What defines the screen Bond and where did it all go wrong?

Getafix

actonsteve wrote:

Getafix wrote:

Meant to post this here.

Have just re-watched the Tosca scenes from QoS and think it is fair to say that this is one of the most authentically (screen) Bondian sequences in a Bond film for a couple of decades. Although overall the film may not be a huge success, I think Forster shows a better understanding of what makes a Bond movie in those 5 minutes than Cambell, Spottiswood, Tamahori and co managed in all their accumulated hours prior to that.

I have been saying this since release. Some of his directorial touches are extraordinary. I just like the idea of Bond cavalierly and rather cruelly blowing the cover of about a hundred Quantum people at their anonymous meeting. Very Fleming thing to do.

It's why history will treat this particular movie more kindly than most posters currently do. Over time I reckon it will climb to a mid-ranker. It's a strange film because Forster sometimes shows that he understands the essence of a Bond movie, but doesn't deliver very consistently. I think it was a shame that he and Amalric decided play down Greene's weirdness and make him more 'normal'. They could have camped it up a little more I think and made him a more obviously evil villain. When I originally heard they'd cast him I thought it was a good choice, although Vincent Cassell would be my French villain of choice I think.

A big missed opportunity was the failure to use water as a key feature of the film. Considering this is supposed to be the villain's underlying evil obsession they could have worked water and the underground reservoirs into the narrative and visuals much more. When Bond skydives into the underground chamber and discovers the dam and reservoir I half hoped there'd be an ellaborate underground base and final battle, ending with torrents of water gushing through parched rivers to relieve the Bollivian villagers. Instead it ends in a trendy hotel in the desert - which narratively, dramatically and visually makes little sense.

Ellis

It went wrong trying to imitate Jason Bourne. Tweak it from the Brosnan era, if necessary. But an overhaul was not needed. Bond has succeeded and stood apart due to its legendary formula. Being a copy cat is not cool. That's my opinion, which we all have.

timmer

I agree with much of the opening post. The series did go off the rails somewhat with LTK and hasn't quite recovered. It's still quite watchable mind you, but the classic Bond for me is films 1-14 plus TLD. Dalton's performance in TLD is a tad overwrought and emotional for my liking, but that quibble aside, the film itself is in the classic tradition.

Getafix

Ellis wrote:

It went wrong trying to imitate Jason Bourne. Tweak it from the Brosnan era, if necessary. But an overhaul was not needed. Bond has succeeded and stood apart due to its legendary formula. Being a copy cat is not cool. That's my opinion, which we all have.

The Bourne-influenced rooftop chase and fight sequences in QoS (and the ending on the Russian council estate) did feel embrassingly like a cheap rip-off. Also, although a brilliant actor, I can't help feel that seeing Albert Finney in Skyfall is going to be another reminder of how much better the Bourne films were during the early part of the last decade.

Jason19

I agree with Ellis post of February 15. You are right -being a copy cat is NOT cool. As for Jetsetwilly - a certain amount of cartoon violence (no real gore) is acceptable for a wide all-ages audience but we don't want any sickening sadism or violence. Remember a film is not a book - I can read things in a book I would never want to see graphically displayed on screen.

Germanlady

Jason19 wrote:

ages audience but we don't want any sickening sadism or violence. Remember a film is not a book - I can read things in a book I would never want to see graphically displayed on screen.

You must ne very faint hearted, if you have ever seen anything graphic in a Bond film or anything curel, I mean CRUEL.

thelivingroyale

Ellis wrote:

It went wrong trying to imitate Jason Bourne. Tweak it from the Brosnan era, if necessary. But an overhaul was not needed. Bond has succeeded and stood apart due to its legendary formula. Being a copy cat is not cool. That's my opinion, which we all have.

exactly. CR rebooted it with a more serious bond but it still was bond, sort of the way LTK felt. QOS felt like a cheap bourne rip-off. It has its moments (all the guys are at that meeting then craig chimes in and says "I really think you should find a better place to meet". That was badass), but overall I think QOS is the worst ever.

