Bond 23 on hold due to MGM sale

[John Picard]

Based on your comments, you're the kind who thinks a movie sucks if there isn't a plethora of shootouts, lazer battles, or car chases. God forbid there be any exploration of the human element as well as character development.

You really don't know me very well at all, then, given that my primary criticism of QoS which you edited out of the post you quoted was that it was just a series of explosions with no character development.

You simply fail to understand the concept of pacing. The scenes in question simply went on for too long. Once we had established that Bond had fallen for Vesper, which we could gather from the first few minutes, the rest was redundant.

It certainly did not help that Eva Green was not up to the acting challenge either.

Fine, then explain your earlier comment by what you meant about "the earlier movies" -- Are you talking Connery or Moore, because if you're talking Moore then I stand by my earlier comments about how the Bond franchise became a farce of itself, starting with his tenure.

Hopefully a delay will mean that they can rethink who James Bond is supposed to be and stop rejecting the things that made the early movies so popular.

Agreed. Obviously Fleming's original works translated well to the big screen or James Bond would not have been the phenomenon that it is today.

Interesting, therefore, that this particular story did not make it to the screen in anything like its original form for 53 years.

That's because Hollywood fucked up Bond from the start.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Agreed. Obviously Fleming's original works translated well to the big screen or James Bond would not have been the phenomenon that it is today.

Interesting, therefore, that this particular story did not make it to the screen in anything like its original form for 53 years.

It was plagued in rights issues. The moment it was available, the producers turned it into a faithful adaptation.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Interesting, therefore, that this particular story did not make it to the screen in anything like its original form for 53 years.

That's because Cubby Broccoli and United Artists didn't have the rights to Casino Royale. The rights were sold to another producer. The rights were sold on a few times and ended up with producer Charles Feldman, who ended up making use of them by producing a James Bond parody. It was only in the late 1990s that MGM (which had acquired United Artists in the early 1980s) bought the rights to Casino Royale.

 

[Hermiod]

Fine, then explain your earlier comment by what you meant about "the earlier movies" -- Are you talking Connery or Moore, because if you're talking Moore then I stand by my earlier comments about how the Bond franchise became a farce of itself, starting with his tenure.

I'm talking about Connery - specifically From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.

I can appreciate your loyalty to the source material. I have no such loyalty. I just want to see good films. The best example I can think of is Fight Club - a book I enjoyed and a film I enjoyed. There were significant differences but the core of the story was the same.

To address the points others are making - the popularity of the books does not mean that you need to make scene for scene interpretations of them. For most book to screen interpretations you just couldn't because the movie would be five hours long. My point about Bond's hospital stay was that it went on too long, it dragged in a movie with other pacing problems that really couldn't afford it. This, coupled with Eva Green's inability to adequately perform the role, meant that the scenes were sadly very dull and felt like they were inserted from another movie.

 

[John Picard]

Fine, then explain your earlier comment by what you meant about "the earlier movies" -- Are you talking Connery or Moore, because if you're talking Moore then I stand by my earlier comments about how the Bond franchise became a farce of itself, starting with his tenure.

I'm talking about Connery - specifically From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.

I can appreciate your loyalty to the source material. I have no such loyalty. I just want to see good films. The best example I can think of is Fight Club - a book I enjoyed and a film I enjoyed. There were significant differences but the core of the story was the same.

To address the points others are making - the popularity of the books does not mean that you need to make scene for scene interpretations of them. For most book to screen interpretations you just couldn't because the movie would be five hours long. My point about Bond's hospital stay was that it went on too long, it dragged in a movie with other pacing problems that really couldn't afford it. This, coupled with Eva Green's inability to adequately perform the role, meant that the scenes were sadly very dull and felt like they were inserted from another movie.

Point taken; however, I thought the wheel chair scenes were well done not just for the sake of keeping faithful to the books, but also to show how Bond considered changing his life and why he desired that change.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Bond's recuperation time is actually much swifter in the movie than in the novel, and the locations and circumstances of his time spent with Vesper in the third act are changed to be much more cinematic than a direct adaptation of those chapters in the novel would have been.

I don't have a problem with the pacing of those scenes, nor with Eva Green's performance. Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, was a disappointment.

