The Daniel Craig Forum

THANK YOU, catherine!!!!!

I never got why Bond slept with Fields if he was still after solace after Vesper.

Aman wrote:I never got why Bond slept with Fields if he was still after solace after Vesper.

Blame Forster for not setting that scene up properly.

Notice when all three check into the hotel, Bond and Fields enter "their" suite and Mathis leaves them - as if it was agreed that they would share the suite. She was a sprightly character - why didn't she put her hand up then and demand her own room (well why would she I hear you say!)?

Aman wrote:I never got why Bond slept with Fields if he was still after solace after Vesper.

If the argument made any sense this scene must not have existed, but if they were not putting at least a sensual scene (not sex scene because nothing similar existed in any Bond movie ever) the fanatics Bond had never excused it.

I don´t know. I have strange feelings about this scene. I cannot explain it, there is something in this scene that makes me frozen, in spite of Daniel's sensuality.

The same thing did not happen to me with the scenes with Caterina Murino in CR.

Faustine wrote:

Aman wrote:I never got why Bond slept with Fields if he was still after solace after Vesper.

If the argument made any sense this scene must not have existed, but if they were not putting at least a sensual scene (not sex scene because nothing similar existed in any Bond movie ever) the fanatics Bond had never excused it.

I don´t know. I have strange feelings about this scene. I cannot explain it, there is something in this scene that makes me frozen, in spite of Daniel's sensuality.

The same thing did not happen to me with the scenes with Caterina Murino in CR.

Direction and editing aside - this is a different Bond than the one that encountered Solange. Fields was a diversion - passed the time. He used Solange, but there was also a definite chemistry. Fields was just a minor agent at a forgotten outpost whom he chose to conquer.

bumblebee wrote:

Faustine wrote:

Aman wrote:I never got why Bond slept with Fields if he was still after solace after Vesper.

If the argument made any sense this scene must not have existed, but if they were not putting at least a sensual scene (not sex scene because nothing similar existed in any Bond movie ever) the fanatics Bond had never excused it.

I don´t know. I have strange feelings about this scene. I cannot explain it, there is something in this scene that makes me frozen, in spite of Daniel's sensuality.

The same thing did not happen to me with the scenes with Caterina Murino in CR.

Direction and editing aside - this is a different Bond than the one that encountered Solange. Fields was a diversion - passed the time. He used Solange, but there was also a definite chemistry. Fields was just a minor agent at a forgotten outpost whom he chose to conquer.

Very interesting point of view, you made me discover another anomaly in the argument.

Fields is diversion, a trophy, a real girl Bond but when Bond sees her dead, beyond his ego wounded again, feels a some kind of sorrow for her death.... and it does not happen with Solange.

Forster is a bad director but the problem is more general. The producers want to change the perspective of the personage and at the same time they need for commercial reasons (not for plot reasons) that some things remain. The typical scene "I use you and reject you", they cannot obviate it, because if they had done it he would be Jason Bourne and not James Bond.

Faustine wrote:

bumblebee wrote:

Faustine wrote: If the argument made any sense this scene must not have existed, but if they were not putting at least a sensual scene (not sex scene because nothing similar existed in any Bond movie ever) the fanatics Bond had never excused it.

I don´t know. I have strange feelings about this scene. I cannot explain it, there is something in this scene that makes me frozen, in spite of Daniel's sensuality.

The same thing did not happen to me with the scenes with Caterina Murino in CR.

Direction and editing aside - this is a different Bond than the one that encountered Solange. Fields was a diversion - passed the time. He used Solange, but there was also a definite chemistry. Fields was just a minor agent at a forgotten outpost whom he chose to conquer.

Very interesting point of view, you made me discover another anomaly in the argument.

Fields is diversion, a trophy, a real girl Bond but when Bond sees her dead, beyond his ego wounded again, feels a some kind of sorrow for her death.... and it does not happen with Solange.

Forster is a bad director but the problem is more general. The producers want to change the perspective of the personage and at the same time they need for commercial reasons (not for plot reasons) that some things remain. The typical scene "I use you and reject you", they cannot obviate it, because if they had done it he would be Jason Bourne and not James Bond.

