The case for and against... Martin Campbell

1679111218

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    There was definitely an uneasy feeling of familiarity with that satellite element (I even felt it in the first trailers for the film which showed it). However, as @RC7 said, it wasn't the key driver of the narrative. It was secondary.

    They had been away for 6 years, and arguably it had been much longer since there had been a larger than life threat like that in a Bond film. I believe it was deliberately injected to provide that level of familiarity with those earlier films. A throwaway.

    From my point of view, the character aspects are very important. That's what draws viewers into the narrative and establishes a connection with the audience. GE/SF do that very well, which allows many (myself included) to overlook other failings.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,399
    I disagree that the Bond Alec dynamic is what drives GE. For me, it's always been Natalya's story. She's the real focal point of this film. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's cool seeing two 00's going mano a mano at the end, but as far as characters interacting I've never found them tremendously compelling.

    There is a sort of "battle for main character" going on in GE, and ultimately I think it was the wrong choice that Bond ended up winning that battle. I would have liked to have seen that beach scene played out, but with the roles reversed. She looks at the waves, thinking about the friends she lost and how her life has been turned upside down, when Bond comes over to comfort her. I think the scene would have worked much better, were it done that way around.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.
  • Posts: 11,189
    i think both QOS and GE have somewhat underwritten plots.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    There was definitely an uneasy feeling of familiarity with that satellite element (I even felt it in the first trailers for the film which showed it). However, as @RC7 said, it wasn't the key driver of the narrative. It was secondary.

    They had been away for 6 years, and arguably it had been much longer since there had been a larger than life threat like that in a Bond film. I believe it was deliberately injected to provide that level of familiarity with those earlier films. A throwaway.

    From my point of view, the character aspects are very important. That's what draws viewers into the narrative and establishes a connection with the audience. GE/SF do that very well, which allows many (myself included) to overlook other failings.

    A tired retread of long ago flogged to death cliches
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.

    My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
    I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
    You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
    Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
    And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.
  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.
    As truly great as the final fight in GE is, no enemy-from-within scenario in a Bond film convinced me thus far, which makes GE, despite a lot of very strong elements, the start of a desperate era full of fear of a traditionally focussed plot in my book.
    My feelings toward GE could hardly be more ambivalent.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.
    As truly great as the final fight in GE is, no enemy-from-within scenario in a Bond film convinced me thus far, which makes GE, despite a lot of very strong elements, the start of a desperate era full of fear of a traditionally focussed plot in my book.
    My feelings toward GE could hardly be more ambivalent.

    I agree that modern Bond is afraid of telling a simple story, without some kind of personal stakes or other gimmick. The irony being that, just as it was a bold move to introduce the personal element before, today it is a bold move to try and do a Bond film without said element. It's gone full circle.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    There was definitely an uneasy feeling of familiarity with that satellite element (I even felt it in the first trailers for the film which showed it). However, as @RC7 said, it wasn't the key driver of the narrative. It was secondary.

    They had been away for 6 years, and arguably it had been much longer since there had been a larger than life threat like that in a Bond film. I believe it was deliberately injected to provide that level of familiarity with those earlier films. A throwaway.

    From my point of view, the character aspects are very important. That's what draws viewers into the narrative and establishes a connection with the audience. GE/SF do that very well, which allows many (myself included) to overlook other failings.

    A tired retread of long ago flogged to death cliches
    What surprises me somewhat is that you lambast these two films and yet have a higher opinion of TND & SP, which are two of the most trite & hackneyed efforts of the recent past imho. Films which have poorly developed and uninteresting characters as well as scenes which could legitimately constitute poor homages. At least the characters in GE / SF are somewhat interesting.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    On paper, the satellite EMP attack feels like a plot from one of the sillier Moore movies, but they do a good job making it seem credible and plausible by showing the attack on Severnaya and through the discussions of said attack back at MI6. I also enjoy that the ending revolves around a countdown to attack London, making the threat immediate and the stakes very high. It's a great plot. Basically a modern version of Drax's plan in the MR novel.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.
    As truly great as the final fight in GE is, no enemy-from-within scenario in a Bond film convinced me thus far, which makes GE, despite a lot of very strong elements, the start of a desperate era full of fear of a traditionally focussed plot in my book.
    My feelings toward GE could hardly be more ambivalent.

