The World Is Not Enough (1999)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

The discussion on Denise Richards can appear like much ado about nothing as her role is limited in scope:

a) Kazakistan segment: Introduced as a different type of scientist. Mostly there for action sequences
b) Azarbaijan segment: Defuses a bomb (or removes plutonium to let a dud explode) in an oil pipeline
c) Caviar factory: Does a pose in a nice dress
d) Istanbul segment: Sports a wet t-shirt and mumbles some technicalities on radiation inside a submarine
e) Epilogue: The standard romance with Bond
f) Some scenes here and there

I wouldn’t say it’s limited in scope, she’s the film’s leading lady!

Better performers have done more with less screen time. Shirley Eaton exudes more energy and chemistry with her leading man in two scenes than Richards does in that entire film.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I wouldn’t say it’s limited in scope, she’s the film’s leading lady!

Better performers have done more with less screen time. Shirley Eaton exudes more energy and chemistry with her leading man in two scenes than Richards does in that entire film.

Performance can be better but it is not something that changes the key dynamics of the film. That role exists because Bond needs a Bond girl as the main Bond girl will not remain the Bond girl.

In GF, if Richards played Eaton's role, it would not impact the overall dynamics of the film.

It is better to discuss the performances of actors who impact the film in a big way. If you compare old films, below is Brosnan's relatively mousey performance as Bond in GE:

GOLDENEYE | Bond, James Bond - YouTube

Below is Sean Connery in his first shot at Bond:

DR. NO | Bond, James Bond. - YouTube

In fact, GE is full of relatively speaking bad performances by key actors. Onatopp's character is similar to Fatima's in NSNA and Jensen is a mixed bag (good in some scenes and poor in others). Simonova (Scrupco) roams around in a drab outfit for most of the film. Some may see it as criminal to have the beautiful Scrupco appear so dull in a Bond film!

[voltz]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

I thought it was shit back in 1999 and while I've softened a bit on it over the years, it's still my least favourite Brosnan outing

That's right, I'll watch DAD over it anytime.

Come at me, bro.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

Performance can be better but it is not something that changes the key dynamics of the film. That role exists because Bond needs a Bond girl as the main Bond girl will not remain the Bond girl.

Can you re-phrase this so it actually makes sense when you read it?

Originally Posted by zen007

In GF, if Richards played Eaton's role, it would not impact the overall dynamics of the film.

The point that you've completely missed is that more charismatic performers have done more with less. Just because you think that her role is "limited in scope" (which it's not) does not excuse her poor performance.

Originally Posted by zen007

In fact, GE is full of relatively speaking bad performances by key actors. Onatopp's character is similar to Fatima's in NSNA and Jensen is a mixed bag (good in some scenes and poor in others).

So? What does that have to do with performance?

Originally Posted by zen007

Simonova (Scrupco) roams around in a drab outfit for most of the film. Some may see it as criminal to have the beautiful Scrupco appear so dull in a Bond film!

She plays a computer programmer stationed in Siberia. What she wears is appropriate for the character and the situations she finds herself in.

[Canada]

The World is Not Enough is my favourite Pierce Brosnan Bond adventure.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Can you re-phrase this so it actually makes sense when you read it?

To simplify it further - of the two Bond girls, Elektra is the main one. Since Elektra is to be turned into the villain, the film has a 2nd Bond girl. Jones's character is the 2nd Bond girl. The film is not driven by the 2nd Bond girl.

The point that you've completely missed is that more charismatic performers have done more with less. Just because you think that her role is "limited in scope" (which it's not) does not excuse her poor performance.

I have not missed the point but explained to you that in a relative analysis someone is going to come 2nd.

2nd, Jones' performance is not poor. It can be termed average (and limited by the scope of the character).

So? What does that have to do with performance?

You made the comparisons (Eaton v Richards) in judging Jones' performance. I gave an example where another actor falls short in such relative comparisons. If you "read" the whole post, the answer is there in it.

She plays a computer programmer stationed in Siberia. What she wears is appropriate for the character and the situations she finds herself in.

That is not the point. A character can be presented in multiple ways per how a franchise/film is positioned. The character could have been glamorous too.

Jones is basically a character similar to Natalya. Both are technical experts helping Bond - one with bombs, the other with satellites/programming.

