›

And the Klebbie goes to...Worst execution of a good idea page 147

1…34689…148

Comments

  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    Second round? It's Tanya Roberts again, then.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,609
    Oh yes, in the tie breaker if I have to pick between Berry and Roberts it's got to be Roberts. Berry is a good actress.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,213
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    I never understand how Barbara Bach doesn't run away with these sorts of rankings.

    Tanya screams too much, but delivers her lines like a human being. Halle can obviously act buy is given possibly the worst dialogue in the series.

    Barbara looks like she's from the moon and trying to pass as an Earthling. Every intonation and facial expression is wrong, when any exists in the first place.

    I must agree. In fact, I think she gives a worse performance than any of the nominations here, safe for maybe Mie Hama.

    My definite pick for most irritating Bond girl, not nominated here either, has to go to the crass portrayal of Tiffany Case by Jill St. John.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,609
    Oh I can't go with that, she's loud and brash maybe but she is charismatic and has presence.
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,161
    I'm hesitating between Roberts and Ekland. Both are victims of scripts that really push the concept of the dumb, inept blonde to new hights (or lows, depending how you look at it). Hama at least has the excuse of not having known a word of English prior to shooting so maybe that has played a factor in her performance (plus she's the only Bond girl whose name we don't even get to know until the end credits).
    I give the edge to Ekland, as at least she was somewhat endearing in her ineptitude and she disposed of a henchman (and almost disposed of Bond in hilarious fashion).
    Roberts is all around annoying and frankly I wanted to see her disposed of not even 5 minutes after her first appearance.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2020 Posts: 6,387
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    I never understand how Barbara Bach doesn't run away with these sorts of rankings.

    Tanya screams too much, but delivers her lines like a human being. Halle can obviously act buy is given possibly the worst dialogue in the series.

    Barbara looks like she's from the moon and trying to pass as an Earthling. Every intonation and facial expression is wrong, when any exists in the first place.

    I must agree. In fact, I think she gives a worse performance than any of the nominations here, safe for maybe Mie Hama.

    My definite pick for most irritating Bond girl, not nominated here either, has to go to the crass portrayal of Tiffany Case by Jill St. John.

    St. John is far from the worst and has genuine chemistry with Connery, as does Bach with Moore. If you're looking for worse, may I nominate Lois Chiles?
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,161
    echo wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    ProfJoeButcher wrote: »
    I never understand how Barbara Bach doesn't run away with these sorts of rankings.

    Tanya screams too much, but delivers her lines like a human being. Halle can obviously act buy is given possibly the worst dialogue in the series.

    Barbara looks like she's from the moon and trying to pass as an Earthling. Every intonation and facial expression is wrong, when any exists in the first place.

    I must agree. In fact, I think she gives a worse performance than any of the nominations here, safe for maybe Mie Hama.

    My definite pick for most irritating Bond girl, not nominated here either, has to go to the crass portrayal of Tiffany Case by Jill St. John.

    St. John is far from the worst and has genuine chemistry with Connery, as does Bach with Moore. If you're looking for worse, may I nominate Lois Chiles?

    100% agree!
    Chiles was absolutely atrocious, more wooden than Bach even. Her delivery of dialogue was the absolute worst in the series - it was like watching someone reading their lines directly from a teleprompter - not the slightest hint of emotion.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,482
    Thanks to the academy members who have broken the tie! The Bondie for worst actress in a leading role goes to Tanya Roberts as Stacey Sutton in A View to A Kill!

    Now on to our next category...worst adapted screenplay. The nominees have to be from the Fleming novels that have been adapted to the screen. In some cases the storyline and plot points have been discarded, these might be your favourite movies. What I would ask the academy to consider is based on the novel how well was the script adapted for the screen.

    The nominees are:
    • Moonraker screenplay by Christopher Wood
    • The Man with The Golden Gun screenplay by Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz
    • You Only Live Twice by Roald Dahl
    • Diamonds are Forever by Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz

    This will be our first category to only have 4 nominees. Remember you are considering how well adapted from the source material the screenplay was. Let the voting commence!
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    Moonraker screenplay by Christopher Wood. Literally the only things adapted from Fleming's best book are Drax's name and something being called, well, Moonraker.
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    Moonraker screenplay by Christopher Wood
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,609
    Tricky one. If it's in terms of being well-adapted for the screen I'd say Diamonds and Golden Gun don't really hit the screen all that well in that they're amongst the worst Bond films. Moonraker isn't much like its book, but it's a more entertaining film so I couldn't say it's badly adapted: it adapted to fit the screen pretty well. I don't think the Oscars category judges the screenplay on how closely it resembles its source material after all.

    Golden Gun has a really weird plot that ignores the nature of the villain for some reason (why is it about some nonsense Solex device instead of the World's Greatest Assassin y'know: assassinating someone?!), and although it starts really well with the 007 bullet stuff it rapidly becomes about Bond wanting to kill this man (even though it turns out he's actually innocent of the charge) and steal his possession even though the British have no claim on it. It's a very strange script.

