I like the idea that there's going to be a reaction that boils down to, "How DARE they be somewhat faithful to the book!?"
Willow: Yikes. Imagine the things...Buffy: No! Stop imagining! All of you! Xander: Already got the visual.
'Dirty Girls'
Buffista Movies 5: Development Hell
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Strega - Mar 10, 2006 12:59:30 pm PST #946 of 10001
§ ita § - Mar 10, 2006 1:19:04 pm PST #947 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
The movie franchise isn't the book, and hasn't been for a long time. I've read the books, like the books, and don't blame a single moviegoer who wonders what's happened to the suave ladykiller of their childhood.
Because I will miss him too.
Sean K - Mar 10, 2006 4:24:57 pm PST #948 of 10001
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
I'll miss the old Bond too, but I have old Bond movies for that. I'll be very curious to check this one out.
Plus, they like the gadgets.
The quote from the director in the article did have a point though -- how much further could they go in that direction. I was kind of getting tired of it. Invisible car??? Cool, but how do you top that? And how many more vast control rooms and maniacal madmen can there be?
It was getting to be too much, but maybe I'm a bad Bond fan.
tommyrot - Mar 10, 2006 4:30:24 pm PST #949 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
how much further could they go in that direction.
AU Bond?
Bond set in the past?
He could fight Hitler!
Strega - Mar 10, 2006 4:41:38 pm PST #950 of 10001
I enjoy the movies in themselves, and the books in themselves, but I don't... I'm not sure how to phrase it. I don't have A Single Vision of what Bond's like, and anything else is a travesty. I grew up seeing the Connery on TV, Moore in the theaters, and reading the books, so maybe that's why. The media coverage at least makes me somewhat interested in seeing Casino Royale. Which is a change from the past decade or so, when my reaction was more, "I'll watch it on TV if it's on and I'm bored."
I'm not sure what there is in that article that suggests he'll just blush and stammer in front of girls. The reporter sums things up by saying he "dislikes violence," because it's attention-grabbing, but the director says "Bond finds violence hard to take, he won't admit to that." Which makes significantly more sense.
erikaj - Mar 10, 2006 4:48:25 pm PST #951 of 10001
Always Anti-fascist!
As I was reading in this thread, I wondered if they might not have done better taking a more Poirot like approach to Bond, and just kept it 1965 all the time.Mind you, it's too late now, but...you know in the best Poirot adaptations it's always the thirties
sarameg - Mar 10, 2006 5:12:40 pm PST #952 of 10001
I enjoy immensely a tortured, fallible hero.
BUT.
I'm all about the cheesy Bond. It's a guilty pleasure. Staying up late to watch TBS's Bond marathon with my dad the one summer we had cable.
But movie Bond is cheesy antiheroes, archaic womanizing (that my inner feminist horks a hairball at,) smooth and FABULOUS, fantasmic explosions and above all, GADGETS.
So I might enjoy this "new" Bond on its own, as a troubled, breakable hero. But it isn't the Bond of me and dad and popcorn and summer nights.
erikaj - Mar 10, 2006 6:05:18 pm PST #953 of 10001
Always Anti-fascist!
No wonder people thought Domenic West could play *that* Bond. Because he sounds like McNulty in better clothes.
JohnSweden - Mar 10, 2006 6:44:50 pm PST #954 of 10001
I can't even.
I'm all about the cheesy Bond. It's a guilty pleasure. Staying up late to watch TBS's Bond marathon with my dad the one summer we had cable.
But movie Bond is cheesy antiheroes, archaic womanizing (that my inner feminist horks a hairball at,) smooth and FABULOUS, fantasmic explosions and above all, GADGETS.
I'm the opposite of this. I want Connery/Fleming Bond, basically. For me, the Roger Moore cheese-o-rama (and it wasn't all cheese, but mostly) was a long, dark teatime. Bond set the template for a lot of the dark spy vs spy stuff that other films use (the Jason Bourne films, for example). Bond is a stone killer, and should be ruthless, tough and vicious. In totally beautiful settings and he should have his mind messed with by stunning women.
The daffy, gadgetty Bond has been way overdone, and if the films have any life left in them at all, they need to get back to the anti-hero roots.
Laura - Mar 11, 2006 3:26:55 am PST #955 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.
Who's seen Dave Chappelle's Block Party? Here's the thing, I'm torn about taking the boys to it with my friend and her son.
Reasons for include the fact the Dave is one of the funniest men on the planet. Also the boys have the big rap music love.
Reason against is my fuddy duddy nature that makes me cringe at language, particularly around the boys.
My Brooklyn bred bestest GF doesn't have the language fear as she tells her son to do his fuckin' homework. I get that we have different takes on this issue.
The rating is R for language. Is it overwhelming? Yes, I know they hear it all day at school, but not so much with me.
Ugh, I know it's good stuff. Thoughts?