In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

14547495051

Comments

  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    @Getafix, Craig's Bond is definitely not a Bond for everyone. His films are meaty and packed with a lot of story that most fans who simply want a straightforward villain and mission probably won't like, as it really focuses on Bond and his development. Often, people feel we see to much into Bond. The films definitely need investment to be watched, as they aren't just random entertainment. They are quite extensive, drawn out stories that are at their best when playing towards deep character work. Even as a massive fan, I perfectly understand this. A rewatch of Craig's era is something one must commit to.

    I'm a sucker for the kind of hero narrative EON have been working with here, but I get how it's not for everyone. I also understand that the deconstruction of Bond has left many with the feeling that not enough of the Bond they know is left up there to enjoy. For me I've always liked the character, not the tropes or the gadgets, and my favorite Bonds are the early ones before formula became an expectation, so the Craig era was never a low for me. In many ways it was a high for how it decided to get along without all the bells and whistles that were expected, while putting a twist on things along the way.

    I think Dan's Bond has definitely been through it, but I don't view him as a depressive figure. It's just that his movies chose to focus their first half on his first love in Fleming's stories and the effect the betrayal had on him, a massive story, and the movie after wanted to tell a Bond and M story that didn't have a lot of room for dilly dally with Bond and his finer aspects of life. The stories weren't crafted to have him screwing all over the place or toasting martinis in every scene, as his character wasn't in that mindset on those missions, which were certainly personal ones. One of the real strengths of SP is that it pays off what Craig Bond has been working towards as an agent and man, where, after the events he's face that rattled him, he's able to enjoy himself a bit on the job. Sexing up his contact in Mexico City, being a cocky bastard while looking his baddies in the eyes, giving a grin as he comes off a parachute, swapping playful barbs with Moneypenny and Q, etc. Unlike CR, QoS or SF he's not being put through the ringer and going through hell; instead, his development has allowed him to rise above it and be confident and capable in the face of danger.

    Some people actually hate Bond in SP, which I have found so confusing. He's at the very least a man who isn't being tortured via a personal piece of drama like Vesper or M's deaths, he's just a man on a mission. This was something I thought people wanted. Even Blofeld's threats in the film are things Craig Bond shoots down with an condescending and amused look, showing that at this point in his career nothing impresses him. You can almost here him say, "Okay, Ernst, whatever you say," with an eye roll. He's bold, mischievous and as maverick as we saw him unencumbered in CR before Vesper betrayed him, except in SP the story doesn't saddle him with a personal pain like that again for part of the movie. In SP Dan gets to be his Bond at all times.

    I can see why you enjoy it with this considered, @Getafix. Of the somewhat experimental Craig films, SP is definitely the one that most easily fits into what you would expect of a traditional Bond film. The film's desire to actually have fun is part of that, as is Bond's attitude in the film that refuses to torture him with another tragedy like all the previous films. I think after all he's faced, SP is the payoff for him where he finally gets a goddamn break. He certainly faces danger and risk as he always does on the job, but the woman he's with isn't in a gigantic conspiracy, his people back in London aren't constantly telling him he's past it or can't do his job, and he's not forced to face another personal loss from his center of allies. In a way, SP is harkening back to the Bond films we expect, where Bond faces challenge without the film putting him over the flame in dramatic ways like a toasting marshmallow.

    Does the thought ever occur to you that you might be spending much too much time trying to see things that just aren't there and way too many words hammering your perceptions into the folks who care to read it?
    The last two scripts were arguably the most logic lacking in the history of the franchise, so to my thinking it fails to reason to assume they had all those far-fetched and deep intentions you always envision. To my mind abandoning logic, especially in spy stories, shows a large disregard for the audience from side of the producers. And no, despite of what you and many others here are thinking this kind of illogic and gaping plot holes followed by gaping plot holes wasn't present at the Bond movies of yesteryear.