In GE, the franchise did a drab version (many will term it criminal to present the glamorous Scorupco in that way when the franchise has the tendency to make the actresses glamorous irrespective of the character.) where the character roams in the same outfit for the first 90 mins of the film. To differentiate (or for a change), in TWINE, a similarly functioning character is made glamorous.

In Bond films, many characters function similarly so differentiation is created in their presentation. In GE, Onatopp, the supporting villain, is over the top. In TWINE, Renard, the supporting villain, is understated/well measured.

[levcore]

I've always enjoyed this one but i think it would have benefit from some stronger action sequences in the second half, particularly the finale.

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by Freddie_Quell

Are we talking about the man who gave the lead (female) role to Kate Capshaw in the sequel of the highest-grossing film of 1981?

Well, he did end up marrying her so clearly all the blood in his brain required for rational thinking at the time was heading...somewhere else

She was hot though, even though she was annoying. Especially when that beautiful white dress of hers ended up turning into a midriff for some reason

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

I have not missed the point but explained to you that in a relative analysis someone is going to come 2nd.

2nd, Jones' performance is not poor. It can be termed average (and limited by the scope of the character).

You keep saying it's limited by the scope of the character, which it's not. The reason why I mentioned Shirley Eaton is because she portrayed a character with a smaller amount of screentime who displayed actual charisma and presence. It's not the size of the role, but what you do with it and Denise Richards is criticized because she utterly fails to understand how to make the character work.

Originally Posted by zen007

You made the comparisons (Eaton v Richards) in judging Jones' performance. I gave an example where another actor falls short in such relative comparisons. If you "read" the whole post, the answer is there in it.

Famke Janssen does not fall short in relative comparisons with Barbara Carrera. She is considered to be one of the most memorable aspects of Goldeneye.

Originally Posted by zen007

That is not the point. A character can be presented in multiple ways per how a franchise/film is positioned. The character could have been glamorous too.

Jones is basically a character similar to Natalya. Both are technical experts helping Bond - one with bombs, the other with satellites/programming.

In GE, the franchise did a drab version (many will term it criminal to present the glamorous Scorupco in that way when the franchise has the tendency to make the actresses glamorous irrespective of the character.) where the character roams in the same outfit for the first 90 mins of the film. To differentiate (or for a change), in TWINE, a similarly functioning character is made glamorous.

It's absolutely deplorable that you are being reductive of Izabella Scorupco's appearance, performance and costuming just because you think she is "glamorous" and should be attired as such. If there was a scene in the film where it was necessary for her to wear an evening gown or something of that nature, then fine, but as it stands there was not.

[figrin_dan]

I flicked on OHMSS yesterday at the line "The World Is Not Enough". I can't recall any of this film - it's the first of a run of Bond films that have one or two nice sequences but just aren't fun any more.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

You keep saying it's limited by the scope of the character, which it's not. The reason why I mentioned Shirley Eaton is because she portrayed a character with a smaller amount of screentime who displayed actual charisma and presence. It's not the size of the role, but what you do with it and Denise Richards is criticized because she utterly fails to understand how to make the character work.

It is limited in scope. It can also be argued that if Richards had played Eaton's role, Richards would have become iconic too - painted in Gold (which is what made Eaton memorable, not her acting).

Vice versa, Eaton as Christmas Jones in those outfits could have struggled to pull off that look.

Richards' key purpose is to look great on screen, which she manages to do.

Your random comparison shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Famke Janssen does not fall short in relative comparisons with Barbara Carrera. She is considered to be one of the most memorable aspects of Goldeneye.

It is a mixed bag of a performance. That varies in tone. Those "sounds" she makes when shooting people can be annoying to many.

It's absolutely deplorable that you are being reductive of Izabella Scorupco's appearance, performance and costuming just because you think she is "glamorous" and should be attired as such. If there was a scene in the film where it was necessary for her to wear an evening gown or something of that nature, then fine, but as it stands there was not.

It can even be argued that the costume Izabella wears is also not appropriate in such a workplace (and in a different dimension when factoring in the fashion essence of a Bond girl).

If you want to talk about being deplorable - you should look at your post. Unnecessarily comparing Eaton and Richards, and further assuming that Richards would not have done well in the basic Eaton's role!