    I agree that modern Bond is afraid of telling a simple story, without some kind of personal stakes or other gimmick. The irony being that, just as it was a bold move to introduce the personal element before, today it is a bold move to try and do a Bond film without said element. It's gone full circle.
    I remember back when I saw the first trailer for GE at the cinema. When it was introduced that 007 will be up against his biggest threat yet - 006 - I already then had a dislike for that idea. For me it makes sense if there is a government organisation that sends out its best man against a threat from outside. If the threat comes from inside, that makes the organisation look incompetent. And it limits the feeling of globality I enjoy a lot of Bond films for.
    Considering that, GE is an extraordinary film, because it´s pretty good after all ;-).

  • Posts: 676
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I remember back when I saw the first trailer for GE at the cinema. When it was introduced that 007 will be up against his biggest threat yet - 006 - I already then had a dislike for that idea. For me it makes sense if there is a government organisation that sends out its best man against a threat from outside. If the threat comes from inside, that makes the organisation look incompetent. And it limits the feeling of globality I enjoy a lot of Bond films for.
    Considering that, GE is an extraordinary film, because it´s pretty good after all ;-).
    This is an important part of the character for me. Bond is an agent meant to face external threats.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    There was definitely an uneasy feeling of familiarity with that satellite element (I even felt it in the first trailers for the film which showed it). However, as @RC7 said, it wasn't the key driver of the narrative. It was secondary.

    They had been away for 6 years, and arguably it had been much longer since there had been a larger than life threat like that in a Bond film. I believe it was deliberately injected to provide that level of familiarity with those earlier films. A throwaway.

    From my point of view, the character aspects are very important. That's what draws viewers into the narrative and establishes a connection with the audience. GE/SF do that very well, which allows many (myself included) to overlook other failings.

    A tired retread of long ago flogged to death cliches
    What surprises me somewhat is that you lambast these two films and yet have a higher opinion of TND & SP, which are two of the most trite & hackneyed efforts of the recent past imho. Films which have poorly developed and uninteresting characters as well as scenes which could legitimately constitute poor homages. At least the characters in GE / SF are somewhat interesting.

    I don't like TND particarly. I've always just felt it's the least bad of the Brosnan era. GE I've always thought was a total stinker from day one. But with TND, while still being hackneyed and cliched, the first half at least I found mildly entertaining. Arnold's score probably helped a bit after the cacophony of Serra's score in GE. I also felt TND looked and felt a bit more like what I expected From a 90s Bond film. At the time architecure, art and design were all popping in the UK. GE felt stuck in the 80s (in a bad way) - all big hair, shoulder pads, hair gel, chest hair and cravats. I know people on here love it but the GE PTS is abysmal. The TND PTS is actually rather good (if cliched). I liked the Hamburg location. Loved the end titles song as well and have often thought That if they'd used it as the main song it would have lifted the while film. Carver for me was half a decent villain and although I havent watched it for years I seem remember a few nice little touches and scenes such as the soundproof room fight. I even the Michelle Yeoh - for my money there's better on screen chemistry between Her and Brosnan than any of the other Bond girls in his films. Wish they had cast Bellucci instead of Hatcher. Get the sense Brosnan much happier working with a mature actresses than some of the numpties they cast in his other films. It all felt much more what Bond should be doing at that moment in time. The film looked much better than GE. And for the first part of the film at least I found Brosnan less bad than in GE.

    Regarding SP yes its also a wannabe homage to Past films and not very original but anyone who seriously would prefer to sit through GE over SP must be crackers. The latter film, while far from one of my favourites, is superior in pretty much every area.

    I really don't like SF at all. For me Mendes began a slide back towards a lot of what was wrong with the Brosnan era (this also applies to SP). But I'd still happily choose SF over any of the Brosnan films any day of the week and I'd most definitley rank SF above GE. Again it's superior in pretty much every area.