    No, the thought doesn't occur. Nostalgia be damned, Bond scripts have always expended "logic" for wow factor and escapism. The plots of your darling yesteryear are riddled with it, but it helps to understand that as its own genre, Bond plays by its own rules. If we wanted to spend a hundred pages picking apart every Bond film, the end result would be the same for 97% of their content. We all have our favorites, but it's salient to be mindful of watching you're watching. I just wish I had such dazzling selective thinking.

    If thats your attitude why have you spent the last 5 pages in ever more tortuous contortions trying to 'prove' that SP's back of a fag packet plot all hangs together?

    And where was the 'wow factor' in SP's climax? I suppose that would be the biggest explosion in movie history would it?












    wow

    The SF lodge explosion seemed far more spectacular to me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    @Getafix, Craig's Bond is definitely not a Bond for everyone. His films are meaty and packed with a lot of story that most fans who simply want a straightforward villain and mission probably won't like, as it really focuses on Bond and his development. Often, people feel we see to much into Bond. The films definitely need investment to be watched, as they aren't just random entertainment. They are quite extensive, drawn out stories that are at their best when playing towards deep character work. Even as a massive fan, I perfectly understand this. A rewatch of Craig's era is something one must commit to.

    I'm a sucker for the kind of hero narrative EON have been working with here, but I get how it's not for everyone. I also understand that the deconstruction of Bond has left many with the feeling that not enough of the Bond they know is left up there to enjoy. For me I've always liked the character, not the tropes or the gadgets, and my favorite Bonds are the early ones before formula became an expectation, so the Craig era was never a low for me. In many ways it was a high for how it decided to get along without all the bells and whistles that were expected, while putting a twist on things along the way.

    I think Dan's Bond has definitely been through it, but I don't view him as a depressive figure. It's just that his movies chose to focus their first half on his first love in Fleming's stories and the effect the betrayal had on him, a massive story, and the movie after wanted to tell a Bond and M story that didn't have a lot of room for dilly dally with Bond and his finer aspects of life. The stories weren't crafted to have him screwing all over the place or toasting martinis in every scene, as his character wasn't in that mindset on those missions, which were certainly personal ones. One of the real strengths of SP is that it pays off what Craig Bond has been working towards as an agent and man, where, after the events he's face that rattled him, he's able to enjoy himself a bit on the job. Sexing up his contact in Mexico City, being a cocky bastard while looking his baddies in the eyes, giving a grin as he comes off a parachute, swapping playful barbs with Moneypenny and Q, etc. Unlike CR, QoS or SF he's not being put through the ringer and going through hell; instead, his development has allowed him to rise above it and be confident and capable in the face of danger.

    Some people actually hate Bond in SP, which I have found so confusing. He's at the very least a man who isn't being tortured via a personal piece of drama like Vesper or M's deaths, he's just a man on a mission. This was something I thought people wanted. Even Blofeld's threats in the film are things Craig Bond shoots down with an condescending and amused look, showing that at this point in his career nothing impresses him. You can almost here him say, "Okay, Ernst, whatever you say," with an eye roll. He's bold, mischievous and as maverick as we saw him unencumbered in CR before Vesper betrayed him, except in SP the story doesn't saddle him with a personal pain like that again for part of the movie. In SP Dan gets to be his Bond at all times.

    I can see why you enjoy it with this considered, @Getafix. Of the somewhat experimental Craig films, SP is definitely the one that most easily fits into what you would expect of a traditional Bond film. The film's desire to actually have fun is part of that, as is Bond's attitude in the film that refuses to torture him with another tragedy like all the previous films. I think after all he's faced, SP is the payoff for him where he finally gets a goddamn break. He certainly faces danger and risk as he always does on the job, but the woman he's with isn't in a gigantic conspiracy, his people back in London aren't constantly telling him he's past it or can't do his job, and he's not forced to face another personal loss from his center of allies. In a way, SP is harkening back to the Bond films we expect, where Bond faces challenge without the film putting him over the flame in dramatic ways like a toasting marshmallow.

