|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 20, 2009 16:05:58 GMT -5
Err... I don't agree with that at all. NONE of the Bonds have been very good at fighting except for Daniel Craig... CERTAINLY not Timothy Dalton's Bond, who got his a$$ kicked in every hand-to-hand fight he ever got into.
Also, inarguably the slickest (i.e. highest Social Skills) version of Bond was Pierce Brosnan.
|
|
|
Post by casca1 on Apr 20, 2009 16:25:23 GMT -5
Pierce Brosnan was ok when it came to the fighting as well. to be honest the i think the bourne movies have a lot to do with the way the new bond fight's are filmed .
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 20, 2009 17:59:54 GMT -5
Actually Pierce Brosnan got beat up. A lot. By girls. He usually lucked into winning his fist fights (which is the way the Bond of the novels and the early films was, as well).
|
|
|
Post by honestiago on Apr 22, 2009 16:44:36 GMT -5
Sorry, but I'm coming back at WK's assertions, only because such certitude begs a countermeasure:
WK asserts that Indy "definitely works for money." Everyone works for money (most everyone). The issue is whether he VALUES money over knowledge. WK's implication is that money is his primary motivation, which would make Jones' primary motivations greed and selfishness. This assertion is simply not bourne out by his behavior in the films. His catch phrase is "That belongs in a museum!," not "Hey -- I'm getting paid for that!" If we're going to be about "explicit" statements by film characters, perhaps we might pay attention to what they actually say, and ponder the meaning behind it.
As far as the opposite end of the evidently total mercenary persona WK believes is the be-all-, end-all of Jones' character, no one here has contended that the good doctor is anything approaching a "Paladin." He is clearly not, however, the straight out mercenary WK claims him to be. WK's entire argument hinges on a single foundation: he sells artifiacts for money. It is fallacious to assume that, because someone provides a service for money, that their entire motivation is ONLY the money itself. Clearly this is what WK asserts, when he says Indy "works for money."
As for my own conclusion, "It is entirely possible he seeks knowledge, and happens to get paid handsomely," it has not been conclusively proven incorrect. The lone measure of WK's argument is explicit statements delivered by characters in film. This is a faulty basis for an argument of this nature. If the sole criterion of what determines "character" has to be explicit statements, then we need to go back and rewrite the basic code language for much of cinema, drama, and, indeed much of literature itself. To put it more simply, if everything has to be explicitely stated, then the only way to determine character, in WK's world, is to ask people to wear placards saying, "I work for money, and that's IT."
Character is a result of many things, not all of them explicit. In film MUCH of what constitutes character is rendered visually, through action and overt decision making, rather than statements delivered by various characters. Besides that, it is simply unfair to narrow the definition of Jones' character, or ANY "character" for that matter, to the range of what is explicitly stated. This tilts the discussion arbitrarilty and unfairly in the realm of self-fulfilling prophecy. You narrow things down that way, and basically all you have to do is fulfill your own definition to be correct. To put it plainly, in a world consisting of just me, I can be king of all I survey. It doesn't work that way in a real debate.
I summarize by once again stating that it has not clearly been proven that Indiana Jones' primary motivation is money. The best that can be said is "he works for money." I work for money, too. Does this mean I can have no "code of honor?"
|
|
|
Post by karljagheim on Jul 5, 2009 17:50:37 GMT -5
Actually, while we are talking about what the characters actually say, Sean Connery...I mean Dr Jones Snr...says Indiana was called 'Junior'.
Edit: My bad. What actually happens is, Professor Henry Jones points to himself and says 'Henry Jones' then to Indiana and says 'Junior'. I just got that he was really saying 'His name is Henry Jones Junior so I, Henry Jones Senior, just call him Junior.'
|
|
|
Post by comicfan on Jul 11, 2009 16:43:56 GMT -5
Ok I have to put my two cents worth, and I know somebody's gonna get me for this.
Indiana Jones. I don't quite remember the movies. (I know I saw all of them I just don't remember exactly what all happened in them story wise.) but I honestly think the Code of Honor needs to go. It just doesn't fit what I do remember of the movies.
As for James Bond there's a simple solution: Present his CAD as a Transform Self character, with each category being one of the Actors. One Category going to Connery, another going to Moore, one to Dalton, one to Brosnan, and another to Craig. I'm not really sure which James Bond actor I like. I know I first got interested in the movies when Brosnan was playing him (Goldeneye being my first), Connery I enjoyed watching but I never saw all of his movies.
|
|
|
Post by Shadowbane on Jul 18, 2009 2:42:05 GMT -5
James Bond = Connery, Brosnan/Dalton, Moore , Craig/Lazenby. Lazenby only did one movie and I havent seen Craigs second movie yet. My opinion. I don't remember where I heard this but I thought it was funny.
Bond is a confused Gay Man. He only sleeps with women to get to a Man.
|
|