    SF for me is a noble failure. There's a decent film in there trying to get out, but it's hamstrung by abysmal writing, sloppy plotting and stodgy direction. You could say the same of SP and I wouldn't disagree - I just personally prefer it to SF.

    Ultimately the fact SF and SP have Craig means they're always going to trump GE or any other Brosnan entry.
  • Posts: 6,432
    I rate CR and GE highly GE was a slow burner for me, when I saw it on cinema release I had mixed feelings initially. I would be happy for Campbell to return to do another film though he is not getting any younger, as mentioned by others Campbell had good Bond material saying that I am convinced he would have improved other Brosbond movies.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Putting on the soundtrack to GE while I do my tax return would help make that task far more enjoyable.

    Blimey. You're obviously a bit of a masochist. Each to their own.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I rate CR and GE highly GE was a slow burner for me, when I saw it on cinema release I had mixed feelings initially. I would be happy for Campbell to return to do another film though he is not getting any younger, as mentioned by others Campbell had good Bond material saying that I am convinced he would have improved other Brosbond movies.

    Campbell had his time. He's a workmanlike director who had one miss and One very good hit. I don't sense he has the ability or consistency to make me feel confident that a third film is likely to be a good one.

    Perhaps with a decent script and good Bond it would all work out.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.

    My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
    I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
    You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
    Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
    And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.

    I find both GE and SF compelling entries, with enough style and flair to keep me hooked. The plotting in SF is wayward, but it works on many other levels. Films work in different ways for different people. If you don't find either of interest that's fine, there are plenty of entries that tick your boxes.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    Has anyone ever wondered how Bond ended up at that Spa in GE, or how he ended up in Goodhead's hotel room in MR?

    Bond films follow a certain logic, where the audience doesn't require witnessing every step on Bond's journey. And this is the only franchise that follows these special set of rules, but people understand that Bond is really about sheer enjoyment. I just don't know why they don't use this more often, such a strong tool that it is.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I totally agree. Not everything needs spelling out.

    And I also agree it's about enjoyment and entertainment at the end of the day. These aren't supposed to be great works of art. But even on this level GE and SF disappoint for me. Just have no desire to rewatch either of them!
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    Has anyone ever wondered how Bond ended up at that Spa in GE, or how he ended up in Goodhead's hotel room in MR?

    Bond films follow a certain logic, where the audience doesn't require witnessing every step on Bond's journey. And this is the only franchise that follows these special set of rules, but people understand that Bond is really about sheer enjoyment. I just don't know why they don't use this more often, such a strong tool that it is.

    I think Bond had already admitted to Goodhead that he found out where she was staying. No idea how he knew that though.
  • Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.

    My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
    I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
    You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
    Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
    And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.

    I find both GE and SF compelling entries, with enough style and flair to keep me hooked. The plotting in SF is wayward, but it works on many other levels. Films work in different ways for different people. If you don't find either of interest that's fine, there are plenty of entries that tick your boxes.

    "Wayward" is a very interesting way to put it, to say it mildly.
    Still, is there anything that prohibits them from striving for both, an intelligent story and personal drama?
  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.

    My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
    I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
    You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
    Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
    And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.

    I find both GE and SF compelling entries, with enough style and flair to keep me hooked. The plotting in SF is wayward, but it works on many other levels. Films work in different ways for different people. If you don't find either of interest that's fine, there are plenty of entries that tick your boxes.

    "Wayward" is a very interesting way to put it, to say it mildly.
    Still, is there anything that prohibits them from striving for both, an intelligent story and personal drama?
    Well, they should formost strive for a smashing film. If they manage to additionally insert intelligent story and personal drama, that´s ok.

  • Posts: 1,162
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.

    My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
    I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
    You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
    Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
    And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.

    I find both GE and SF compelling entries, with enough style and flair to keep me hooked. The plotting in SF is wayward, but it works on many other levels. Films work in different ways for different people. If you don't find either of interest that's fine, there are plenty of entries that tick your boxes.