    Does the thought ever occur to you that you might be spending much too much time trying to see things that just aren't there and way too many words hammering your perceptions into the folks who care to read it?
    The last two scripts were arguably the most logic lacking in the history of the franchise, so to my thinking it fails to reason to assume they had all those far-fetched and deep intentions you always envision. To my mind abandoning logic, especially in spy stories, shows a large disregard for the audience from side of the producers. And no, despite of what you and many others here are thinking this kind of illogic and gaping plot holes followed by gaping plot holes wasn't present at the Bond movies of yesteryear.

    No, the thought doesn't occur. Nostalgia be damned, Bond scripts have always expended "logic" for wow factor and escapism. The plots of your darling yesteryear are riddled with it, but it helps to understand that as its own genre, Bond plays by its own rules. If we wanted to spend a hundred pages picking apart every Bond film, the end result would be the same for 97% of their content. We all have our favorites, but it's salient to be mindful of watching you're watching. I just wish I had such dazzling selective thinking.

    If thats your attitude why have you spent the last 5 pages in ever more tortuous contortions trying to 'prove' that SP's back of a fag packet plot all hangs together?

    And where was the 'wow factor' in SP's climax? I suppose that would be the biggest explosion in movie history would it?












    wow

    The SF lodge explosion seemed far more spectacular to me.
    It was beautifully filmed by Deakins. He was smart to use digital cameras. Everything just popped and looked so vivid and intense, even if a little oversaturated. SP in contrast (pun unintentional) seemed quite washed out, much like the narrative.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    @Getafix, Craig's Bond is definitely not a Bond for everyone. His films are meaty and packed with a lot of story that most fans who simply want a straightforward villain and mission probably won't like, as it really focuses on Bond and his development. Often, people feel we see to much into Bond. The films definitely need investment to be watched, as they aren't just random entertainment. They are quite extensive, drawn out stories that are at their best when playing towards deep character work. Even as a massive fan, I perfectly understand this. A rewatch of Craig's era is something one must commit to.

    I'm a sucker for the kind of hero narrative EON have been working with here, but I get how it's not for everyone. I also understand that the deconstruction of Bond has left many with the feeling that not enough of the Bond they know is left up there to enjoy. For me I've always liked the character, not the tropes or the gadgets, and my favorite Bonds are the early ones before formula became an expectation, so the Craig era was never a low for me. In many ways it was a high for how it decided to get along without all the bells and whistles that were expected, while putting a twist on things along the way.

    I think Dan's Bond has definitely been through it, but I don't view him as a depressive figure. It's just that his movies chose to focus their first half on his first love in Fleming's stories and the effect the betrayal had on him, a massive story, and the movie after wanted to tell a Bond and M story that didn't have a lot of room for dilly dally with Bond and his finer aspects of life. The stories weren't crafted to have him screwing all over the place or toasting martinis in every scene, as his character wasn't in that mindset on those missions, which were certainly personal ones. One of the real strengths of SP is that it pays off what Craig Bond has been working towards as an agent and man, where, after the events he's face that rattled him, he's able to enjoy himself a bit on the job. Sexing up his contact in Mexico City, being a cocky bastard while looking his baddies in the eyes, giving a grin as he comes off a parachute, swapping playful barbs with Moneypenny and Q, etc. Unlike CR, QoS or SF he's not being put through the ringer and going through hell; instead, his development has allowed him to rise above it and be confident and capable in the face of danger.

    Some people actually hate Bond in SP, which I have found so confusing. He's at the very least a man who isn't being tortured via a personal piece of drama like Vesper or M's deaths, he's just a man on a mission. This was something I thought people wanted. Even Blofeld's threats in the film are things Craig Bond shoots down with an condescending and amused look, showing that at this point in his career nothing impresses him. You can almost here him say, "Okay, Ernst, whatever you say," with an eye roll. He's bold, mischievous and as maverick as we saw him unencumbered in CR before Vesper betrayed him, except in SP the story doesn't saddle him with a personal pain like that again for part of the movie. In SP Dan gets to be his Bond at all times.

