Sam Mendes doesn't understand James Bond

124

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Zekidk wrote:
    By keeping the action at a bare minimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the drama-director Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action set-piece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!
    Well, you sound as though you'd enjoy the Die Hard movies or an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie -- perhaps The Expendables 2, something where the whole point of the movie is to justify the use of large over-the-top fantasized action scenes.

    Most of the Die Hard films have less set pieces than Bond. Since it's normally Willis trapped in one place against tons of bad guys, the action scenes are more sectioned off fist fights and gunfights with a big finale at the end. Die Hard 3 wasn't set in one building but even that didn't have many set pieces, probably the least out of any Die Hard film. 4 is an exception but even that only has about 3 big set pieces.
  • Most of the Die Hard films have less set pieces than Bond. Since it's normally Willis trapped in one place against tons of bad guys, the action scenes are more sectioned off fist fights and gunfights with a big finale at the end. Die Hard 3 wasn't set in one building but even that didn't have many set pieces, probably the least out of any Die Hard film. 4 is an exception but even that only has about 3 big set pieces.
    The way you describe it the Die Hard films are pretty laid back dramas. ;)


  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Well I wouldn't go that far but when it comes to pure action porn Die Hard is hardly Crank. They're brilliant action films but they also have lots of dialouge and not many set pieces.
  • Well I wouldn't go that far but when it comes to pure action porn Die Hard is hardly Crank.
    Course by your way of defining things, Crank didn't have too many big set pieces, either.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Well I wouldn't go that far but when it comes to pure action porn Die Hard is hardly Crank.
    Course by your way of defining things, Crank didn't have too many big set pieces, either.

    Hmmm, true, but it was pretty much action from start to finish. I think the Die Hard films, like Bond, are more than that.
  • Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    By keeping the action at a bare minimum and scrapping action set pieces from the storyboard?

    I can clearly hear the drama-director Mendes say: "Let's cram the only huge action set-piece in the movie into the PCS, so we can get to the good part after the main titles."

    Well for me - the PCS was the good part!
    Well, you sound as though you'd enjoy the Die Hard movies or an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie -- perhaps The Expendables 2, something where the whole point of the movie is to justify the use of large over-the-top fantasized action scenes.
    Okay. I actually like the Die Hard-movies.

    And your point was?

  • Zekidk wrote:
    Okay. I actually like the Die Hard-movies.

    And your point was?
    That perhaps you'd be happier following franchises that tailor their stories/plots/actions closer to something you actually enjoy.

  • Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    Okay. I actually like the Die Hard-movies.

    And your point was?
    That perhaps you'd be happier following franchises that tailor their stories/plots/actions closer to something you actually enjoy.
    Like the first 22 Bond-movies? I did enjoy SF somehow. Afterall I have watched it five times. For me it just didn't live up to the hype and I have argued why.

    Do you want me to start over?
  • Zekidk wrote:
    Like the first 22 Bond-movies? I did enjoy SF somehow. Afterall I have watched it five times. For me it just didn't live up to the hype and I have argued why.

    Do you want me to start over?

    That is certainly an option, but your posts to date certainly don't give one the sense you enjoyed it.

  • Posts: 1,497
    Bond films shouldn't be action movies they are spy thrillers.

    Skyfall is IMO the best Bond film since OHMSS. A Bond movie with a brain. Exciting, atmospheric . Mendes should come back for sure.

    I would say the best Bond since TLD...but neverthelesss, I find the OHMSS comparison interesting, because last 30 minutes or so of OHMSS, are almost allnon-stop action -- and it's all fantastic. I see where zekidk is coming from. SF, while solid, does leave a bit out, in terms of that edge of your seat action. The rope bridge scene mentioned could have been a nice touch.

  • Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    Like the first 22 Bond-movies? I did enjoy SF somehow. Afterall I have watched it five times. For me it just didn't live up to the hype and I have argued why.

    Do you want me to start over?

    That is certainly an option, but your posts to date certainly don't give one the sense you enjoyed it.
    I gave it three out of five stars in my review. There are some parts I really like, and then there's the huge amount of things that I didn't like. Overall a disappointing experience.