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by voltz

Argggh! My eyes! My eyes!

[zen007]

TWINE can be seen as the most romantic of Brosnan Bond films -> the bad unattainable Bond girl (Marceau), the locations around the Black and Caspian Seas, the score, ...

Bond's reaction after he shoots Elektra sums it up nicely:

The World Is Not Enough - Elektra King death scene - YouTube

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

It is limited in scope. It can also be argued that if Richards had played Eaton's role, Richards would have become iconic too - painted in Gold (which is what made Eaton memorable, not her acting).

Vice versa, Eaton as Christmas Jones in those outfits could have struggled to pull off that look.

Richards' key purpose is to look great on screen, which she manages to do.

Your random comparison shows you don't know what you are talking about.

As I've said multiple times already, Shirley Eaton demonstrates a playful sexuality and on-screen chemistry with Connery in her brief amount of screen time, something that Denise Richards fails to do with a considerably greater amount of screentime opposite Brosnan.

It was not a "random" comparison. The crux of your entire argument is that Richards' character was "limited in scope" and compiled a list of the scenes she was in, in a weak attempt to back that claim up. My example was specifically chosen to demonstrate that it doesn't matter how much time someone is on screen in order to make an impact.

Beatrice Straight won an Oscar for appearing in a single scene in a movie for goodness sake.

It's amazing how you continue to fail to comprehend this simple point. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand on acting ability how Denise Richards looked in her costumes.

Originally Posted by zen007

It is a mixed bag of a performance. That varies in tone. Those "sounds" she makes when shooting people can be annoying to many.

Okay... and those "sounds" she makes when shooting people can also not be annoying to many others.

Originally Posted by zen007

It can even be argued that the costume Izabella wears is also not appropriate in such a workplace (and in a different dimension when factoring in the fashion essence of a Bond girl).

She's wearing normal office attire. There's nothing inappropriate about it.

Originally Posted by zen007

If you want to talk about being deplorable - you should look at your post. Unnecessarily comparing Eaton and Richards, and further assuming that Richards would not have done well in the basic Eaton's role!

Me: Comparing two actresses in Bond films in order to contrast their screen presence.

You: It's a crime that Izabella Scorupco didn't wear hotter outfits.

Riiight.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

As I've said multiple times already, Shirley Eaton demonstrates a playful sexuality and on-screen chemistry with Connery in her brief amount of screen time, something that Denise Richards fails to do with a considerably greater amount of screentime opposite Brosnan.

It was not a "random" comparison. The crux of your entire argument is that Richards' character was "limited in scope" and compiled a list of the scenes she was in, in a weak attempt to back that claim up. My example was specifically chosen to demonstrate that it doesn't matter how much time someone is on screen in order to make an impact.

Beatrice Straight won an Oscar for appearing in a single scene in a movie for goodness sake.

It's amazing how you continue to fail to comprehend this simple point. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand on acting ability how Denise Richards looked in her costumes.

I like that you continue to make such comical posts. I guess you are yet to realize that Richards was playing a stiff scientist who chose to be in that part of the world to be away from someone.

While Eaton was you know what.

Okay... and those "sounds" she makes when shooting people can also not be annoying to many others.

And you can draw similar parallels with Richards' character

She's wearing normal office attire. There's nothing inappropriate about it.

That is not a normal "winter" office attire (snowing in Siberia)

Me: Comparing two actresses in Bond films in order to contrast their screen presence.

You: It's a crime that Izabella Scorupco didn't wear hotter outfits.

Riiight.

Yours is an irrelevant random comparison

"Hotness" is a part of evaluating Bond girls!

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by zen007

The discussion on Denise Richards can appear like much ado about nothing as her role is limited in scope

It's funny, but for all your attempts to defend Denise Richards and her acting in TWINE, you've really just accidentally stumbled upon why so many hated her. Not only that but you've inadvertently helped to convince me that she's everything that's wrong with the film.

"Her role is limited in scope", why is it there then? Why? What possible use is served by having her in the film that would not have been better served by eliminating the second Bond girl role altogether and strengthening the tension and interplay between Bond and the Elektra King character? What possible use is served by having her dump a bunch of exposition when a one scene walk-on character could have done it just as well, and probably more convincingly?