    I can see why you enjoy it with this considered, @Getafix. Of the somewhat experimental Craig films, SP is definitely the one that most easily fits into what you would expect of a traditional Bond film. The film's desire to actually have fun is part of that, as is Bond's attitude in the film that refuses to torture him with another tragedy like all the previous films. I think after all he's faced, SP is the payoff for him where he finally gets a goddamn break. He certainly faces danger and risk as he always does on the job, but the woman he's with isn't in a gigantic conspiracy, his people back in London aren't constantly telling him he's past it or can't do his job, and he's not forced to face another personal loss from his center of allies. In a way, SP is harkening back to the Bond films we expect, where Bond faces challenge without the film putting him over the flame in dramatic ways like a toasting marshmallow.

    Does the thought ever occur to you that you might be spending much too much time trying to see things that just aren't there and way too many words hammering your perceptions into the folks who care to read it?
    The last two scripts were arguably the most logic lacking in the history of the franchise, so to my thinking it fails to reason to assume they had all those far-fetched and deep intentions you always envision. To my mind abandoning logic, especially in spy stories, shows a large disregard for the audience from side of the producers. And no, despite of what you and many others here are thinking this kind of illogic and gaping plot holes followed by gaping plot holes wasn't present at the Bond movies of yesteryear.

    No, the thought doesn't occur. Nostalgia be damned, Bond scripts have always expended "logic" for wow factor and escapism. The plots of your darling yesteryear are riddled with it, but it helps to understand that as its own genre, Bond plays by its own rules. If we wanted to spend a hundred pages picking apart every Bond film, the end result would be the same for 97% of their content. We all have our favorites, but it's salient to be mindful of watching you're watching. I just wish I had such dazzling selective thinking.

    If thats your attitude why have you spent the last 5 pages in ever more tortuous contortions trying to 'prove' that SP's back of a fag packet plot all hangs together?

    And where was the 'wow factor' in SP's climax? I suppose that would be the biggest explosion in movie history would it?












    wow

    The SF lodge explosion seemed far more spectacular to me.

    Yes, I would definitely have to agree with you there. Plus, there's the emotional impact of seeing Bond's childhood home burn down, although I realize some did not care for that particular aspect. The SP explosion just sort of happened and was instantly forgotten.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Stop feeding @Getafix, he needs to ween himself off his hatred of Skyfall, it's over 5 years now you need to let it go.

    And SP is fair game to be slaughtered here time and time again? @barryt007 is right you know.... we all have our ugly duckling in the nest.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Stop feeding @Getafix, he needs to ween himself off his hatred of Skyfall, it's over 5 years now you need to let it go.

    And SP is fair game to be slaughtered here time and time again? @barryt007 is right you know.... we all have our ugly duckling in the nest.

    Never mind SF and SP, what about DAD? Many people have been slaughtering that film for 15 years now. ;)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Stop feeding @Getafix, he needs to ween himself off his hatred of Skyfall, it's over 5 years now you need to let it go.

    And SP is fair game to be slaughtered here time and time again? @barryt007 is right you know.... we all have our ugly duckling in the nest.

    Never mind SF and SP, what about DAD? Many people have been slaughtering that film for 15 years now. ;)

    hahaha true, and yes, I've been quite guilty of that too.....
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames: now with SP fresh in the Mind's Eye: what did you think of Lucia and Bond's scenes: from the assassination of the men sent to kill her, to his seduction, to his leaving her in bed, with an offer for her to get out via Felix?

    From where I stand: if we had more those types of scenes in setting, flow, performances and tone, SP would have been just fine. In fact, I think it's one of the sexiest scenes ever in a Bond film (helps that Monica is that hot)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, I do like Bellucci's scenes in the film. She provided a bit of needed old school glamour (more so than Seydoux) and worked well with Craig.