 

[AnyStar]

personally i liked the style of the Moore films the best. i'd like to see it go back that direction, but i know its just a pipe-dream...

 

[Captain Craig]

If it takes a few years to get the real cinematic Bond back then so be it I say.

WRONG. Read the books. The James bond from Roger Moore and onward was not the Bond of the books. Go back and read the original Casino Royale and you'll see. Bond became a complete farce with the stupid one-liners and was overladen with gadgets.

Since you bolded my POINT of cinematic Bond you admit you are arguing apples/oranges. I know Flemings Bond is more like how Craig appears and acts. The FACT is cinematic Bond is what EVERYONE knows and with exception to those who came up with Bourne movies knows this era of CINEMATIC BOND isn't JAMES BOND. Original Literary Fleming Bond is its own thing vs Literary Bond of Gardner & Benson(who I enjoyed). So stuff your "go read it" arrogant mantra.

I disagree with Craig, Craig is great.

...why am I the first person to make this all too obvious quip?

It is good cause its weird typing your name knowing you mean someone else also. I think you agree and disagree with me. I said Craig is great also, meaning Daniel.

...Daniel Craig outings as Bond. Craig is a great actor, he's just not Bond and frankly the Bond movies haven't been Bond either, just Bourne-esque.

Craig will stay. He's been the best recieved Bond since Connery critics wise and his performance is always praised. Sorry, this won't be causing anyone to rethink the franchise.

I wonder if all those Goldeneye articles have been put online when Brosnan debuted. I recall scads of positive critical reviews for Brosnan. People seem to forget his positive turn at Bond and how each subsequent movie made more and more $$$$. Brosnan was called 'best since Connery' by more than one outlet. Maybe its just a cliche phrase now since some said it again with Craig. A touchstone perhaps to the originator. Be curious to know if something was similar said about Moore or Dalton.


The article says they expect bids in a few weeks but like Aragorn said if this drags on maybe Craig tires of it or his contract expires(like Dalton). Jackson tossed out the idea that a year might be a good "too much time" scenario. Jackson, do you know how long Craig's contract is good for during this fallow time, what its expiration date would be?

 

[Kegg]

^
Well, I meant I thought Craig is a great Bond.

Besides, both Brosnan and Craig could have been the best Bonds since Connery, which would make Craig better than Brosnan (and given that Brosnan's competition was basically Moore and two aborted efforts, his praise is fairly unsurprising.)

 

[John Picard]

If it takes a few years to get the real cinematic Bond back then so be it I say.

WRONG. Read the books. The James bond from Roger Moore and onward was not the Bond of the books. Go back and read the original Casino Royale and you'll see. Bond became a complete farce with the stupid one-liners and was overladen with gadgets.

Since you bolded my POINT of cinematic Bond you admit you are arguing apples/oranges. I know Flemings Bond is more like how Craig appears and acts. The FACT is cinematic Bond is what EVERYONE knows and with exception to those who came up with Bourne movies knows this era of CINEMATIC BOND isn't JAMES BOND. Original Literary Fleming Bond is its own thing vs Literary Bond of Gardner & Benson(who I enjoyed). So stuff your "go read it" arrogant mantra.

And like I stated, the Bond that Hollywood gave us is utter gadget and snappy one-liner laden shit. Bourne was more the real Bond than Bond was until the reboot with Craig. It's not my fault you're dazzled with shit and consider it to be brilliant. My fault for reading the books and discovering what Bond and the stories were all about.

 

[AnyStar]

I wonder if all those Goldeneye articles have been put online when Brosnan debuted. I recall scads of positive critical reviews for Brosnan. People seem to forget his positive turn at Bond and how each subsequent movie made more and more $$$$. Brosnan was called 'best since Connery' by more than one outlet. Maybe its just a cliche phrase now since some said it again with Craig. A touchstone perhaps to the originator. Be curious to know if something was similar said about Moore or Dalton.

i liked Brosnan as Bond, as a teenager i remember my mom going ga-ga over him on remmington steele, and used to watch it with here every now and then, so he seemed at the time like a great fit. i still prefer Moore's Bond though

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Brosnan was very well received in GoldenEye, but his subsequent Bond films dropped off substantially in critical acclaim, even though the box office remained rosy throughout his tenure. The same thing has happened with Craig going from the lauded Casino Royale to the middling critical reception for Quantum of Solace (although, again, the box office stayed very strong). If Craig continues as Bond - and I think the financial situation will be settled in time for him to do so - hopefully his next time at bat will be better.