    And Diamonds is just all rather dreary and bitty and lacks sparkle. Both of them have some great lines, but they're not really very well adapted.

    So I'll go for Diamonds I think.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,602
    Tough since I love all 4. However I'll have to go with YOLT. It went from a dreary/ruined Bond to capturing space ships mid orbit. That's what you get when you film the Blofeld trilogy out of order.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    I honestly kind of prefer film Diamonds to the book. As it's own thing, I mean. It utterly fails as a follow up to OHMSS.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Tricky, but I suppose I will go with MR. It isn t just that it has nothing to do with the book, but it is also a remake of the previous film, which again was a remake of YOLT, and none of those had anything to do with the respective books, either.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,085
    Excuse me, but if the deviation from the novel is the core issue, there is nothing "worse" than The Spy Who Loved Me! It has absolutely nothing to do with the book, for better or for worse. The same goes for Moonraker, but why should that one be included (and probably punished) for not even being close to the novel (except for having a villain called Drax) if TSWLM isn't? And yes, of course MR (the movie) was a remake of TSWLM (the movie) which was a remake of YOLT (the movie).

    TMWTGG the movie has no more to do with TMWTGG the novel than is the case with TSWLM, and about the same as MR. Should we decide on the "worst...adapted screenplay" or on the "worst adapted...screenplay"?

    In the end, DAF and even YOLT are at least using some elements of the novels. If I have to decide here, my choice for worst adapted screenplay should possibly go to either of them...since they were the only ones to adapt anything in the first place. But again, why treat movies scripts better that don't give a damn about the novel? For me the worst of the four is TMWTGG, and for lack of better defined criteria, I'll stick with that one.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,482
    Good point @j_w_pepper about what an adaption is. Of course it just isn't taking the Fleming novel and bringing it to the screen. I would suggest the criteria should be does the movie improve or make the most of the adapted novel.

    I didn't include TSWLM as Fleming only gave the filmmakers permission to use the title and not the plot or characters. So it is more like an original screenplay. That will be a future category! :)
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    Fleming specified when handing over the film rights to EON that they couldn't use any elements of TSWLM's plot or characters in a movie, so it was out of their hands. You can't even really call it an adaption. Plus, I'd say the film is better than the book.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    I'm going with TMWTGoldenGun. In terms of departing from the Fleming novel, this one isn't even in the same ballpark as the original. There's a guy named Scaramanga, a Golden Gun, and then... whoa! An abrupt and total departure. YOLT and DAF have substantial elements of their respective novels embedded somewhere in their scripts... MR at least holds some sort of internal, loopy logic to its non-Fleming premise... but TMWTGG can't even be bothered to do that. Is it about Bond vs. the world's greatest assassin, or is it about his pursuit of a solar power macguffin? And once he's attained said macguffin, why isn't the world's economy completely altered? Oh, never mind -- that's a topic for another movie, one that will never be made.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    My vote goes to YOLT; one of my favourite novels, stripped of everything that makes it fun and unique. Tough one though, there’s certainly logic behind voting for any of the nominees here.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,921
    mtm wrote: »
    What’s obtuse is not noticing that it moves from her hating the sight of him, him giving her an awful cheesy platitude, MONTAGE, she’s in love with him. That’s dreadful. They couldn’t be bothered to write her falling in love with him.

    Hopefully this will be the last time I have to point out your perpetual (and yes, obtuse) misreadings of OHMSS. Tracy does not hate the sight of Bond. She storms out of Draco's birthday party because she thinks Bond is just using her to get information from her father. She would not have done this if she didn't already have some feeling for Bond--and when Bond catches up to her she has tears on her face, which shows she's been hurt by what she perceives as Bond's indifference.
    Bond has to therefore prove his genuine feelings for her, which he does by wiping her tears away, verbally reassuring her of his commitment ("Mistakes should be remedied" is one the very rare times in the series where Bond outright apologizes to a woman), and spending time with her. The film shows this by intercutting three or four dates of the characters, showing that Bond has made good on his word and committed to the relationship.
    The montage is therefore dramatically justified and also a good way to express in shorthand what would have made an already long movie longer. Furthermore, the whole idea of Bond needing to prove his feelings to Tracy is not in the book, which treats the love affair in a far more cursory manner (there are no Bond/Tracy scenes in between Bond meeting Draco and going to Switzerland). That is why I have very little patience for your carping at what is a clear improvement on Fleming.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What’s obtuse is not noticing that it moves from her hating the sight of him, him giving her an awful cheesy platitude, MONTAGE, she’s in love with him. That’s dreadful. They couldn’t be bothered to write her falling in love with him.