    There is a deliberate overt artistic tinge to that entire mansion sequence, which is not dissimilar to what Forster brought to the post-Quantum meeting chase and shoot scenes in QoS. Like the earlier film's approach, I didn't like it at first because it is non-traditional, but it's growing on me with every viewing.

    Something about it reminds me of Bond and Corinne in MR too. It's the setting.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    @peter, I do like Bellucci's scenes in the film. She provided a bit of needed old school glamour (more so than Seydoux) and worked well with Craig.

    There is a deliberate overt artistic tinge to that entire mansion sequence, which is not dissimilar to what Forster brought to the post-Quantum meeting chase and shoot scenes in QoS. Like the earlier film's approach, I didn't like it at first because it is non-traditional, but it's growing on me with every viewing.

    Something about it reminds me of Bond and Corinne in MR too. It's the setting.

    I can see that.

    I think SP has a grandiosity that reminds me very much of MR and, at times, TB.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Wow...some very interesting perspectives here on the matter.

    Personally I've grown weary of EoN's qualitative pattern that sees them make one good movie and then they become complacent and follow up said movie with a string of mediocre to utterly disappointing films. Its annoying and frustrating and to make it even worse, they do all of this under the umbrella of Bond's rich cinematic history which is such a cheap tactic to employ made even worse when the latest film turns out to be something that leaves you in despair and with a heavy heart.

    I don't like SP at all. There are some good parts to it (No Bond film is 100% terrible) but SP comes close. It's biggest sin that it commits is that it's so boring and rather forgettable. There's so much waste of potential and opportunity in this film that it just makes the movie instantly uninviting.

    We keep hearing Craig harp on about how these films don't get made very often and when they do, this is the rubbish they give us? No thanks. What one thinks of the Sony leaks is their business but one thing the leaks did highlight is the complete disregard, time wasting and ineptitude going on over at EoN. It baffles me that EoN neglected their duties as PRODUCERS to not only oversee at frequent stages the development of the script but they had absolutely no clue as to wtf Logan was writing and they left it too late before realising the river of shit they were in.

    Kevin Feige is just one man and yet he manages to oversee the development of 2 to 3 seperate movies of their respective franchises a year; that also ties into an overall cinematic universe and meanwhile, EoN with their almost 60 years in the business, a plethora of excellent source material to draw from can't even hash out an agreeable decent story let alone a complete and cracking script. Seriously, what is going on?

    We have some fantastic, best in the business films in the Bond series and it's heart breaking to know that after all these years, to get a film today that is half as good and that can truly rival some of the great entries that came before is seemingly asking for a miracle.

    I don't care who the candidates are for being the next Bond. I don't care about superfluous rumblings with what may or may not be happening with the next film. I'm just not interested in the whole dog and pony circus show that surrounds Bond/EoN if at the end of the day they can't put out a great film. Just give me a great and exciting film with a cracking musical score and let's make James Bond great again. It's hard to go from watching great films like FRWL, OHMSS, TB and GF and then watch SP and still feel that special something. These last couple of Bond films just don't feel special to me at all and SP really takes it there. I'm disappointed I've had to admit this to myself but it's just how I feel and I pray EoN can really turn things around but if not, I'll make do with the older films which are in a league of their own when it comes to escapist entertainment. I for one don't see myself ever coming round to finding a new appreciation for SP. It's just too disagreeable.
  • Posts: 1,162
    With truth in every single letter!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Indeed.

    Babs seems more interested in doing other projects and gaining critical acclaim these days and not bothered in the slightest if 3, 4 even 5 years go by between Bond films.

    MGW, after decades of sterling service is past it and deserves to be enjoying his retirement. The Wilson sons don't fill me with the slightest confidence at all.

    Judging from the Sony leaks without the studio interceding to say this is rubbish God alone knows what we might have ended up with if EON had been left to make SP unchecked.

    None of us want to hear it or contemplate the possibility but perhaps the harsh reality is it's actually EON who are flying through the air wearing the Fonz's waterskis with a great white looking bemusedly up at them as they sail over?
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Well over the past 28 years they've turned out a lot more turkeys than they have good movies.

