› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…747748749750751753»

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,415
    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.


    The scorpion drinking game is something Rambo would do.

    I think Bourne spent his time having street fights.

    It may be the nature of "killing machines".

    That's fine. Love that scene. I like the idea of bond engaging in more dangerous 'local practices' like that. Really emphasises his love of danger.

    I always have to think back to one film podcast talking about Skyfall. In their "nitpicking" section, they mention how in 2012 that 100% would have ended up on YouTube. "Sick scorpion trick on Turkish Beach!" Maybe keep a lower profile, if you want the SIS to think you're dead? On the other hand, the point of the scene is that Bond can't stand doing nothing. So he does that...

    Do love the scene though. To me - if that makes sense - it's utterly Bond and yet something only Craig's version would have done.
  • BurgessBurgess
    edited 1:35pm Posts: 454
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 426
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.
  • BurgessBurgess
    Posts: 454
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 2:23pm Posts: 5,407
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

    I think in general, yes that's a good way of leaning into Bond's traits without completely sanitising him. But I also think there's always consideration for Bond's sexism and snobbery. CR was never going to have Craig's Bond angrily claiming women have no place in the field and should stay in the kitchen (even Fleming downplayed this aspect of Bond by MR, and I suspect even in the 60s that line wouldn't fly). Movie Bond can be a bit of an arrogant womanising b*stard, but he can't have that outright dislike of women. Same for Bond's snobbishness. Go too far, even with a counterpoint, and the audience turn against Bond.
    Burgess wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.

    No, and even if that were the 'joke' it'd still mean Bond is being dismissive of The Beatles. It's a weird line in the sense that it's aged horribly and doesn't make Bond look good. It's a line more suited to something like Mad Men in just how ironic and out of touch it is with that hindsight.
  • BurgessBurgess
    Posts: 454
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

    I think in general, yes that's a good way of leaning into Bond's traits without completely sanitising him. But I also think there's always consideration for Bond's sexism and snobbery. CR was never going to have Craig's Bond angrily claiming women have no place in the field and should stay in the kitchen (even Fleming downplayed this aspect of Bond by MR, and I suspect even in the 60s that line wouldn't fly). Movie Bond can be a bit of an arrogant womanising b*stard, but he can't have that outright dislike of women. Same for Bond's snobbishness. Go too far, even with a counterpoint, and the audience turn against Bond.

    I completely agree. It’s clear that giving Bond a backstory for his distrust of women in CR made some un-modern or anachronistic aspects of his personality more palatable for audiences. Context matters. Characterization matters. Audiences will pick up on these things but they have to exist within the narrative.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,254
    Burgess wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.

    Ha! That's a better way of phrasing it than anything I could think of :)
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,104
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    No, and even if that were the 'joke' it'd still mean Bond is being dismissive of The Beatles. It's a weird line in the sense that it's aged horribly and doesn't make Bond look good. It's a line more suited to something like Mad Men in just how ironic and out of touch it is with that hindsight.

    Older people didn't like the Beatles. That's all.

    To be honest, I can't imagine Bond liking hippies either, so I don't think the line has aged.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,104

    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I find it very Fleming esque too. The whole idea of Bond being in his own little exile is great. You know Bond’s said to himself he’s going to drink until he gets horribly drunk (which is something the literary Bond certainly decided to do on occasion!) Alcoholic behaviour in reality certainly, and SF doesn’t shy away from emphasising Bond’s state of mind, but at the same time there’s something weirdly cool about the scorpion scene and even him looking haggard and putting money in for that McCallan as the sun comes up. Like we’ve stopped short of seeing Bond sleeping on a bench or heaving up the next morning. It gets that balance right.
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AnotherZorinStooge wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TheSkyfallen06 wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    I think the video creator makes the case that the Bond films should not simply bring back the cultural flourishes of older entries, but immerse audiences in a time, in a place and with a people. Bond’s knowledge and tastes are cultivated from a life well lived. I’d argue that a well-lived man is inquisitive and curious and, in many ways, multicultural in his thinking and behavior.

    That’s not to say that Bond’s view of the world isn’t (or shouldn’t) be filtered through British eyes, but Bond’s love and enjoyment of other peoples and customs is a clear motivation and explanation of why he chose to be Britain’s blunt instrument of justice. Fleming’s Bond is a type of colonial or Edwardian Briton that doesn’t (and maybe shouldn’t) exist anymore, but he can be recontextualized.

    The video creator is smart to cite Anthony Bourdain as a possible inspiration for Bond’s modernization. Bourdain was explorative, compassionate and adventurous. Fleming and Bourdain, though separated by time, place, class and politics, shared a love for the unexplored corners of any city. In modern parlance, these two men were always looking for a vibe: a satisfying meal, a stiff drink, a good smoke, interesting people and dynamic living.




    I’ll need to give the video a proper watch. I’d say a big difference between the literary Bond and cinematic one is that the latter doesn’t express many opinions on other cultures/where he visits (partially due to the character’s internal thoughts being overt in the books, but I think there’s an element that Bond can come off as a bit of a snobbish d*ckhead if he starts voicing certain opinions. I’m thinking of the Beatles/earmuffs line in GF - bizzare line which takes me out of the film and briefly makes Bond come off as insufferable).

    Rather than shy away from Bond’s snobbery, writer’s should offer counterpoints within the narrative. Bond’s sexism has been brilliantly commented upon and woven into his interactions with other characters. The same could be done for his snobbery. Or writer’s could do a better job at making Bond more Bourdain than Edwardian in his approach.

    I think in general, yes that's a good way of leaning into Bond's traits without completely sanitising him. But I also think there's always consideration for Bond's sexism and snobbery. CR was never going to have Craig's Bond angrily claiming women have no place in the field and should stay in the kitchen (even Fleming downplayed this aspect of Bond by MR, and I suspect even in the 60s that line wouldn't fly). Movie Bond can be a bit of an arrogant womanising b*stard, but he can't have that outright dislike of women. Same for Bond's snobbishness. Go too far, even with a counterpoint, and the audience turn against Bond.
    Burgess wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Why, Bond is referring to women screaming their lungs out at Beatles gigs. It's not about the music.

    To be fair, if that interpretation is correct, it’s not reflected in how the line is structured or delivered.

    No, and even if that were the 'joke' it'd still mean Bond is being dismissive of The Beatles. It's a weird line in the sense that it's aged horribly and doesn't make Bond look good. It's a line more suited to something like Mad Men in just how ironic and out of touch it is with that hindsight.


    Older people didn't like the Beatles. That's all.

    To be honest, I can't imagine Bond liking hippies either, so I don't think the line has aged.

  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,199
    Beatles fan that I was in 65, yes, the line irritated me. But imagining Bond listening to The Beatles then or now seems out of character. I can't imagine our new, young Bond listening to popular music. Bond doesn't seem the type.
Sign In or Register to comment.