JWESTBROOK

thelivingroyale wrote:

Ellis wrote:

It went wrong trying to imitate Jason Bourne. Tweak it from the Brosnan era, if necessary. But an overhaul was not needed. Bond has succeeded and stood apart due to its legendary formula. Being a copy cat is not cool. That's my opinion, which we all have.

exactly. CR rebooted it with a more serious bond but it still was bond, sort of the way LTK felt. QOS felt like a cheap bourne rip-off. It has its moments (all the guys are at that meeting then craig chimes in and says "I really think you should find a better place to meet". That was badass), but overall I think QOS is the worst ever.

I wouldn't look at QoS as I do if it didn't have the huge budget it had. It looks like a low budget film during a writer's strike, and in that respect I'd like it. But its not, it the largest budget film during a writer's strike.

Goes to show you money isn't everything. I feel they could have gotten something at an equal level for less than half the price they spent with QoS, but they still racked up in the box office.

timmer

What QoS lacked, despite its big budget, was escapist Ken Adam inspired set design. So did CR for that matter, but it was a much better movie. The Craig films IMO need a dash of the fantasy element, to spice things up a bit, and a slightly lighter tone.

echo

I don't agree that it all went wrong. But I do think the entire series took a really bad turn into camp around DAF (perhaps inevitably, as the '60s and--for all they knew, Bond--were over). Despite a few attempts to take it all seriously again (FYEO and LTK), it took them until CR to recover.

Getafix

What is taking 'a really bad turn into camp', if not things going at least a little wrong? Any way, like you say, it was probably inevitable. Bond became self-consciously camp because it was no longer possible to maintain a straight face. Hence Roger was the perfect man to take over.

Samuel001

timmer wrote:

What QoS lacked, despite its big budget, was escapist Ken Adam inspired set design.

I'd argue that Perla De Las Dunas had that in spades and was very retro, Ken Adam. With where it located it was also reminiscent of Crab Key.

I think more of this look will be brought into Skyfall if it turns out like we think it will as Gassner seems to know what he's doing. Plus this is a "lighter" more '60's Bond.

The castle at the end of the film should at least come up trumps.

Getafix

Samuel001 wrote:

timmer wrote:

What QoS lacked, despite its big budget, was escapist Ken Adam inspired set design.

I'd argue that Perla De Las Dunas had that in spades and was very retro, Ken Adam. With where it located it was also reminiscent of Crab Key.

I think more of this look will be brought into Skyfall if it turns out like we think it will as Gassner seems to know what he's doing. Plus this is a "lighter" more '60's Bond.

The castle at the end of the film should at least come up trumps.

The exterior shots of the Perla De Las Dunas were actually of a real hotel in South America. It featured in a load of architectural and travel mags a decade or so back. As such, I'm not sure it counts as a 'set' and perhaps shows a little lack of ambition/imagination. The interiors were of Gassner's creation but IMO were a little cheap and Star-Trekky. I think Timmer has a point. Although overall QoS is one of the better looking recent films, since Moonraker there hasn't been a proper, memorable baddie base or any particularly interesting production design. I really felt QoS missed a trick by not including an underground baddy compound when Bond discovers the underground reservoir and dam - this would have been a great place for a final show down. I like to think Skyfall will deliver on this front, but not sure the little Scottish house we've seen is upto the mark.

Getafix

Doubtful about this M-based story line. Hope they don't over do the emotional stuff.

timmer

Getafix wrote:

Although overall QoS is one of the better looking recent films, since Moonraker there hasn't been a proper, memorable baddie base or any particularly interesting production design.

That is a good point. MR I think was Adam's last Bond film. His distinctive set design was unique to him it seems- the use of space and high ceilings, although X-Men First Class did try to emulate Adam, and the look of his early Bond films, and pulled it off rather well, I thought. The producers were happy to admit as much. They were after a 60's Bond look and vibe.
No we haven't seen much resembling Adam, post Adam, although GE IMO did pull off a very Bond-worthy big-lair set-design for the finale. DAD did a nice job with the ice palace too. Bond IMO benefits from a mix of both - both original creative set-design in the Adam mode, plus use of gorgeous location filming, which the latter films have at least done.

Getafix

Ken Adam's influence has been immense.