    I don't think it's unfair to criticise EON. Babs made an inspired choice in casting Craig but beyond that EON has continued to struggle. Their inability to get good writers on board who understand Bond but can also write good original material is the root problem IMO.

    Without Maibaum for all those years the earlier films would have been a lot more hit and miss as well.

  • Posts: 7,507
    Exactly! Call down that pretentious chase for destinguished Hollywood actors who can sell the film, and start attracting som great writers. There has to be some of them out there! It is frustrating to see the most important collar bone of every film, story and script, being constantly neglected, while they at the same time attract star actors and directors like never before.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Indeed.

    Babs seems more interested in doing other projects and gaining critical acclaim these days and not bothered in the slightest if 3, 4 even 5 years go by between Bond films.

    MGW, after decades of sterling service is past it and deserves to be enjoying his retirement. The Wilson sons don't fill me with the slightest confidence at all.

    Judging from the Sony leaks without the studio interceding to say this is rubbish God alone knows what we might have ended up with if EON had been left to make SP unchecked.

    None of us want to hear it or contemplate the possibility but perhaps the harsh reality is it's actually EON who are flying through the air wearing the Fonz's waterskis with a great white looking bemusedly up at them as they sail over?
    EON seems to be a real excuse factory for their problems. 'Oh well, it was the writers strike', or Oh well it was the Sony leaks that cast a cloud over us'. Getting damn sick of some of this nonsense.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Since Cubby handed over the baton we've had:

    GE - A decent enough return after 6 years of no Bond films but ultimately little more than a greatest hits package. And let's be honest Cubby probavly put a decent amount of input and guidance into it. 7/10

    TND - A fairly slick action flick but solidly average in every department. 6/10

    TWINE - Terrible choice of director with (PTS aside) leaden action sequences and veering into soap opera melodrama. 3/10

    DAD - Even worse directorial choice and failure to keep control of his excesses resulted in the worst film of the series. 1/10

    CR - Inspired piece of casting plus the bonus of having a Fleming novel to work from led to the one and only indisputable triumph of the post Cubby era. 10/10

    QOS - Rushed and questionable decision to make it a sequel which has ultimately not led us to a good place. Craig still elevates it though. 6.5/10

    SF - More a product of a perfect storm of circumstance than anything EON did with the Olympics and Adele being key reasons for the boost in box office. Once again the director given a bit too much leeway but gets away with it here thanks to a better script (if not plot). 7.5/10

    SP - Blinded by the billion dollar box office and the notion that Mendes could do no wrong EON's approach to production of this film was utterly complacent. Seemed to assume if you just get A list talent in a room and leave them to it another billion dollar haul will materialise without any need for any supervision. Gave Mendes enough rope to hang both himself and them and must have been asleep on the job when things like the stepbrother were allowed through. 3/10

    So out of 8 films they manage a distinctly average (and totally unscientific. The scores are off the top of my head - I'm sure a lot of you will argue with my rankings) 45/80.

    Hardly setting the world alight. But then if you look at EON's output over the years the absolute highs have been just as frequent as the absolute stinkers so perhaps they are no better or worse now than they have ever been?
  • Posts: 7,507
    Was the succes rate that much higher during the Cubby years though, the undisputed golden era of the sixties set aside? Going through the seventies the general consensus seems to be there where more missteps than hits. TSWLM is the only generally hailed, solid entry of the era. Its harder to call the eighties as opinions vary so much, but from a box office stand point it wasn't great. The series has been a story of hits and misses all the way since the golden sixties, probably more missteps if I'd had to evaluate it strict and objectively. Its mainly us, the dedicated hard core fantase who have a strong connection with and appreciation of all the films.

    And its not unusual really for any film series. How many great Star Wars films have been made since those famous first two?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The success rate may not have been higher, but we were getting them more frequently, which was something at least. When one has to wait 3-4 years for an entry these days, one's expectations are understandably raised, perhaps unreasonably so. I recognize that a lot of this is outside EON's control.