A cardinal rule of storytelling is 'Don't include any unnecessary elements in a story'. TWINE did not need Denise Richards and, for all their faults, the Craig era Bond films would not have included her character. Or, if they did, she'd appear in two, three scenes at most, Bond would have sex with/contemplate having sex with her, only for her to end up dead in the next scene, strengthening Bond's resolve and hatred for the villain, as happened with Caterina Murino, Gemma Arterton and Berenice Marlohe, all of whom had eminently more potential as Bond girls than Denise Richards

Originally Posted by zen007

Jones is basically a character similar to Natalya. Both are technical experts helping Bond - one with bombs, the other with satellites/programming.

In GE, the franchise did a drab version (many will term it criminal to present the glamorous Scorupco in that way when the franchise has the tendency to make the actresses glamorous irrespective of the character.) where the character roams in the same outfit for the first 90 mins of the film. To differentiate (or for a change), in TWINE, a similarly functioning character is made glamorous

And again, in trying to compare two broadly similar but not-at-all the same characters, you've accidentally stumbled upon why one is so beloved and the other is so reviled.

Scorupco as Natalya is believable. She dresses like a computer programmer would. She delivers the exposition perfectly and convincingly (helps when you've got the Eastern European accent). She has great chemistry with Brosnan, you could really believe they're in love. Her character has a central and pivotal role in the plot. We see the raid on Severnaya more-or-less through her eyes, we feel her pain when her best friend and all her co-workers are killed. We could believe that a lowly computer technician would want to get to the truth and want to join Bond in his super dangerous, super secret spy mission because she has a personal stake in it.

Richards as Christmas is not believable. She dresses like a supermodel, she wears things a nuclear physicist would either never wear or never even be able to afford. She delivers the exposition clunkily and rather unconvincingly. She has terrible chemistry with Brosnan. Her character has almost no bearing on the plot, she shows up more than halfway through, has really no personal stake in the events of the film and the film doesn't really do a good job of convincing us that an lowly nuclear technician would or should want to join Bond on his super dangerous, super secret spy mission. She's eye candy. Someone for Bond to go home with at the end of the movie.

Personally I think TWINE would have been much better served if it was like the Moonraker novel. Bond vanquishes the villain, averts the catastrophe but he does not get the girl. But the producers weren't adventurous enough back then

Originally Posted by zen007

That is not a normal "winter" office attire (snowing in Siberia)

Dude, you do know they have central heating in Siberia? They've pretty much got to. Sorry she didn't get her full winter coat and hat before she escaped the burning military base

[zen007]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

It's funny, but for all your attempts to defend Denise Richards and her acting in TWINE, you've really just accidentally stumbled upon why so many hated her. Not only that but you've inadvertently helped to convince me that she's everything that's wrong with the film.

I termed her acting as average. But gave her high points on hotness, an ingredient for Bond girls. I am pointing at avoiding notions like "she is everything that is wrong with the film".

"Her role is limited in scope", why is it there then? Why? What possible use is served by having her in the film that would not have been better served by eliminating the second Bond girl role altogether and strengthening the tension and interplay between Bond and the Elektra King character? What possible use is served by having her dump a bunch of exposition when a one scene walk-on character could have done it just as well, and probably more convincingly?

A cardinal rule of storytelling is 'Don't include any unnecessary elements in a story'. TWINE did not need Denise Richards and, for all their faults, the Craig era Bond films would not have included her character. Or, if they did, she'd appear in two, three scenes at most, Bond would have sex with/contemplate having sex with her, only for her to end up dead in the next scene, strengthening Bond's resolve and hatred for the villain, as happened with Caterina Murino, Gemma Arterton and Berenice Marlohe, all of whom had eminently more potential as Bond girls than Denise Richards

That role is there to serve as Bond's romantic interest once the main Bond girl shifts to play the villain openly. It is normal to have multiple Bond girls in Bond films.

And again, in trying to compare two broadly similar but not-at-all the same characters, you've accidentally stumbled upon why one is so beloved and the other is so reviled.

Buddy, I have not stumbled upon it. But you may have by reading my post.

I don't rate Natalya's character highly. It is more or less a functional character, which could have been memorable if Scorupco's hotness was leveraged).