    Hopefully this will be the last time I have to point out your perpetual (and yes, obtuse) misreadings of OHMSS. Tracy does not hate the sight of Bond. She storms out of Draco's birthday party because she thinks Bond is just using her to get information from her father. She would not have done this if she didn't already have some feeling for Bond--and when Bond catches up to her she has tears on her face, which shows she's been hurt by what she perceives as Bond's indifference.
    Bond has to therefore prove his genuine feelings for her, which he does by wiping her tears away, verbally reassuring her of his commitment ("Mistakes should be remedied" is one the very rare times in the series where Bond outright apologizes to a woman), and spending time with her. The film shows this by intercutting three or four dates of the characters, showing that Bond has made good on his word and committed to the relationship.
    The montage is therefore dramatically justified and also a good way to express in shorthand what would have made an already long movie longer. Furthermore, the whole idea of Bond needing to prove his feelings to Tracy is not in the book, which treats the love affair in a far more cursory manner (there are no Bond/Tracy scenes in between Bond meeting Draco and going to Switzerland). That is why I have very little patience for your carping at what is a clear improvement on Fleming.
    Excellent post.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,387
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    My vote goes to YOLT; one of my favourite novels, stripped of everything that makes it fun and unique. Tough one though, there’s certainly logic behind voting for any of the nominees here.

    This is a tough one. I hate what they did with YOLT, TMTWGG, and DAF, but only MR had the balls to jettison almost all of the (quite good) source material. And then they kept crypto-adapting it, for some reason.

    But maybe that saves a true MR for another day...

    My vote is for MR.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited May 2020 Posts: 7,593
    echo wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    My vote goes to YOLT; one of my favourite novels, stripped of everything that makes it fun and unique. Tough one though, there’s certainly logic behind voting for any of the nominees here.

    This is a tough one. I hate what they did with YOLT, TMTWGG, and DAF, but only MR had the balls to jettison almost all of the (quite good) source material. And then they kept crypto-adapting it, for some reason.

    But maybe that saves a true MR for another day...

    My vote is for MR.

    I so agree, this is how I look at it:

    MR:
    Very Great Novel into Good Film

    YOLT:
    Great Novel into Bad Film

    I suppose that's how I decided on YOLT. It's true though that it's criminal how they eliminated all the source material from MR.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,921
    Worst adapted screenplay...

    My vote goes to TMWTGG. All the other nominees at lest replaced Fleming with something splashy and entertaining, even if it was bloated (YOLT), braindead (MR), or funny but shallow (DAF).
    Furthermore, TMWTGG was based on Fleming's weakest novel and therefore should have had less of a challenge surpassing its source. And yet even the best parts of Fleming's novel--the opening chapters and the final one--were completely skipped by the film.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    Revelator wrote: »
    Worst adapted screenplay...

    My vote goes to TMWTGG. All the other nominees at lest replaced Fleming with something splashy and entertaining, even if it was bloated (YOLT), braindead (MR), or funny but shallow (DAF).
    Furthermore, TMWTGG was based on Fleming's weakest novel and therefore should have had less of a challenge surpassing its source. And yet even the best parts of Fleming's novel--the opening chapters and the final one--were completely skipped by the film.

    Really good point about TMWTGG and the low benchmark the novel set.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    You Only Live Twice by Roald Dahl people always complain about Moonraker this story went nuts as well kept only Japan and the rest of the tale was not used, not surprising if you do not deliver the three Blofeld stories out of order. The whole movie felt a bit off and the special effects were awful. While I dig Connery this was the first movie that went in the wrong direction for me and had little to do with the original book.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,085
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Fleming specified when handing over the film rights to EON that they couldn't use any elements of TSWLM's plot or characters in a movie, so it was out of their hands. You can't even really call it an adaption. Plus, I'd say the film is better than the book.
    @thedove and @Agent_One
    I know that and I don't question that. It's just that the other scripts in question do not reflect much (or almost anything) of the respective original novel as well, and I'm not sure they should be treated differently from the handling of TSWLM just because the deviation was voluntary in their case.
  • Herr_StockmannHerr_Stockmann
    Posts: 910
    As @Revelator , my vote also goes to TMWTGG. Especially since I really like Fleming's novel, despite its imperfections and shortcomings, which accentuates the lower quality of the Hamilton's movie, which nevertheless benefits from good ideas here and there, but which owe more to the cinematography and the sets than to the script itself which was uninteresting.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    Herr_Stockmann wrote: »
    As @Revelator , my vote also goes to TMWTGG. Especially since I really like Fleming's novel, despite its imperfections and shortcomings, which accentuates the lower quality of the Hamilton's movie, which nevertheless benefits from good ideas here and there, but which owe more to the cinematography and the sets than to the script itself which was uninteresting.

    I really need to re-read it. I like Bond's musings on killing in cold blood at the end, but much of the novel I forget.
  • 2Wint2Kidd2Wint2Kidd
    Posts: 698
    It's a toss up between MR and TMWTGG. There was nothing more in my opinion Roald Dahl could have done to better adapt YOLT, and there are so many other issues with DAF besides the screenplay. I might give TMWTGG a pass, as it does in my opinion improve Scaramanga, but the script still isn't great. So my rather convoluted answer would be Moonraker as the script has always been the weakest aspect of the film, sequences strung together by a thin piece of thread and it's basically the same plot as TSWLM. Not to mention MR is my favourite Fleming novel and there is no interest to adapt anything from that, and the insistence to put cartoony jokes in the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.