    From my personal perspective, I think it's time for a solid 'formula' entry. One that recalls the old greats while also seeming fresh. I'm ready for another greatest hits done well to reset course. Give me a GE or TSWLM next time out and I'll be more than happy. I'm just concerned that this team hasn't got a clue how to deliver that properly.

    Alternatively, give me a classic old school simple stripped down dark spy thriller with a quality espionage plot, without too much melodrama or pretension to wear it down, and with the requisite humour sprinkled throughout as well. In order words, give me another FRWL.

    Asking for too much perhaps.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Wasn't it MGW who said once; "We always set out to make a new FRWL, but we always end up with a new Thunderball".

    Its easier said than done...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    True enough. We're in a different time, and there are too many people to please. With foreign markets on the radar, it's likely that some pandering and squandering is necessary. Bloat translates better.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    jobo wrote: »
    Wasn't it MGW who said once; "We always set out to make a new FRWL, but we always end up with a new Thunderball".

    Its easier said than done...

    True but I'll tell you how you don't do it. You don't have invisible cars, CGI atrocities or piss all over the legacy of Bond's nemesis. Get those basics right and you've half a chance so I've got little sympathy for those who say 'Its not EON's fault. It's not as easy as you think.'

    It isn't easy to make a great Bond film but it is considerably easier not to make a terrible one if you just use some common sense.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Longer gaps, means higher expectations, which means EON feel more pressure to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. It really has had a bigger impact than people think.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    DELETE
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 1,162
    jobo wrote: »
    Wasn't it MGW who said once; "We always set out to make a new FRWL, but we always end up with a new Thunderball".

    Its easier said than done...

    True but I'll tell you how you don't do it. You don't have invisible cars, CGI atrocities or piss all over the legacy of Bond's nemesis. Get those basics right and you've half a chance so I've got little sympathy for those who say 'Its not EON's fault. It's not as easy as you think.'

    It isn't easy to make a great Bond film but it is considerably easier not to make a terrible one if you just use some common sense.

    Sounds like wise words to me. Some quite wise advices as well.
  • Posts: 7,507
    jobo wrote: »
    Wasn't it MGW who said once; "We always set out to make a new FRWL, but we always end up with a new Thunderball".

    Its easier said than done...

    True but I'll tell you how you don't do it. You don't have invisible cars, CGI atrocities or piss all over the legacy of Bond's nemesis. Get those basics right and you've half a chance so I've got little sympathy for those who say 'Its not EON's fault. It's not as easy as you think.'

    It isn't easy to make a great Bond film but it is considerably easier not to make a terrible one if you just use some common sense.


    I agree with all that of course. But its the ambisjon of making a great film that makes Eon take chances and make original spins. If you just set out to play safe and not make a bad film, you will get a mediocre, forgetable result. I am not defending the unforgivable sins and mistakes through the years, I just say I understand the mechanisms that made them occur. The willingness and bravery to push boundaries and think outside the box has to be there, and we as fans will have to accept some missteps a long the way. What is missing is the knowledge and understanding of what is too much. However that is not easy either, as opinions and expectations are so different, both among fans and general movie goers...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,276
    @TheWizardOfIce, Madeleine didn't just know about the hotel, she knew about SPECTRE too. She was around her father all her life and saw his work and what he brought home with him (he was even nearly shot dead in his own home while Madeleine and her mother were there). So she knew exactly what he was into, and what people he had been running with. The fear she and her mother had at being in danger of him and his associates is the whole motivation for her going into hiding to escape his contact/reach.

    Like Lucia post-Sciarra's death, she was another loose end that had to be tied off. Wipe the slate clean.

    So an organisation that has 'people everywhere' (including at the heart of governments and secret services) is worried about some girl who has changed her name and hides away at the top of a mountain and dumps a bloke she loves because she wants nothing to with that life? What is she going to do exactly? Assassinate Blofeld? Front up at the police station and say 'There's a shadowy group trying to take over the world'?

