|
|
FOR REAL BOND FANS!!!
|
By floyd_dbmaxx007
Long before the movie was officially released, there has
been numerous rumors and actual reports that have
been floating around either through the net or by
television. One of them is that this movie is going to be
like what Batman Begins has done; a REBOOT,
restarting the franchise, as if it were the beginning, a
second start, erasing what has been for the past 40
years and the past 20 films. Upon hearing this, I thought
of the idea immediately simply as a load of CRAP; all I
could think that the producers were dumb, since the
franchise doesn’t even need a reboot. Yes, I have to
admit, a part of DAD was bad, but that doesn’t mean the
franchise was ruined. In fact among the other 19 films,
it was the most earner of them. It doesn’t also mean
that the formula that has been reused all over and over
again must be discarded because it is not only tried but
tired, a performance that is not up to high standard. I
have to say that if you are really a GOOD and
INTELLIGENT producer and director you could actually
reuse the same old formula, but weave it in new and
modern ways. But since those were not the
characteristics of the lucky ones who have the franchise
spoon-feed in their mouths, the outcome films were
bad. And not realizing their mistake, they turn it,
actually not just turn it, but twisted it, into a way they
could easily do without having to worry that it hasn’t
reach the high-class level standardized by the other
past GREAT films.
Then there’s the so-called replacement, the new Bond,
Daniel Craig. I’m not taking this on a personal level, but
we all know what has been the problem with the actor,
its his looks which doesn’t fit the supposed looks of the
character. If you didn’t know this, Ian Fleming once
sent the earlier producers a letter of how James Bond
should look. I think we all know about those statistics,
and I do not have to repeat them here. And yes, most of
the characteristics described by Fleming wasn’t
possessed by DC. And don’t even tell me that DC isn’t
that blonde; I have encountered one saying to me that.
He has, in natural, a blonde hair, and you could clearly
see that when he kneels down at the start of the
Dimitrios scene, and when he was in the bathroom
when he was poisoned. You might say that looks
doesn't matter, to some degree I will agree with you
but when talking about an icon or simply just a known
character, appearances matter. It’s like having
Superman’s S shield being replaced with Batman Bat
Emblem; that wouldn’t made a Superman at all. Then
there’s another flaw: DC’s dirty mouth. I am not saying
that I am too perfect that I couldn’t even say one foul
word, but at least when you are being interviewed for
public viewing, at least show them decency and civilized
manners. Having that attitude doesn’t fit into a
character that’s supposed to be a British gentleman,
unless that’s what being a British gentleman means
nowadays.
I would not of course, make a review here just to say
that the reboot idea was crap and that Daniel Craig
doesn’t look any better than the man who played
Henderson in 24. The most important thing in this is
how Bond was portrayed and how Bond should actually
be. If you would tell me now that what DC do is what
Fleming wrote, I would disagree with you. There is the
dark side that we have been waiting to see yes, but
aside that it has been focused on too much, there are
additions to his character that Fleming doesn’t even
wrote that made this new Bond look dumb. If you
actually read those Ian Fleming novels, you could tell
that Bond was highly intelligent. He could describe
things technically, or if not, could compare that one
thing to numerous other things, although that was only
going inside his mind. Meaning, he was silently
intelligent. Now, as said by many others, that character
of Bond would not work onscreen. Instead, Sean
Connery’s Bond expressed that intelligence outside and
physically, making Bond smile and charming and suave.
That’s why the so-called film Bond exists, and it works.
To me, it could have been a great balance of character;
to the outside, Bond was charming and suave, to the
inside he was dark and brooding. If you were a spy, that
would surely works. A suave facade that hides the
assassin underneath. That’s what Sean Connery has
done in his first films. Timothy Dalton was also praised
because he was suave but he was able to show Bond’s
dark aspect. However, the earlier producers took a
wrong step; they have mistaken the charming portrayal
of Bond as the one that makes him famous. That’s what
made Roger Moore’s Bond.
They could have learned from their mistakes, but no;
Ian Fleming has died, so they took it upon themselves
to define a character they didn’t even create, resulting,
in the end, a campy Brosnan Bond. Then suddenly, they
change it, and instead of making it close to what was
Ian Fleming’s Bond really is, damaging the character
furthermore than what has been on the previous
incarnations. You see, when you are talking about an
icon, facts that has been established under them, for
example, continuity, matters. The new Bond ruined it.
Let’s start at the beginning. They say this is an origin
story, when in fact, IAN FLEMING’S BOND HAS NO
ORIGIN STORY. Ian Fleming doesn’t even dare to tell
and tamper with his own creation’s past. The first of
Bond novels was Casino Royale yes, but that doesn’t
mean it was his first career. In fact, it was just simply a
first glimpse of the readers into the world of Bond, and
actually, Bond was planning to leave the service
because he was tired of it. This is no origin, this is a
simply a new beginning, a new start, a start for the
BROCOLLI’S BOND, NOT FLEMING’S BOND.