 

[Captain Craig]

And like I stated, the Bond that Hollywood gave us is utter gadget and snappy one-liner laden shit. Bourne was more the real Bond than Bond was until the reboot with Craig. It's not my fault you're dazzled with shit and consider it to be brilliant. My fault for reading the books and discovering what Bond and the stories were all about.

RE:bold
If that were true I'd consider AVATAR to be great, which I don't. Again you show your arse side by making assumptions. You also continue to assert I've not 'discovered' the Bond of the books(Fleming), which I have.

No doubt Bourne's movies are what Bonds should've been going back to the '62 start and coming forward but they aren't. Ironically the Bourne movies aren't strictly based on the books either. The two have separate cinematic styles for better or worse regardless of which one's literary style was translated most accurately.

Cinematic Bond has a certain expectation.
Cinematic Bourne has a certain expectation.
They just happen to be different but the Broccoli's are now making Bond into a more Fleming lit Bond and the masses will see that as Bourne ripping. Fair or not that's how its come off.

 

[JacksonArcher]

The article says they expect bids in a few weeks but like Aragorn said if this drags on maybe Craig tires of it or his contract expires(like Dalton). Jackson tossed out the idea that a year might be a good "too much time" scenario. Jackson, do you know how long Craig's contract is good for during this fallow time, what its expiration date would be?

All I know is that Daniel Craig was contracted for four more James Bond films after the success of Casino Royale. Here are some details of Craig's contract, per 2007:

According to the newspaper, Craig’s new contract is based on a sliding salary, which will work on the amount of money each consecutive film earns at the box office and in merchandising. The paper speculates the deal could land the actor as much as £30 million over the decade or so in which the films would be released.

Obviously that means the more successful the films are, the more money Craig has a chance to earn in revenue. The success of Casino Royale prompted the studio to re-negotiate their contract with Craig, upping his fee for the first three films (which includes Bond 23) .

However, there has been nothing that I can find which states any expiration date on Craig's contract. One would assume in order for the studio to release Craig from his contract he would need to be bought out of his contract.

http://commanderbond.net/4628/details-of-daniel-craigs-new-007-contract-emerge.html

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I think the comparisons to Bourne are overblown. Daniel Craig's Bond films are more serious than most of the past Bond films, and they have grittier action, but they still have the glamor and decadence that have always marked Bond - the tuxedos, swank hotels, flashy cars, fine food and champagne, casual sex with a fellow agent with super model looks, etc - that the utilitarian world of Bourne doesn't encompass.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I think the comparisons to Bourne are overblown. Daniel Craig's Bond films are more serious than most of the past Bond films, and they have grittier action, but they still have the glamor and decadence that have always marked Bond - the tuxedos, swank hotels, flashy cars, fine food and champagne, casual sex with a fellow agent with super model looks, etc - that the utilitarian world of Bourne doesn't encompass.

I agree. Despite the comparisons, Quantum of Solace still felt like a Bond film to me. If anything Casino Royale broke away from Bond formula but QoS adhered to it slightly more.

 

[Aragorn]

Is it true the bad guy organization was renamed Quantum so as not to confuse the audience members who are idiots? That would be like Roger Moore going up against Joshua Moonraker.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Is it true the bad guy organization was renamed Quantum so as not to confuse the audience members who are idiots? That would be like Roger Moore going up against Joshua Moonraker.

It's probably not true. They had to come up with a new name for the bad guys since SMERSH is rooted in the Cold War (and isn't a good acronym for use in a movie anyway) and they reportedly don't have the rights to use SPECTRE (an acronym which wouldn't fit the tone of these films in any event), so picking a name that tied in with the title was probably a natural way to go rather than hand-holding slower audience members.

 

[Captain Craig]

Was it the rights to THUNDERBALL that caused MGM to lose the rights to the name SPECTRE? That whole legal issue was the mess that lead to Never Say Never Again. I seem to think so but I'm not sure.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

^^^
Yes, that's what I've read.