    "Wayward" is a very interesting way to put it, to say it mildly.
    Still, is there anything that prohibits them from striving for both, an intelligent story and personal drama?
    Well, they should formost strive for a smashing film. If they manage to additionally insert intelligent story and personal drama, that´s ok.

    I think these 2 + original and exciting action are what makes a movie smashing in my eyes.
    You see, my main problem is that especially in spy movies from a certain point of illogic on I'm very much taken out of the experience. By the way I happen to love TSWLM so it's not that I am into nitpicking when I go and watch a Bond movie. As I wrote in my introductory post a few weeks ago I'm most of all a lover of tales of espionage and therefore I need at least a minimum of logic to delve into the movie.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes a moderately coherent plot is a must. Often the plot is really not very important but it must hold water to some degree. The moment I notice the plot in that it doesn't make sense I'm taking a step back and feeling removed from the film. Just what happened with Sf
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Next to GE, QoS is dour and lethargic. GE is superior on every level.

    Big words. Not true, but certainly big.

    Obviously others will disagree, I've heard the many defences of QoS, and I find many moments to love in it, but on a personal level I find GE is a far more interesting, exciting, fully rounded piece of cinema. It's very fresh.

    Did it never bother you that they re-introduced James Bond with a - then already quite worn - plot like a threatening satellite in space? To me it felt quite the opposite of fresh way back then. Hasn't changed ever since.

    No. The Goldeneye was a Macguffin. The Bond/Alec dynamic is what drives it. It was and still is excellent and the final fight is class.

    I'm always amazed how easy people do brush off arguments that are not to their liking. GE needs no original McGuffin because it's about the 006/007 dynamic, SF needs no intelligent writing because it's all about the character arc. If you approach storylines that way there's actually no need for anything original/clever/intelligent at all. That's not my idea of writing.

    I don't understand your argument. Films that resonate go beyond the basic mechanics of screenwriting/film making, which is why the two films you mention did exactly that.

    My point is that they easily could have both. At no time in the history of the world there was a lack of threats and plots, and especially not after the end of the Soviet union when there were dozens of new born states with their own nuclear arsenal ruled by often wannabe dictators and egomaniacs.
    I mean is it really too much to ask them to go to some length to construct a compelling story and threat?
    You see my litmus test is always if a movie's storyline- and development would suffice and work in a novel where are you can't avoid to explain more and go into some details.
    Neither GE, SF or SP to make the cut in that regard.
    And before you use the killer argument of "it's a James Bond movie", there are some that do stand the test.

    I find both GE and SF compelling entries, with enough style and flair to keep me hooked. The plotting in SF is wayward, but it works on many other levels. Films work in different ways for different people. If you don't find either of interest that's fine, there are plenty of entries that tick your boxes.

    "Wayward" is a very interesting way to put it, to say it mildly.
    Still, is there anything that prohibits them from striving for both, an intelligent story and personal drama?

    No. But it's done. It is what it is. I've poured over the issues I have with SF in detail, but those issues aren't enough to detract from the elements it gets right. The same goes for GE.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,399
    I can understand how Martin Campbell gets burnt out on Bond every time he makes one. He is forcing every to give 100% in order to create his vision, and that kind of raw energy and drive must be draining when it comes to the end of shooting. But the end product speaks for itself.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I can understand how Martin Campbell gets burnt out on Bond every time he makes one. He is forcing every to give 100% in order to create his vision, and that kind of raw energy and drive must be draining when it comes to the end of shooting. But the end product speaks for itself.

    Can't disagree with that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    He's had the most difficult job of any director since 1987. Twice. That of introducing a new Bond actor to the world. He succeeded both times, which is quite a tremendous achievement.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,803
    Those are also two great opportunities other directors didn't have.

    Not least being able to film Fleming source material like Casino Royale that establishes the Bond character. Martin Campbell did a great job with it, but still.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Those are also two great opportunities other directors didn't have.

    Not least being able to film Fleming source material like Casino Royale that establishes the Bond character. Martin Campbell did a great job with it, but still.

    That's life.
Sign In or Register to comment.