Here Bond was arrogant. If the producers would want
this arrogant Bond to end as a suave and charming like
in the past, then certainly this is an unbelievable story.
No one could change his character like that, especially
from tough to suave, in one movie time setting. In fact,
doesn’t he even have a childhood where he could have
probably developed his character? And as far as I know,
Bond was a commander in the British Royal Navy,
meaning he was in the military, and when you are in the
military, you are trained and was disciplined, not end up
as arrogant. Oh, and he could do that punches and kicks,
too. It was realistic yes, but when you are a
professional assassin, the kills weren’t dirty. Bond was
all about grace, not energy. But of course they’ve got it
covered too, they made him a brute and energetic SAS,
a FACT THAT ISN’T EVEN WRITTEN BY FLEMING.
"It was part of his profession to kill people. He had
never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as
well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret
agent who held the rare Double-O prefix – the licence to
kill in the Secret Service – it was his duty to be as cool
about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened.
Regret was unprofessional — worse, it was a death-
watch beetle in the soul." — Goldfinger, chapter 1:
"Reflections in a Double Bourbon"
That what’s Fleming wrote about Bond’s feelings about
a kill. He was a patriot, and would kill if and only
necessary. He dislikes taking life, UNLIKE THE NEW
BOND who wasn’t even bothered by killing people.
Some kills might end up in flippant jokes, most during
Moore Era, and it might suggest cold bloodedness. Still,
and at least it wasn’t confirmed, unlike the new Bond,
and it could be assumed that it was simply a diversion
of Bond’s real feeling for the kill. The new Bond would
kill just to save himself, even endangering the status of
his country. Very unpatriotic, and very dumb. The
result? A murderer, a thug pulled straight out of the
street, instead of a patriotic, noble gentleman straight
out of British Royal Navy.
This new Bond isn’t even connected to the past Bonds.
Yes, there are 5 actors to portray Bond, but at least they
are connected in a rough continuity. Still, they are cold-
war agents, even in a post-cold war time. Unlike the
new one, wherein he is a present day, modern and an
“updated” agent, resulting again to deviation from facts
established by the creator. It was important that he was
from the Cold War Era, as real espionage could only
happen during that time. Also, as a fictional character,
time element shouldn’t exist. That is the change of Cold
War era to Modern Era is possible within a year, and
even a month. There could have been no problem, but
they have time element in GE, making Bond immortal.
Still, Brosnan’s Bond was a continuation of the past,
although modernized. He’s got a new M, but still “a relic
of the cold war.” The Lady M could have been the
current M, as she was actually based on the current real
head of M15, Stella Rimmington, during those times.
The real first M of Ian Fleming was a male, Miles
Messervy. The only connection the new Bond has with
the past is this Lady M, making her the first M, UNLESS
THEY DECIDED TO GO WITH LEE TAMAHORI’S CRAZY
IDEA, that James Bond name is simply a moniker, and
each 5 actors have different Bond. And by the way these
thing goes, it looks like it, unless this is a parallel
universe. But as far as I know, Bond is based on real
world setting.
I think and I strongly remember that there are two
things those producers keep reminding us even before
the release of CR. Bond’s no Superman, and there will
be no gadgets. Not Superman? But he could chase fast-
running vehicles just by foot, he could wrestle with a
nail stuck on his back, he could go through explosions
and even crash through walls! Yes, Bond is not
Superman, but that doesn’t he must look like
DARKSEID!!! No gadgets? Cellphones who could do
anything besides from letting people communicate with
each other is a gadget. Laptop is also a gadget, and that
heart thing is also one. Obviously there is a product
placement, every time those cellphones and cameras
and laptops flashes on the screen.
Probably this was a good film, I actually see it as a good
action film. But also for me, it is not a good Bond film.
Daniel Craig might be good in portraying Bond, but it
was a Bond tailored for him, a Bond with a character to
fit his face and personality. I could not blame critics, for
what matters to them only is how a movie should be
done, not how a character should be. FOR AN AVERAGE
PERSON who doesn’t know anything of how James Bond
should be, this could be good and even the best, but not
for someone like me.
When I first saw LTK, I applauded it, there is a good
balance between the suave facade and the dark
assassin, while others see it as a bad film. About ten
years later, many were now considering it as another
good Bond film. I guess I have to wait another 10+
years to see I am correct.
Yes I want to a see a serious Bond, I want the campy
feel off. But that doesn’t necessarily mean to depart
from what has been, and this is clearly a huge or far
departure from the past. Like I’ve said earlier, the if you
are a good producer, you could actually weave the old
formulas into a new and modern ways.
And when we talk about the seriousness of Bond, let’s
not forget, it was Fleming himself who created
cartoonish characters such as Whisper and Jaws.
