The new James Bond

Casey's picture
Submitted by Casey on Mon, 2006-05-08 01:46

Probably the best movie trailer since the Gladiator teaser trailer with the Conan music. Ladies and gentlemen... the new James Bond: http://movies.aol.com/movie-exclusive-casino-royale-james-bond.


( categories: )

> The way to make a

PhilipC's picture

> The way to make a character three-dimensional or complex is not by giving him flaws that he can't or doesn't try to overcome or is unaware of. [me]

Amended: ...not -necessarily- by giving him flaws....

Dynamic Characters

NickOtani's picture

Developing makes a character dynamic, as opposed to static. If the character is the same at the end of the movie as he or she was at the beginning, then he or she is static. However, if he or she starts out as a bigot, someone who doesn't like people of a certain race, but then gets to know those people during the movie and learns to respect them, then he or she is a dynamic character. Yes, that makes a character deeper and more believable also than the two-demensional, perfect hero. However, someone with a few flaws is more interesting than the good looking, Dudley Do-right types. Dr. House is interesting. He is addicted to drugs and is rude to people, but he saves lives. Denny Craine used to be interesting. He would be a total idiot in his law office but a competent lawyer in front of the court. I like people who are a bit flawed but can still get the job done. I consider myself to be such a person.

bis bald,

Nick

For example, he would

PhilipC's picture

For example, he would neither have won the poker game with 'no sweat' nor would he have made so many non-reflective mistakes as he did in this movie. A better movie would have shown more depth in his characterization - more of how he thinks or how he grows or what issues he is wrestling with or how he makes a particular mistake and then learns from it so we will actually believe that he is smarter or more skilled in the -next- movie.

Harry Potter in his books (perhaps not so much in the movies?) does a better job of actually growing in a way we can see (as does Tom Sawyer in the book of that name) during the story.

> This Bond was more real,

PhilipC's picture

> This Bond was more real, more round, than other Bonds. I've always used Bond as an example of a two-dimensional character, as opposed to someone like Columbo or someone who has flaws. The other Bonds would have simply won the poker games without any sweat.

The way to make a character three-dimensional or complex is not by giving him flaws that he can't or doesn't try to overcome or is unaware of.

It's by giving him development or change and conflicts, internal as well as external. What he does about them will determine what kind of story it is.

The New James Bond

NickOtani's picture

I kind'a wish they would have kept Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. The rationale for using this new guy is that this is supposed to be the prequel to the other Bond movies. It is what happened before Dr. No, and Pierce was too old. However, they ruined that illusion by using cell phones and lap-tops that didn't exist in those old days.

Well, there was enough action and chase scenes, like all Bond movies.

This Bond was more real, more round, than other Bonds. I've always used Bond as an example of a two-dimensional character, as opposed to someone like Columbo or someone who has flaws. The other Bonds would have simply won the poker games without any sweat. They would have been saved before the real torture started, and they may have saved the girl. However, the other Bond's did lose a few girls. Two of them bit the dust in Goldfinger. Bond's own wife got shot in that one movie. Pierce Brosnan's real-life wife, who later died for real, died in one movie, before Pierce became Bond.

Still the difference between the old Bonds and this new one is a little like the difference between DC comics and Marvel. Even though they try to give Superman weaknesses and problems, he still seems not as real as Spiderman or even Batman.

bis bald,

Nick

yeah

Ruby's picture

yes james bond is very cool especially in the torture scene.  It's a mixture of "thats got to hurt" and "man he's brave to be joking around," you know?

Ruby

Craig as James Bond

Craig Ceely's picture

Casey, I'll gladly back language like "Craig adds a personal dimension to the [James Bond] role." Any time. Eye

The Other Craig needs to do something about that hairless chest, though...

Nah...

Casey's picture

I'll cross piss-swords any day with someone who claims to be a bigger Connery fan.

This guy Craig -- he looks like he could walk away from it, no problem. That is essential. It's why Brosnan was a bit tentative in the role (he wanted it so much) until the last film, in which he finally nailed it.

But Craig adds a personal dimension to the role that Connery and even Moore (a bit) pulled off and thus made famous.

My eye says watch this. It's for real. It could be WAY cool.

Sorry. I've acquired a 'bias'...for the original idea of 'Bond'

Rowlf's picture

~~ Sean Connery MADE the mold; Pierce Brosnan came best to re-filling it. (Dalton could've been better, but the writers/producers clearly weren't ready to switch back to 'serious' from Moore's 'light-hearted/cavalier/near-camp' persona which they originally switched to when Connery left.)

~~ Nothing against Craig, but, being the 2nd 'blonde' Bond isn't going to work. His momma's blabbing to the press that Craig's 'anti-gun' sure won't help his fitting the image either, good actor he is nwst.

~~ I mean, I liked Moore (check out FFOLKES-'79; methinks his best), apart from his "Saint" persona, but...
"Blonde; James Blonde"
he wasn't.

~~ Neither is Craig.

~~ The present ('Cubby' being deceased) producers are making Bond too much 'shaken' (over-hauled in persona-appearance)...rather than 'stirred.' --- They should have stuck with Brosnan...at least for 1 more movie...and lived with his view of how the writers' should deal with the character. They decided, after some clear news-blabbing conflicts, not to. Methinks their mistake.

~~ Of course, this missive is from one familiar with the original Ian Fleming books (and their radical transforms to cinema); no doubt the present producers are merely counting on a known 'action-hero'-NAME to continue an ongoing cinema-series for new, ignorant, generations (methinks the same thought process went to switching from Lazenby...in the BEST cinematic J-B story [OHMSS]...to Moore in LALD).

~~ (Sigh...) Maybe in the next movie he'll be a red-head...or even bald. Such important growth-changes (not to be confused with mere 'novelty', of course), make for addicting continuance for character-fans in following up on...
NOT.

~~ Craig'd do better looking for a part in the TV-series "24", guns or no guns in his part.

LLAP
J:D

Very cool.

James S. Valliant's picture

Very cool.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.