› ›

let's be honest: really, do we need a new James Bond??? I don't think so...

2»

Comments

  • ThrasosThrasos
    edited June 2016 Posts: 1,469
    peter wrote: »
    ...As others have said, Babs and Co need to go back and get a great story that will challenge DC's talents.
    I think this is a huge part of it. Was wondering what the ratios are in building a great Bond film (was there a thread about that? or maybe that was just about building Bond himself.) I'm sure some "circles" or aspects overlap, but I think the scriptwriting/screenplay/story makes up, what, 80 to 90%--on that framework hangs the whole movie and enables Craig or the next Bond to do what he needs to do. Did I read that new writers are coming in, or may, for the next film? It's either that or Barbara has to find a way to crack the whip harder or dangle more money in front of the writers. I liked SPECTRE, but I liked CR much more, and SF more too.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Thrasos wrote: »
    Was wondering what the ratios are in building a great Bond film (was there a thread about that? or maybe that was just about building Bond himself.) I'm sure some "circles" or aspects overlap, but I think the scriptwriting/screenplay/story makes up, what, 80 to 90%--on that framework hangs the whole movie and enables Craig or the next Bond to do what he needs to do. Did I read that new writers are coming in, or may, for the next film? It's either that or Barbara has to find a way to crack the whip harder or dangle more money in front of the writers. I liked SPECTRE, but I liked CR much more, and SF more too.

    The first and most basic rule of filmmaking since forever is the script is 100%.

    With the Mendes era it appears the current thinking seems to be:

    Script = 10%
    Underwhelming action set pieces = 10%
    M = 5%
    MP = 5%
    Q = 5%
    Rory Kinnear standing around looking gormless = 5%
    If in doubt use the DB5 = 60%

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Thrasos wrote: »
    Was wondering what the ratios are in building a great Bond film (was there a thread about that? or maybe that was just about building Bond himself.) I'm sure some "circles" or aspects overlap, but I think the scriptwriting/screenplay/story makes up, what, 80 to 90%--on that framework hangs the whole movie and enables Craig or the next Bond to do what he needs to do. Did I read that new writers are coming in, or may, for the next film? It's either that or Barbara has to find a way to crack the whip harder or dangle more money in front of the writers. I liked SPECTRE, but I liked CR much more, and SF more too.

    The first and most basic rule of filmmaking since forever is the script is 100%.

    With the Mendes era it appears the current thinking seems to be:

    Script = 10%
    Underwhelming action set pieces = 10%
    M = 5%
    MP = 5%
    Q = 5%
    Rory Kinnear standing around looking gormless = 5%
    If in doubt use the DB5 = 60%

    Agreed 100%
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,865
    Shrugs for me the Mendes era would be more

    Script = 20%
    When in doubt use corny gags and throwbacks to the 60's = 80%

    Like I said I don't mind a bit of nostalgia but I prefer bond being a current player
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's when the homages and tropes become more than dressing, when they replace plot, depth, fresh ideas and insight, that I have a problem. And that seems to be what we've evolved into.

    I feel like they've just done so many of them from TWINE onward that any callback or homage is distracting. They've really become a crutch for the filmmakers over the years. The longer they continue on using them in the fashion that they are, the closer and closer the franchise will get to self-parody, IMO.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited June 2016 Posts: 4,610
    peter wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »

    One of my disappointments in SP (coming from a guy that still finds it highly watchable), was that I did think they were going to give us an OHMSS type film; something with more emotion (a la CR); I thought we were going to get a unique, adult Bond film. And when they teased the OHMSS theme in the trailer, I was over the moon.

    Instead we got what we got. It looked good. I enjoyed DC's performance (AGAIN), the individual scenes were wonderful, but, as a whole, the film is an empty shell.

    EoN should know their strengths (DC as Bond (like TC as Hunt), the seeds of Fleming's stories, and build a mature film, with great set pieces (considering Craig's great physical work (also akin to, but not to the degree of, TC)). Know your strengths and build from there, like JJ and TC did with MI3 through to MI5

    Funny, after I watched SP on Sunday, I went on youtube and watched the original teaser with the mostly Mr. White dialogue, and remember being completely blown away. Especially with the Bond theme in bells with him walking up to the SP meeting. This is going to be an epic, haunting conclusion which had me thinking "possible best Bond film ever." Granted, it is #3 in my rankings and I still love it, but what we got versus what I thought we were going to get was sort of a letdown.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2016 Posts: 9,117
    dalton wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's when the homages and tropes become more than dressing, when they replace plot, depth, fresh ideas and insight, that I have a problem. And that seems to be what we've evolved into.

    I feel like they've just done so many of them from TWINE onward that any callback or homage is distracting. They've really become a crutch for the filmmakers over the years. The longer they continue on using them in the fashion that they are, the closer and closer the franchise will get to self-parody, IMO.

    When Rog took over they made the conscious decision not to have the DB5, say 'shaken not stirred' etc etc and just came up with original adventures and situations in which to place Bond. They even created new iconic moments of their own such as the ski jump and Jaws.

    Ever since Brozza harking back to the past is all we seem to have with the exception of CR (although they still couldn't avoid forcing the DB5 down our throats) and QOS which despite its faults has the balls to stand on its own two feet.

    The Mendes era is propped up by more crutches than you'd find on a coach trip of pensioners on their way to Lourdes. On the face of it SF and SP seem very slick and classy entry but when you boil it down the guy is just Tesco Finest fan fiction.

    We're back in the same place as Brozza just back in his day the shop was Lidl.

    I guess at least you can say we're shopping in a better supermarket these days.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Clean up aisle 7.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    When Rog took over they made the conscious decision not to have the DB5, say 'shaken not stirred' etc etc and just came up with original adventures and situations in which to place Bond. They even created new iconic moments of their own such as the ski jump and Jaws.
    This is precisely why Moore is still #2 for me. His period is different to Sean's but still fresh & unique. The Craig era had a chance to take him out and started off so promisingly, but as you note, has descended into the same kind of fan fiction over the last two films in particular that characterized his immediate predecessor's time. Pity. Hopefully Bond 007 can get us back on track, when he eventually comes along.
  • ThrasosThrasos
    Posts: 1,469
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Clean up aisle 7.
    "Hallo? Are you going to take zese coupons or make me wait?"
    "Certainly, sir. Sorry, sir."
    TheWizardOfIce--I laughed out loud at your post about the ratios!
Sign In or Register to comment.