I want to share with you two things when you are
rebooting a material:
First, there must be fantastical elements within the
setting a character or story was moving or placed in.
That would help explain things on why a character
needed to have a second start, and why the setting
differs from the previous ones, for example a WW2
setting into the present one. The Batman Universe has
that element present in his world, and that’s why
Batman Begins is acceptable.
Second, be sure it’s you who create that character or
material. Or else you’ll end up like the Brocollis that
changes a character that they didn’t even own, they
have become DISRPECTFUL of the real creator .
The film has a good look at the character, even though
that wasn’t supposed to be, but strip it off either the
character named M, or the lovable and catchy tune, or
the gunbarrel sequence (besides, it sucks), or even just
the name James Bond, and it has nothing really to offer.
Here are some strong points I consider that made me go
against DC and CR. I didn't made this up, just got it
from this one site.
Myth 1: Some fans state that Craig with his cold, cruel,
tough looks closely resembles the James Bond of Ian
Fleming’s novels. – In the Fleming novels James
Bond’s regular cover was that of a salesman for
Universal Exports. He normally blended into the
business world, social gatherings and even official
events. If Bond was as tough-looking as Craig he could
never pass for a sales representative and would be fairly
easy to spot as an assassin! Although Fleming had
mentioned that Bond had a cruel aspect to him from
time to time, these references were usually describing a
subtle facet of his appearance and clearly not primary to
his description. It should also be noted that Bond was a
killer by choice, not by nature. He was a military man
and a patriot. He killed because that was his duty and he
was
good at it. This doesn’t necessarily mean he should look
like a killer as Craig surely does.
Myth 2: The fact that Craig is not male-model handsome
like Pierce Brosnan makes him a better actor to play
Bond. - In both the film and novel of From Russia With
Love, Tatiana Romanova described Bond as looking like
as American film star. Considering Fleming wrote that
line for the novel in the late Fifties it would bring to
mind actors like Gregory Peck, William Holden, Cary
Grant, James Stewart, and
Stuart Granger to name a few. None of these stars
resembled Craig. In fact, Fleming himself preferred Cary
Grant and David Niven to play Bond; and neither of
these handsome heartthrobs vaguely resembled Craig.
Myth 3: Craig looks very much like singer/songwriter
Hoagy Carmichael, the model of James Bond’s looks in
Ian Fleming’s novels. – Totally untrue! Craig looks
nothing at all like Hoagy Carmichael. Hoagy had big,
wide-set eyes, a wide mouth and a head that was
unusually long, thin and gaunt in proportion to its
width. He also had a distinguished saturnine profile with
a long nose and prominent chin.
Craig’s face is rather flat in profile; he has relatively tiny
eyes, a small mouth and chin and a rounded face and
head.
Myth 4: Craig is a talented actor and this will allow him
to play the part of Bond despite the fact that he does not
fit audiences’ expectations of a Bond actor. – As far as
acting goes, Tom Hanks is a great actor; would you have
him playing Bond? How about recent Academy Award
winner Phillip Seymour Hoffman? For that matter, if
EON thought the only requirement to play Bond was
great acting chops, why didn’t they hire Al Pacino,
Marlon Brando or Robert DeNiro to play Bond? Why not
hire a fine Shakespearean actor like Olivier, Guinness or
Richardson? Do you really think acting ability is the only
quality needed to play Bond? Of course not!
Myth 5: Casino Royale will be as close to the original
novel as any Bond film ever was. – Wrong again of
course. The original novel was our first glimpse of
James Bond in his career. This film has transmogrified
that story into an origin story wherein the course of one
short mission, Bond develops from an unkempt,
impulsive and reckless person into the smooth,
composed and confident character we all know. Doesn’t
that kind of change usually happen over years or
decades for most people? What 38 year old adult
undergoes a total change of personality in the course of
months? None in reality, and never for the James Bond
of Ian Fleming’s creation.
The Casino Royale novel was set in the 50’s, some time
before the setting of the cinematic version of Dr. No.
The new Casino Royale film is not a remake, however it
is a reboot. It sets the beginning of Bond’s career in the
present day. This reboot wipes out the history of Bond
as a Cold War warrior and as an officer of the Navy,
prior to becoming an intelligence agent. It also
supersedes the previous 20 films, wiping out all the
beloved characters and treasured events from them
including Bond’s marriage to Tracy Di Vincenzo and her
tragic death.
To make matters that much worse, this story will turn
Bond into a combination of Jason Bourne and The
Transporter. Instead of the Navy, Daniel Craig’s Bond
now comes to MI6 from the SAS. This makes him similar
to many clichéd movie heroes trained as special forces
soldiers like Stallone in ‘Rambo’ and Schwarzenegger in
‘Commando’. When you take all of these radical story
and character changes into account, there will be very
little left of Fleming’s wonderfully sublime novel to
enjoy, and almost nothing will remain of the James
Bond we've loved on film or in print!
|
|