Different Bond again - he was cool and driven at that point in CR - very cocksure. In QoS he's hurting, grieving, confused still. That state of mind throws a whole load of emotions in the mix - perhaps this is a reason for his "sorrow" for her death - he also still has a lot to learn as a relatively new double "O". Plus he and M are at a new level and her presence surely has an influence on his reactions.

bumblebee wrote:

Faustine wrote:

bumblebee wrote: Direction and editing aside - this is a different Bond than the one that encountered Solange. Fields was a diversion - passed the time. He used Solange, but there was also a definite chemistry. Fields was just a minor agent at a forgotten outpost whom he chose to conquer.

Very interesting point of view, you made me discover another anomaly in the argument.

Fields is diversion, a trophy, a real girl Bond but when Bond sees her dead, beyond his ego wounded again, feels a some kind of sorrow for her death.... and it does not happen with Solange.

Forster is a bad director but the problem is more general. The producers want to change the perspective of the personage and at the same time they need for commercial reasons (not for plot reasons) that some things remain. The typical scene "I use you and reject you", they cannot obviate it, because if they had done it he would be Jason Bourne and not James Bond.

Different Bond again - he was cool and driven at that point in CR - very cocksure. In QoS he's hurting, grieving, confused still. That state of mind throws a whole load of emotions in the mix - perhaps this is a reason for his "sorrow" for her death - he also still has a lot to learn as a relatively new double "O". Plus he and M are at a new level and her presence surely has an influence on his reactions.

Ah BB! You should have been the scriptwriter. You demonstrate more prudence than that they wrote this bilge of argument.

It´s true, is hurt and thinks by his knees (Or any other part of his body less with the brain), as CR, continues being a young and inexpert Bond, and now with the ego so wounded. My problem continues being to perceive Daniel Craig as young and inexpert.

I was thinking what you were saying on the relation Bond-M. M taking care of him, scolding him as a mother?? In a spies' movie? It´s too strange for me. On the one hand they say that seeking to show a human Bond, God will know what it means but it's ok and then they make him have an impossible relation with M?

Hmmm...Forster...bad director.
Not true.
He's a brilliant director. A director's job is not only to set look and visual tone (QOS was very stylish) but to get a proformence out of his actors (everyone was on fire in QOS). He is a very good director.

Personally I think Bond is Bond. Simplly put, he could never have sex with Camille as she is a true woman, but Fields was meant to be a forgettable fling, he's Bond, he's a sex addict surely, maybe not of Russell Brand standards, but he needs satying. I think it just passed time of day and filled the day, it meant nothing. In a stroke of genius, Fields dies like Vesper. When Bond sees her dead body he has the same reaction he has when he saw her, he's shocked. Everything he seems to touch always seems to wither and die.

Hey, just wondering if anyone knew of Daniel's Bond press conference was online the first one he did in Oct 2005 for CR.

Aman wrote:Hmmm...Forster...bad director.
Not true.
He's a brilliant director. A director's job is not only to set look and visual tone (QOS was very stylish) but to get a proformence out of his actors (everyone was on fire in QOS). He is a very good director.

Personally I think Bond is Bond. Simplly put, he could never have sex with Camille as she is a true woman, but Fields was meant to be a forgettable fling, he's Bond, he's a sex addict surely, maybe not of Russell Brand standards, but he needs satying. I think it just passed time of day and filled the day, it meant nothing. In a stroke of genius, Fields dies like Vesper. When Bond sees her dead body he has the same reaction he has when he saw her, he's shocked. Everything he seems to touch always seems to wither and die.

I was giving my opinion, the opinions are not corrects or incorrect, are debatable or arbitrary.

On Forster.... I have seen almost his movies, they all seem to me the same: confused. But it´s just my perception, of course

Your opinion about Bond is very interesting ... and the same thing happens to me that with BB's commentary: it´s much subtler and complex than the argument . I suppose that I have listened so much to it of which it is a "new Bond" that for an instant I must have believed. As Lampedusa says ... "change in order that nothing changes".

yochan wrote: and a cute one,

Lovely!

Faustine wrote:

yochan wrote: and a cute one,

Lovely!

Some more animals for you

Animal series: