›

Can Broccoli and Wilson learn from Abrams?

1235»

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2016 Posts: 6,356
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Part of the problem is people are too caught up on what constitutes to being a Bond film. CR and especially QoS were major departures of a traditional Bond film and to a lesser extent so was SF. The underlying current that runs through those 3 Bond films that serves to be a constant positive for them us that they weren't typical Bond films. However, people still want to be spoon-fed hallmarks that distinctively identify these films as Bond movies. Many people cried for the better part of a decade about having the gunbarrel back at the start...Yeah, big whoop we got it for SP and it's impact was equal to that of a soggy deflating balloon. Mendes felt the need to shoehorn and over do it with the tropes, his biggest sin being compelled to shove the db5 down our throats.

    I'm all for hallmarks and tropes but they need to be done in an organic way and with moderation. Now that I think about it, as much as I don't like Newman's score, I'm surprised we didn't get the Bond theme blaring every 4 minutes.

    Bond needs to be Bond obviously but we need these films to showcase a willingness and boldness in the same way CR and QoS did. One of the worst scenes in Bond history, for me, was Bond and Swann shooting their way out of Blofeld's lair. *groan* Anyway, going forward these films need to be better written and elevate itself from cliche and the pastiche it's now almost becoming.

    SP on the whole is good but the spy competition of 2015 and what's to come this year will force EoN to re-evaluate things. More CR and less SF/SP. Thank you very much.

    It's quite ironic, because they started the DC era with the intention of moving away from pastiche. Now they seem to be embracing it - as if now we've had a few films that aren't like that we suddenly want to do what we were originally so opposed to.

    I agree with you completely. It's like Babs and MGW lost the confidence of their CR direction along the way...or maybe Mendes convinced them otherwise.

    I still think the series would be better off without Moneypenny and Q right now.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think Q and MP can still feature but they need to be used in a better way and to a lesser degree. They have no business being out in the field and I hated how Bond's investigative skills took a short cut based on his suspisions about Franz by calling up MP to do a wiki-Google search. Rubbish.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Seems like Mendes and P&W are hoodwinking EON by using being knowledgable about Bond as a smokescreen for not being very good at their jobs. Why come up with something inventive and original when you can just wheel out the DB5 again?
    In what regard is Mendes knowledgable about Bond?

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    boldfinger wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Seems like Mendes and P&W are hoodwinking EON by using being knowledgable about Bond as a smokescreen for not being very good at their jobs. Why come up with something inventive and original when you can just wheel out the DB5 again?
    In what regard is Mendes knowledgable about Bond?

    Well perhaps 'fanboy' would be a better term than knowledgeable but I take your point. His knowledge basically amounts to remembering the DB5 from GF.

    To be fair to P&W I think they do actually know their Fleming and that's not a bad thing but surely that should not be the sole criteria when hiring someone to write a Bond script?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I would force every screen writer to read every novel before they wrote a word of a script.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I caught SP again today and I really really enjoyed it, much more so than I have the last few times I've seen it. It's interesting to note that given the script issues the film suffered, the movie itself came out better than it probably should have. I found that I was a lot less annoyed by certain things that really bugged me, like the car chase. Still, the film is flawed but it's not even close to the tragedy some have made it out to be. Even Smith's song is more digestible not that I really hated it but a female vocalist would have been an improvement.

    In a nutshell, the film really gets a hard time form fans and I'm guilty of riding the movie quite hard at times but it's a solid movie that means well and is a very good outing. It's just not a WOW-type film. I think with more care, better preparation and with whatever disappointments that were incurred throughout the entire process of this film and it making less money than what EoN were probably expecting, I think Bond 25 is really going to be a powerhouse film.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    IMO the DB5 in Skyfall worked, but in recent viewings of Spectre the ending scene just makes me cringe so hard at how hard it's trying to be Bondian.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    IMO the DB5 in Skyfall worked, but in recent viewings of Spectre the ending scene just makes me cringe so hard at how hard it's trying to be Bondian.

    In what way do you feel it works in SF but not SP?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I cringed both times.

    However, the audience I saw SF with (all 3 times in the theatre) cheered for it in SF, but not in SP.

    For some reason it worked in SF for the people I saw it with, and I think the Bond theme had a lot to do with it. Plus they built it up nicely with anticipation as to where he was taking her.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,722
    Both times I saw SP, the audience were a riot - laughing out loud frequently at all the jokes. The DB5 appearance at the very end though, not a sound from the audience.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    The SP DB5 appearance was just as good as SF.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,756
    RC7 wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    IMO the DB5 in Skyfall worked, but in recent viewings of Spectre the ending scene just makes me cringe so hard at how hard it's trying to be Bondian.

    In what way do you feel it works in SF but not SP?

    Because in Skyfall, in that point in the movie everything is going to sh*t. So when you hear the Bond theme and the DB5 it feels good and motivational like "Hell yeah Bond might actually get out of this!"

    In SP there was no sense of danger at that point, it was just slapped onto the end of the movie with his girl at his seat kind of just awkwardly sitting there admiring him while he puts the car into drive? It just made me roll my eyes. Bond's already won and he's not in danger so there's no emotional payoff.

    This scene as an example:
    1:23 gives me goosebumps everytime.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    In Skyfall I liked the inclusion of it simply because it was the 50th film.

    I've never understood this guff surrounding anniversarys. They should be celebrated outside of the film. If they want to include some subtle homages, which they do in every movie anyway, then so be it, but why are people so enamoured with this concept of overt references just because the film happens to be released in a specific year? Do we roll out the DB5 again for the 60th and the 65th? How about the 70th, 75th, 80th... Why not just have it in every film from now on?

    I quite agree - it was better when TLD came out as a 25th anniversary Bond - there was none of that there.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    The easy answer would be that SF is just a better film. But, the DB5 reveal works better IMHO as the timing and context is better. It fits in with going "back in time" and its also happens at a time where Bond changes the momentum and takes the initiative. It signals the start of the final third of the movie, a key point in any film. The collection point also implies that Bond clearly cared for the car (as does the audience) and this was confirmed by the furious look we get when the car is hit by cannon fire from the chopper. Also, we get the explanaition of it not having a tracker. Its obvioulsy very contrived but it does work and I do remember the cheer of the audience when I first saw SF. If you can get the audience to react exactly how you anticipated, then the director has succeeded.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    I always found it funny the look Bond gives when the DB5 gets destroyed in SF - it's a 'now I'm really annoyed' kind of face that just amuses me everytime I see it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    patb wrote: »
    The easy answer would be that SF is just a better film. But, the DB5 reveal works better IMHO as the timing and context is better. It fits in with going "back in time" and its also happens at a time where Bond changes the momentum and takes the initiative. It signals the start of the final third of the movie, a key point in any film. The collection point also implies that Bond clearly cared for the car (as does the audience) and this was confirmed by the furious look we get when the car is hit by cannon fire from the chopper. Also, we get the explanaition of it not having a tracker. Its obvioulsy very contrived but it does work and I do remember the cheer of the audience when I first saw SF. If you can get the audience to react exactly how you anticipated, then the director has succeeded.

    Agreed with this. The very reason the DB5 works in SF is the same reason it didn't work in SP.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    sorry, one other point, the reveal happens at a time of great excitement, tension and action (just after the court/hearing scene), the audience are really involved in that (plus we have the poetry) and the DB5 appears , there is no build up, no "wink wink, here it comes", it just adds another layer to the excitement, its really well executed IMHO as it could have gone very wrong.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The easy answer would be that SF is just a better film. But, the DB5 reveal works better IMHO as the timing and context is better. It fits in with going "back in time" and its also happens at a time where Bond changes the momentum and takes the initiative. It signals the start of the final third of the movie, a key point in any film. The collection point also implies that Bond clearly cared for the car (as does the audience) and this was confirmed by the furious look we get when the car is hit by cannon fire from the chopper. Also, we get the explanaition of it not having a tracker. Its obvioulsy very contrived but it does work and I do remember the cheer of the audience when I first saw SF. If you can get the audience to react exactly how you anticipated, then the director has succeeded.

    Agreed with this. The very reason the DB5 works in SF is the same reason it didn't work in SP.

    I'd still bin it from both.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    IMO the DB5 in Skyfall worked, but in recent viewings of Spectre the ending scene just makes me cringe so hard at how hard it's trying to be Bondian.

    In what way do you feel it works in SF but not SP?

    Because in Skyfall, in that point in the movie everything is going to sh*t. So when you hear the Bond theme and the DB5 it feels good and motivational like "Hell yeah Bond might actually get out of this!"