    If SPECTRE are truly worried about her 'threat' then they are a long way from as powerful as we are meant to believe. Also they need to bet their members more carefully if they are all blabbing the crown jewells to their wives and daughters.
    peter wrote: »
    I just got more enjoyment from reading @TheWizardOfIce's SP climax than I got from anything that SP actually did after the torture sequence.

    Thanks for that, @TheWizard...

    Very kind Sir. I came up with another version months ago that had uncredited cameos by the likes of Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, Clive Owen etc (and Gillian Anderson if you must) as the other OOs but I think that might be pushing it somewhat.

    She's something of a must with me.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Since Cubby handed over the baton we've had:

    GE - A decent enough return after 6 years of no Bond films but ultimately little more than a greatest hits package. And let's be honest Cubby probavly put a decent amount of input and guidance into it. 7/10

    TND - A fairly slick action flick but solidly average in every department. 6/10

    TWINE - Terrible choice of director with (PTS aside) leaden action sequences and veering into soap opera melodrama. 3/10

    DAD - Even worse directorial choice and failure to keep control of his excesses resulted in the worst film of the series. 1/10

    CR - Inspired piece of casting plus the bonus of having a Fleming novel to work from led to the one and only indisputable triumph of the post Cubby era. 10/10

    QOS - Rushed and questionable decision to make it a sequel which has ultimately not led us to a good place. Craig still elevates it though. 6.5/10

    SF - More a product of a perfect storm of circumstance than anything EON did with the Olympics and Adele being key reasons for the boost in box office. Once again the director given a bit too much leeway but gets away with it here thanks to a better script (if not plot). 7.5/10

    SP - Blinded by the billion dollar box office and the notion that Mendes could do no wrong EON's approach to production of this film was utterly complacent. Seemed to assume if you just get A list talent in a room and leave them to it another billion dollar haul will materialise without any need for any supervision. Gave Mendes enough rope to hang both himself and them and must have been asleep on the job when things like the stepbrother were allowed through. 3/10

    So out of 8 films they manage a distinctly average (and totally unscientific. The scores are off the top of my head - I'm sure a lot of you will argue with my rankings) 45/80.

    Hardly setting the world alight. But then if you look at EON's output over the years the absolute highs have been just as frequent as the absolute stinkers so perhaps they are no better or worse now than they have ever been?

    Brilliant post!!! Agree 100%!!
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 3,327
    jobo wrote: »
    Wasn't it MGW who said once; "We always set out to make a new FRWL, but we always end up with a new Thunderball".

    Its easier said than done...

    True but I'll tell you how you don't do it. You don't have invisible cars, CGI atrocities or piss all over the legacy of Bond's nemesis. Get those basics right and you've half a chance so I've got little sympathy for those who say 'Its not EON's fault. It's not as easy as you think.'

    It isn't easy to make a great Bond film but it is considerably easier not to make a terrible one if you just use some common sense.

    The one glaringly obvious thing for me here is Fleming. Whenever the source material is tapped into, with whole scenes and characters adapted into a script, the film usually elevates itself to a higher level. And anyone who has read all the books knows there are still tons of Fleming material left untapped (whole novels even).

    Yet instead, the direction from EON to P&W is for them to try and come up with original material, but to also try and mimic how Fleming would write. The results have more often than not been disastrous.

    This ain't rocket science, yet Babs and co. have made it so. Just do what Cubby ordered Maibaum to do for many of the films - adapt whatever is still there and unused in the Fleming novels.


  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    About SP: Still can't believe that with all the money and talent they had available the final film is the best they could achieve. It's boring with only some interesting and great bits sprinkled in.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    About SP: Still can't believe that with all the money and talent they had available the final film is the best they could achieve. It's boring with only some interesting and great bits sprinkled in.

    I'm inclined to agree.

    Still less boring than SF IMO
Sign In or Register to comment.