Scorupco as Natalya is believable. She dresses like a computer programmer would. She delivers the exposition perfectly and convincingly (helps when you've got the Eastern European accent). She has great chemistry with Brosnan, you could really believe they're in love. Her character has a central and pivotal role in the plot. We see the raid on Severnaya more-or-less through her eyes, we feel her pain when her best friend and all her co-workers are killed. We could believe that a lowly computer technician would want to get to the truth and want to join Bond in his super dangerous, super secret spy mission because she has a personal stake in it.

Richards as Christmas is not believable. She dresses like a supermodel, she wears things a nuclear physicist would either never wear or never even be able to afford. She delivers the exposition clunkily and rather unconvincingly. She has terrible chemistry with Brosnan. Her character has almost no bearing on the plot, she shows up more than halfway through, has really no personal stake in the events of the film and the film doesn't really do a good job of convincing us that an lowly nuclear technician would or should want to join Bond on his super dangerous, super secret spy mission. She's eye candy. Someone for Bond to go home with at the end of the movie.

Those two are the basically the same type of characters - technical experts helping Bond. Since that character was played blandly in GE, it was given a glamorous touch in TWINE.

Believability is not something that is associated much with Bond films. Therefore, not a strong criterion to judge these types of films.

Personally I think TWINE would have been much better served if it was like the Moonraker novel. Bond vanquishes the villain, averts the catastrophe but he does not get the girl. But the producers weren't adventurous enough back then

Yeah, that line could have been pursued.

Dude, you do know they have central heating in Siberia? They've pretty much got to. Sorry she didn't get her full winter coat and hat before she escaped the burning military base

I live in Canada so I know how winter works (including its clothing).

I have also been a globe-trotting fashion-forward executive dealing with Fortune 500 companies (and people from various departments including Engineering, R&D, ...) so I also know what is appropriate (or more suitable) dress.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

I like that you continue to make such comical posts. I guess you are yet to realize that Richards was playing a stiff scientist who chose to be in that part of the world to be away from someone.

While Eaton was you know what.

Completely over your head once again. The only reason Richards is playing a "stiff scientist" is because her acting is wooden, so she comes across that way. If she were played by someone with actual charisma, we wouldn't be here discussing this.

Originally Posted by zen007

That is not a normal "winter" office attire (snowing in Siberia)

Do you actually think people working in high-tech government offices in Siberia sit there with f*cking parkas on? Get a clue.

Originally Posted by zen007

"Hotness" is a part of evaluating Bond girls!

Nothing wrong with appreciating the attractiveness of Bond girls but to actually think that they should have glammed her up "just 'cause" is idiotic considering the plot points in that portion of the film. She appears in a white bikini later on in the film, I think that's sufficient glamour for the character.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

I live in Canada so I know how winter works (including its clothing).

So do I, and what she's wearing in those scenes is entirely appropriate.

Originally Posted by zen007

I have also been a globe-trotting fashion-forward executive dealing with Fortune 500 companies (and people from various departments including Engineering, R&D, ...) so I also know what is appropriate (or more suitable) dress.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Completely over your head once again. The only reason Richards is playing a "stiff scientist" is because her acting is wooden, so she comes across that way. If she were played by someone with actual charisma, we wouldn't be here discussing this.

I guess, the franchise is supposed to hire an Oscar-winning actress as the 2nd Bond girl whose key contribution is expected to look good/hot on screen.

Do you actually think people working in high-tech government offices in Siberia sit there with f*cking parkas on? Get a clue.

Wearing Parkas is what you could think off

Nothing wrong with appreciating the attractiveness of Bond girls but to actually think that they should have glammed her up "just 'cause" is idiotic considering the plot points in that portion of the film. She appears in a white bikini later on in the film, I think that's sufficient glamour for the character.

Bond films have a license to cinematic conveniences. There are ways (dresses) which can be more suitable for a Bond girl.

If she can find time to eat, sleep, and contact her co-worker, she can find time to change into some better clothes as well.

Natalya is one of the drabbest Bond girls (Unfortunately, the glamorous Scorupco could not be leveraged upon. Esp. if you think that the franchise was smart enough to leverage on Richards' woodenness or whatever)