    And afterall, I just find it more constructive to discuss the flaws of SF objectively, than joining the majority who in unison are agreeing that SF is pretty much more or less flawless, which I respect unless they pull out the old "you dare to criticize Skyfall? Then you should go watch [insert a more or less cheasy action flick]"-routine against members who respectfully disagree.
  • Zekidk wrote:
    I gave it three out of five stars in my review. There are some parts I really like, and then there's the huge amount of things that I didn't like. Overall a disappointing experience.

    And afterall, I just find it more constructive to discuss the flaws of SF objectively, than joining the majority who in unison are agreeing that SF is pretty much more or less flawless, which I respect unless they pull out the old "you dare to criticize Skyfall? Then you should go watch [insert a more or less cheasy action flick]"-routine against members who respectfully disagree.
    Well, your observations and reasoning is interesting, but it isn't really objective. Many of them are assumptive, as demonstrated by your having to create a quote to try and support your conclusion.

    And you went to go see a film you found disappointing five times? Why?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I think Zekidk has made some fair criticisms and for people to just throw 'why do you go and watch Crank/Expendables/Transformers as they might be more to your taste' at him I find rather infantile.

    SF is a great film but it is lacking in one more big action sequence (or at least just beef the tube sequence up a bit).

    Speaking as someone who would love to see adaptations of the books as written I'm not an action junkie when it comes to Bond but since probably TSWLM we expect big stunts in amongst the story.

    FYEO, TLD, LTK and CR all managed a serious story with the requisite Bond action so why are people saying you have to sacrifice story and plot if you want more action? I want to have my cake and eat it and have both. CR got it right, QOS too much action, now SF has swung ever so slightly too far the other way.

    At the end of the day I still love it so its a fairly minor gripe but just one more WOW sequence and I'd have been made up.
  • I think Zekidk has made some fair criticisms and for people to just throw 'why do you go and watch Crank/Expendables/Transformers as they might be more to your taste' at him I find rather infantile.
    How so?

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    And you went to go see a film you found disappointing five times? Why?
    Short answer: Because I am a James Bond fan!
    Longer: When I left the theatre in 2006 I was slightly disappointed with CR. But it kept growing on me the weeks following, like a lot of other Bond movies.

    I was kind of hoping the same thing would happen here with SF. Unfortunately, it just gets worse and worse instead.

    I will watch it on Blu-Ray though. But it will probably rest a long time on the shelf, next to TMWTGG, after that ;-)
  • Zekidk wrote:
    Short answer: Because I am a James Bond fan!
    Longer: When I left the theatre in 2006 I was slightly disappointed with CR. But it kept growing on me the weeks following, like a lot of other Bond movies.

    I had kind of hoping the same thing would happen here with SF. Unfortunately, it just gets worse and worse instead.

    I will watch it on Blu-Ray though. But it will probably rest a long time on the shelf, next to TMWTGG, after that ;-)
    LOL! You are with Skyfall what I am like with Moonraker; I own a copy so I have a complete set, but I never watch it because it just doesn't work for me.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    I think Zekidk has made some fair criticisms and for people to just throw 'why do you go and watch Crank/Expendables/Transformers as they might be more to your taste' at him I find rather infantile.

    SF is a great film but it is lacking in one more big action sequence (or at least just beef the tube sequence up a bit).
    What I keep hearing - even from those that love the movie - when confronted with the question "name one thing that could have been better", is that SF lacked action (from die-hard fans "a better score" equals it I would say). One guy I spoke to who came late - during the main titles - even said that he felt that SF had "no action set pieces." Of course he was sad to learn that they stuffed the best part (for him) into the PCS. So the same day he told me that he came back the day later, watched the PCS, and left when the main titles kicked in, LOL! He likes action movies I guess. Probably Expendables and Transformers, too.
  • I think Zekidk has made some fair criticisms and for people to just throw 'why do you go and watch Crank/Expendables/Transformers as they might be more to your taste' at him I find rather infantile.

