It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I admit I've noticed that sometimes.
I'm more than happy to have Dalton in the late 80s, as short lived and criminal as it was. I would've loved to see him grow as Bond in a further two or three films in the 90s, as he showed that promise. But just like Brosnan was the boy and Dalton was the man in 1987, Brosnan also had the style and charisma that Dalton couldn't match, and that brought him success in his four films. As much as I like Dalton, would he have been able to ride on the waves with just his dramatic and intense portrayal alone, without the strong charm and style a Bond actor needs? It could've sunk badly, much like Lazenby could've sunk in the 70s films with his lack of experience in acting, no matter how much some of us wanted a true OHMSS follow-up with a revenge angle.
It's hard to judge whether an all Dalton or all Brosnan late 80s and 90s would've been better, because for all the good stuff Dalton does, Brosnan did different things well, and vice versa. Dalton was a more captivating actor from a dramatic perspective, but Brosnan was able to realize those Bondian touches of arrogance, style, charm and all the rest better. I don't think either were great physical specimens in the action on most counts, and I certainly don't think either worked with the one-liners well, but that's been a burden for everyone outside of Sean and Roger, who somehow make them feel far more worthwhile than they ever deserve to be. Is how the cards fell the ideal scenario? Could it have been better with all Brosnan or all Dalton? We'll never know, sadly, until someone finds a device to open up wormholes to alternate realities.
By the time the 90's came along, I think he had lost that edginess. It was almost like he regressed and was trying too hard to be tough. In the late 80's he just had something - he didn't have to try, based on my review of his output during that time (the legendary debacle of Taffin excepted, before BAIN123 posts it).
Still, I'm glad we got Dalton's two, even though I find his tenure to be quite uneven, like Brosnan's eventually turned out to be as well.
It goes back to my point from another thread that EON has to get these guys just when they peak. As an example, I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of casting Craig today (he's not the same as he was in 2006 imho) or Connery in 1971 for that matter.
Spot on @BAIN123. Attaching any narrative relevance to the opening is bit pointless imo. It exists purely to be a high octane chase and I think it works on that level - it's allowed to, being a PTS, but it's nothing more than fluff. The problem with QoS is that 90% of the action is there just 'because'. It's action for the sake of it.
Exactly.
I respect your analysis, but it's a stretch for me to buy. It's just a chase scene. If they'd built in a henchman type who returned later in the movie it could've fleshed it out, but it's purely a Bond vs. Goons chase.
@bondjames, do you think what made Brosnan feel less "edgy" as Bond was the simple fact of that brand? In his other movies you mention that proves to you he had an edge he was just playing a character with no real expectations, and could attack it without any real worries. When it came to Bond, however, the character has such a legacy to it he could've really been lost in it and unsure how to tackle it because of his nerves and the heaviness of the responsibility he had. I get this sense from the man's own words, really. He was stuck trying to do his own thing, or doing a Bond the public had loved in the 60s and 70s. I think that's where some of the unevenness comes in, where he couldn't stick to a vision/approach. The scripts weren't going to work with him on that front either, which must've been frustrating.
There's a lot of cases of this in the series. Sometimes the action has a clear or somewhat foggy story connection, other times the stunt team is showing off for our enjoyment. But sometimes, the only drive is Bond surviving against a mighty force. The ski chase of OHMSS has no ultimate story impact other than Bond has to get the hell out of dodge, or the same thing for the DB5 chase in GF that was there to show off gadgets and depict Bond trying to survive once again. They're great sequences, though, and the fact that they aren't obviously connected to a larger story isn't a big deal. Not every piece of action has to necessarily be that way.
Action has far more variety in that way. Sometimes it can be simply sensational and jarring, other times it can be transitional, with set pieces that feed into the next moment in the script (QoS is a great example of this). Even if Bond's survival is all that's at stake, that's enough of a moment for me to appreciate it, as that's why we watch the films. It's just that I think there's far more going on in the QoS PTS than a fluff sequence. Vesper's final gift rides on Bond getting out of there with White in tow, and that's pretty important for me, especially with how it connects itself to CR's conclusion. I think it's brilliant that CR ends triumphantly, and QoS opens chaotically, showing that Bond's moments of glory and peace are fleeting. He's always got to be ready to move his ass from danger.
Having said that, he expresses supreme confidence and assuredness in The Noble House in that Connery/Moore manner, which is impressive given his relative youth at the time. His voice projection is excellent as well. The only thing that's 'off' for Bond is that his Irish brogue kicks in.
I think he tried to suppress that underlying accent in his Bond interpretation and it impacted his performance negatively. Voice is an important part of the character after all. It always seemed to me like he was whispering as Bond (like Keifer in 24).. The only Bond film where he finally let it go was DAD, and his performance is all the better for it although the accent does show itself. The Pierce in The Noble House is the same Pierce as in DAD, just younger and more dangerous looking.
I wish he had done it sooner.
EDIT: He was not helped by someone's (probably Bab's) attempts to show the character's soft side (starting with that crummy beach scene in GE, followed by the wimping about in the hotel in TND and later the debacle of Baku in TWINE). Someone got the hint by DAD because the effeminate wuss behaviour is kept to a minimum. He is actually excellent in the infamous DAD beach scene. It's Halle who blows it.
Don t you mean to Siena? They are already in Italy.
I did, but you get the point.
You're being very pedantic. What purpose does it serve? It's beautiful and exciting to watch.
And when Bond opens the boot at the end we realise it actually follows directly from CR and then sets up the next scene. So really it works very well in narrative terms as a connection between the two films.
Anyway, how many of the PTS serve a real purpose? One of the very best - GF - has no relation to the rest of the film whatsoever. That is one of the beautiful things about the PTSs - they don't necessarily have to have anything to do with anything. They can just be a bit of fun. Which the QoS PTS most definitley is.
It's not though, it's just another action sequence that follows the modern "flashy cutting" style of action film-making.
Also, if you'd watched even one publicity interview for QoS in 2008 you would have known that this was picking up shortly after CR.
If you don't like it fair enough but I think it's one of the better car chases, in any film, from recent years. They're hard to make fresh, as was amply demonstrated in SP. QOS succeeded IMO.
But yes, it also looks awesome, if that isn't suddenly considered a bad thing too.
They didn't need to put two big chases at the very start of the film.
I just think the notion of Bond steering wildly out of the direction of a cavalcade of bullets is more satisfying than watching him strap White into a chair.
You leave CR thinking Bond is triumphant and has White in his palm, but QoS's opening flips that notion on its head. He had a fleeting moment of success, but danger was never far behind. The chase brings up a lot of questions about how Bond got to that point. Did White alert a team with his phone before Bond took him away? Were agents already at the estate to meet Bond on the way out? For me, it's dizzying, visceral and jarring in ways few action scenes could be.
Also, much of the action in that film isn't really that much more than a self-aware Bourne imitation in terms of it's style, but that point has been done-to-death.
I don't think it's a bad car chase as such but it is an unnecessary one (IMO) and leaves me feeling detached rather than pumped up.