but I think he’d do a perfectly decent job.
  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    Posts: 149
    Deakins
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,827
    Afraid I'll have to swim against the tide on this one.

    I'm sure SF's cinematography is technically well done, but I don't like the film's look at all. Yet, Deakins is clearly a talented chap so another go would be fine by me.

    Someone said earlier Zimmer's music on a good film is like ketchup on a gourmet meal, and I would agree with that. Overly sentimental and lacking in any kind of personality, is my general feeling when I hear Zimmer's music. Rehashing OHMSS's music as an integral part of the NTTD score feels rather uninspired as well. On the other hand, a few good scores he did manage to compose, so you never know.

    All in all, not crazy about either man's work on Bond, but if I had to choose I'd go with Deakins.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 671
    Zimmer for me of those two.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,381
    Not sure about this, probably Deakins. Although I will say that when it comes to Bond films, I find the music much more important than the cinematography.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,912
    I think if Villeneuve is asked this question, he's very much likely to pick Zimmer. Modern Cinematographers have now upped their ante. But for Composers, it's about how listenable the score is. I really do think Composers like Zimmer make music for fans to enjoy in isolation. But most Composers make music to fit the film, but not one you can listen to in isolation. For example Composers like Hildur Guðnadóttir make music that fit the films she does, but as a listening experience, her music is quite unbearable and totally lacks melody.
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,627
    Zimmer
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited September 30 Posts: 6,132
    Interesting thoughts and choices here. I would be intrigued by a Zimmer score when he's involved earlier and with perhaps more time to flesh out details and flourishes in the score.

    Lets stick with Denis Villeneuve and see about dream casting. However unlikely it would be to bring actors back.

    Would you rather Dave Bautista OR Javier Bardem return to the Bond Universe?

    Both played baddies first time around. Both received rave reviews for their turns in a Bond movie. Both have starred in Villeneuve movies and maybe just maybe would come back to work with him again.

    Bautista has have the most physical change in his body since playing Hinx so maybe that would work in his favour? Bardem was a blonde baddie and it was over 10 years ago.

    If either actor could come back, which one would you rather did?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,653
    I'll go with Dave; physically he has downsized considerably and it my be interesting to see him flex his acting muscles in a Bond film.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,381
    Once you see Bardem as Silva you can't unsee it. Plus it was left ambiguous whether Bautista's character survived, so wouldn't mind a return of Hinx, using his thumbnails and double-barrelled pistol a bit more.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,912
    For me, I think these two characters should remain in Craig's era.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 16,141
    Bautista by default: Bardem was perfect as Silva, his character so iconic, his return either as him or another character just wouldn't work. Bautista I could see him coming back as another henchman or a reset Hinx. Now let's me be clear: I don't think it's a good idea either, but it's a better idea.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,132
    I am not saying they come back as their characters, though with Dave that is a possibility I suppose. I was wondering which actor would you like to see return to a role in Bond's world or movie.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    edited September 30 Posts: 2,685
    Preferably neither - I'd keep them in the Craig era. But Bautista if I had to give an answer off the cuff.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,381
    Yeah neither then.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 671
    Bardem without any hesitation.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 7,037
    Bardem is a LEGEND.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 671
    Univex wrote: »
    Bardem is a LEGEND.

    Such a great actor.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,395
    Mr. Hinx was ultimately a stupid, superfluous run-of-the-mill henchman. Maybe Bautista was wasted in this role, and it wasn't his responsibility. Bardem was one of the most iconic Bond villains that can't be detached from his role in SF. I guess I'd rather not have either of them in a future Bond movie, for the reasons mentioned.
  • TroyTroy
    edited October 1 Posts: 383
    The casting the same actors in different roles seemed to an almost trademark of EON. In some ways, it was almost quaint/homely, as if Broccoli/ Saltzman had their own rep company. But I’d rather leave that practice in the EON era.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 16,141
    thedove wrote: »
    I am not saying they come back as their characters, though with Dave that is a possibility I suppose. I was wondering which actor would you like to see return to a role in Bond's world or movie.

    I understood. I just think when you have a memorable role as a villain in a Bond movie, I don't think it's a good idea to be cast as another character. And I know it has precedents in the franchise, but as a general rule I don't think it's a good idea, especially if the role was iconic. Anyway, given the choice, taking into account it's a reboot, I'd say have Bautista return as Hinx, not another character, and give him a bit more to do.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,936
    I'd strongly oppose Bautista come bak as Hinx. First, it's a character from the Craig era, second, he's notably older, whilst we're expecting a younger Bond, which makes no sense in even the saga-way of thinking. It would connect two films in a direct way, where I think indirect is the only way to go (like the ejection button in the DB5 in SF).

    However, him coming back playing an older man who used to be in the business, without actually naming him, would be interesting. He could be a source of information (like Raoul in DAD) without actually connecting him directly to Hinx.

    Bardem played too big a role and is too recognisaeble to come back. He did an amazing job and coming back would detract from it.
Sign In or Register to comment.