    You missed out DAD.
    I think Zekidk has made some fair criticisms and for people to just throw 'why do you go and watch Crank/Expendables/Transformers as they might be more to your taste' at him I find rather infantile.
    How so?

    It's a weak argument. "You didn't like this thing I liked so you should just go and watch *insert film here*"
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Bottom line is. As it stands on this forum, if you have any problems with Skyfall you have to justify your reasoning. If you think it's awesome you don't. Simple as that.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    RC7 wrote:
    Bottom line is. As it stands on this forum, if you have any problems with Skyfall you have to justify your reasoning. If you think it's awesome you don't. Simple as that.

    That seems about it. People can get away with typing "OMG IT WAS AWESOME BEST BOND EVER!!!" but if somebody typed "IT WAS CRAP WORST BOND FILM EVER!!!" you'd get people calling the person a troll.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I think Zekidk has made some fair criticisms and for people to just throw 'why do you go and watch Crank/Expendables/Transformers as they might be more to your taste' at him I find rather infantile.
    How so?

    There's such a thing as a middle ground you know. You seem to be setting yourself up as some sort of high brow Barry Norman suggesting that those of us who would have liked one more bombastic set piece are retards who should go and watch shite like Crank and Transformers and can't appreciate such high art as SF.

    Why don't you go and watch some Ingmar Bergman or Lars Von Trier if its solely drama and acting you want to see. Why are you even at a popcorn film like SF in the first place with such eclectic tastes?

    It is possible to do intelligent action packed thrillers packed with good acting, a dramatic story and thrilling action (Leon, Heat, TDK) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    If that makes me an non believer in the gospel according to JimThompson45 then feel free to burn me at the stake.
  • Posts: 1,492
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,139
    Edit
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    Point being?
  • actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    FRWL was almost 50 years ago. Other Bond films have proven since we can have plot, dialouge, tension AND some big set pieces throughout the film.
  • Posts: 774
    RC7 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    Point being?

    From that I took the point that FRWL is pretty much universally accepted as the best Bond film (aware that this is a generalisation). If there are a lot of similarities between FRWL and SF in terms of 'level of action', and FRWL is seen as so brilliant, then the arguments against SF seem to be undermined.

    Correct me if I misunderstood though.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    Point being?

    From that I took the point that FRWL is pretty much universally accepted as the best Bond film (aware that this is a generalisation). If there are a lot of similarities between FRWL and SF in terms of 'level of action', and FRWL is seen as so brilliant, then the arguments against SF seem to be undermined.

    Correct me if I misunderstood though.

    You mean aside from the fact that FRWL has an infinitely better script and plot? If we're talking structure GF and DAF are similar.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    Point being?

    From that I took the point that FRWL is pretty much universally accepted as the best Bond film (aware that this is a generalisation). If there are a lot of similarities between FRWL and SF in terms of 'level of action', and FRWL is seen as so brilliant, then the arguments against SF seem to be undermined.

    Correct me if I misunderstood though.

    No that would be OHMSS.

    Which actually has some epic action. It is possible to combine both you see.
  • Posts: 774
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    Point being?

    From that I took the point that FRWL is pretty much universally accepted as the best Bond film (aware that this is a generalisation). If there are a lot of similarities between FRWL and SF in terms of 'level of action', and FRWL is seen as so brilliant, then the arguments against SF seem to be undermined.

    Correct me if I misunderstood though.

    No that would be OHMSS.

    Which actually has some epic action. It is possible to combine both you see.

    I agree that it's possible to combine both and never said that it wasn't.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Volante wrote:
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    [) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.

    .

    To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...

    Point being?

    From that I took the point that FRWL is pretty much universally accepted as the best Bond film (aware that this is a generalisation). If there are a lot of similarities between FRWL and SF in terms of 'level of action', and FRWL is seen as so brilliant, then the arguments against SF seem to be undermined.

    Correct me if I misunderstood though.

    No that would be OHMSS.

    Which actually has some epic action. It is possible to combine both you see.

    I agree that it's possible to combine both and never said that it wasn't.

    Yeah sorry - that wasn't really directed at you.
Sign In or Register to comment.