    In SP there was no sense of danger at that point, it was just slapped onto the end of the movie with his girl at his seat kind of just awkwardly sitting there admiring him while he puts the car into drive? It just made me roll my eyes. Bond's already won and he's not in danger so there's no emotional payoff.

    This scene as an example:
    1:23 gives me goosebumps everytime.

    For King and country? Never noticed that before. What year does this film take place?
  • DRush76DRush76
    edited February 2016 Posts: 533
    So . . . the lesson that Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson can learn from J.J. Abrams is to plagiarize an old Bond film in order to achieve box office gold? Because that is what Abrams did with "THE FORCE AWAKENS". Some article from Entertainment Weekly pointed out that there are at least 18 similarities between "THE FORCE AWAKENS" and 1977's "A NEW HOPE". This worse than anything that the Bond franchise has done. Then again, I'm not surprised. Both Abrams and James Cameron are like Hollywood's leaders when it comes to plagiarism. Even Abrams' best film - 2011's "SUPER 8" was basically a remake of a "STAR TREK VOYAGER" episode called "Prey".

    I couldn't agree more with regards to EON relying far too heavily on references to the first 20 films as of late. I've been banging that drum since Casino Royale was released, and it's only gotten worse with Skyfall and Spectre. Eventually we're going to run into the problem that there are no iconic scenes for future filmmakers to call back to (when appropriate) later on in the franchise because they've spent a good amount of time (an entire actor's tenure at this point) creating "iconic" moments by recycling older, actual iconic moments from the days of Connery and Moore.


    Is that what the Bond franchise is supposed to be about? Iconic moments? What happened to plot? The iconic moment of Shirley Eaton's "dead" body covered in gold could not save "GOLDFINGER" for me. And in my opinion, the 1964 film still remains one of the worst in the Bond movie franchise.

    I hope to God that Broccoli and Wilson do not pay attention to this thread. The last thing they need to do is learn any lessons from an unoriginal hack like J.J. Abrams.


  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    The easy answer would be that SF is just a better film. But, the DB5 reveal works better IMHO as the timing and context is better. It fits in with going "back in time" and its also happens at a time where Bond changes the momentum and takes the initiative. It signals the start of the final third of the movie, a key point in any film. The collection point also implies that Bond clearly cared for the car (as does the audience) and this was confirmed by the furious look we get when the car is hit by cannon fire from the chopper. Also, we get the explanaition of it not having a tracker. Its obvioulsy very contrived but it does work and I do remember the cheer of the audience when I first saw SF. If you can get the audience to react exactly how you anticipated, then the director has succeeded.

    Agreed with this. The very reason the DB5 works in SF is the same reason it didn't work in SP.

    At the risk of flogging a dead horse - you genuinely think that the DB5 WORKS in Skyfall..?!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    DRush76 wrote: »
    So . . . the lesson that Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson can learn from J.J. Abrams is to plagiarize an old Bond film in order to achieve box office gold?

    Cubby already mastered that trick with TSWLM.

    DRush76 wrote: »
    I hope to God that Broccoli and Wilson do not pay attention to this thread. The last thing they need to do is learn any lessons from an unoriginal hack like J.J. Abrams.

    Agreed that we dont want Abrams anywhere near the Bond series but I do hope EON are reading this to see the disgruntlement amongst the fans over the way things are heading.

    Not that it matters. The box office the people on here contribute to the overall gross is, I doubt, barely 0.01% of the $850mil or so SP took so why would they give the slightest toss what we think if the public continue to lap up the DB5, unfinished scripts and Newman's wank score?

    Fans are an irrelevance in todays global big business - just look at Liverpool. Do you think the board are going to back down because the fans walked out. Plenty of day trippers from China and India who will fill those £77 seats.
  • DRush76DRush76
    edited February 2016 Posts: 533
    Agreed that we dont want Abrams anywhere near the Bond series but I do hope EON are reading this to see the disgruntlement amongst the fans over the way things are heading.


    I don't if I can trust the judgment of some other fans. Are we speaking of the same fans who thought a piece of crap like "SKYFALL" was the greatest thing since Swiss cheese?

    Is that what Broccoli and Wilson supposed to do? Return to making a movie like that? Go back to creating a movie with multiple plot holes and misogyny? I was more than satisfied with "SPECTRE". But if "the fans" prefer movies like "SKYFALL" and "THE FORCE AWAKENS", they can keep those movies.
Sign In or Register to comment.