›

Who should write B25 (aka who should replace Purvis and Wade)?

13

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Yes SF was an appalling piece of writing. I suppose Mendes deserves credit for turning it into a commercial smash hit.

    Really want some new writing blood now though
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mendes had little to do with it. It could have been any film, with that perfect marketing campaign most people were convinced Skyfall is a gift from Heaven even before seeing the picture. I have witnessed that phenomenon often enough in 2012, when I heard people praise it to the sky that hadn't even yet seen it. "But it has to be good, it's the 50th Anniversary film".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I think some of the SF hate (usually put forth by those trying to compensate for SP's glaring & well recognized weaknesses) is a bit disingenuous.

    Whatever one may think of its plot, the film does many things well. It's clear Mendes was inspired by TDK and decided to drop James Bond into a pseudo Joker menace-like scenario. P&W probably had a woody as they realized they could retread their infamous 1999 debut, bringing 'Mother' into the thick of it.

    Nevertheless, it succeeded in making an impact with the audience, and is still viewed by many as a quality entry.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2017 Posts: 10,512
    I have issues with SF, as I do with any of them, but in terms of execution it's of the highest quality. To say that has little to do with Mendes is literally stupid.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mendes direction in Skyfall is by far his weakest work ever.

    It's the cinematography that elevates Skyfall and to great effect.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I disagree. Mendes's direction is consequential in SF. Everything has significance and resonance. The performances have nuance and are beautifully finessed.

    The plot has holes no doubt, but his direction compensates for that. So does the cinematography of course.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    The Rome Spectre meeting sequence alone surpasses the whole of SF.
    It was clear that Mendes didn't know what to do at first, just compare the action in the SF PTS or that hilarious underground crash sequence with what Mendes did in the plane/car chase in the Alps or the train fight.

    SF was his trail and error run and it shows. The glaring plot holes and allowing Bardem to act like a villain right out of an Austin Powers movie just add to his failure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    It was clear that Mendes didn't know what to do at first, just compare the action in the SF PTS or that hilarious underground crash sequence with what Mendes did in the plane/car chase in the Alps or the train fight.
    I'll give you the train crash (shambolic compared to the one in DH3), but I much prefer the SF PTS to anything in SP. I think it's the best Craig sequence outside of the CR parkour. It's tense, exciting and full of twists and turns. I won't even comment on the SP plane chase, apart from saying I personally think it's one of the most linear and dull action sequences in a Bond film outside of the tripe that was in TWINE (such as the atrocious caviar facility sequence and the inconsequential ski chase). Like the action in that earlier film, it also just feels tacked on.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I have to say SP is for me the superior film of the two. As Mendes himself said, the PTS in SF is really not very well put together at all. He redeemed himself magnificently with SP.

    SP is no masterpiece buts it's a much more enjoyable and entertaining entry than SF.

    I agree that Mendes hasn't really got a sense for action. The attack on Skyfall is pretty pedestrian action movie stuff - dull and uninspired . But in SP he upped his game
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    As Mendes himself said, the PTS in SF is really not very well put together at all.
    It's still far more entertaining & dynamic than the SP PTS (gunbarrel & opening tracking shot novelty notwithstanding).
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Totally disagree. The SP PTS has the style and panache that SF and most of the recent Bond films have sadly lacked.

    It's not perfect but like the opera scene in QOS it is a nice throwback to any earlier, classier era

    All the SF PTS offers is us frenetic not particualrly interesting action .

    It was interesting hearing Mendes talk about both PTSs and I agreed entirely with his own analysis of both of them.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Are you saying that you found the SP CGI building collapse, the chase of Sciarra and the helicopter flying over the CGI crowd with a yellow filter overshadowing the proceedings more entertaining than the SF sequence in Turkey (including the car chase, bike chase, Grand Bazaar rooftops and shopping chase, train chase, bulldozer & rooftop fight & MP 'bloody shot')?

    I'm at a loss for words. To each their own.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I thought the SF PTS was utterly lame. And for poor visual effects just check out the CGId faces on the stuntmen. Plus product placement Beatles stacked sideways and Brosnanesque cuff popping. Cringeworthy from the moment the 'chase' starts. Bloody Naomi Harris as well. She's awful in that whole sequence.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bloody Naomi Harris as well. She's awful in that whole sequence.
    I'll agree here. "Just get cleaarrre!!!!" Overacting all the way, but she was pretty cool when telling Bond that Patrice was uncoupling the cars, and I like the final 'shot'.

    I'm surprised you didn't nitpick on the CGI Omega Planet Ocean product placement, which was one of the more egregious flaws.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    The SP PTS is a masterpiece. From start to finish. It evokes classic Bond with real stunts (the helicopter).
    It's a work of art and the editing, the direction, the camera work and the sound effect makes look the SF PTS like the work of an amateur.

    The CGI building?? It looks real. That's all that matters. What about the many instances in SF where the CGI work clearly was recognisable as such?

    The SF PTS has nothing to offer than the most ridiculous Bond death scene ever.
    Ok, at least Judi Dench has a great moment in it "take the bloody shot" and how she later turns to the window to stare into the rain.

    The Day Of The Death parade must be the single most amazing thing in all of Bond history.
  • BT3366BT3366
    Posts: 1,917
    By continuing to keep P & W around, the current generation is echoing what Cubby did by keeping certain team members around instead bringing in new blood and starting fresh. Am I wrong in thinking this?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Mendes thinks Step brother gate was something the fan base was waiting for says all I need to know about his opinion on Bond.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    The building collapse was an actual stunt.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Jason your love of SPECTRE is commendable, deluded but commendable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    There's a lot of delusion going around these days it seems. Must be the weather, or perhaps talk of B25 finally ramping up.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Yeah I seriously thought that the building collapse looked very much like CGI, if it was practical I failed to see it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Yeah I seriously thought that the building collapse looked very much like CGI, if it was practical I failed to see it.
    Fully agreed. Took me right out of it, and that was when I saw it in one of the trailers. I still can't believe it's real.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    None of the other Craig PTS have had such big effects money shots like that before, as epic as SF PTS, it might have had the CG on the bikes bit but to have blatant use as it is in SP it hasn't been needed before.

    That sequence could have worked without such a ridiculous building collapse, it was like something out of a Marvel film, or maybe that was the point to try and grab a younger audience.

    That being said even those including SPECTRE official biggest groupie member don't want Mendes back, says it all really.


  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The building collapse wasn't real. The explosion in Sciarras room was shot for real (scaled) but the building collapse is a visual effect.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    What does it matter it looks real. Go and watch the fall down the elevator in SF if you want to see failed CGI
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    RC7 wrote: »
    The building collapse wasn't real. The explosion in Sciarras room was shot for real (scaled) but the building collapse is a visual effect.
    The "Bond's Biggest Opening Sequence" featurette showcases the stunt being done on a rig at Pinewood. I believe it was touched up with CGI, but the bones of the sequence were done practically.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    It's actually quite funny how the lot of you are complaining about something done expertly in SP that was done horribly in SF and at the same time find every lame excuse you can to defend SF. Very entertaining indeed.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    Um, I like both PTSes?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    SF didn't have the ridiculous budget that SPECTRE got for one, I believe they had to cut corners due to a reduced budget, yet there you have the biggest Bond of all time and one of the most critically acclaimed.

    Yet you get a ridiculously over inflated budget and one of the most divisive and criticised Bonds of the modern age that has left a mark on the Craig era because it dealt with an icon of the series as a childhood spat and linked the films in such a lame ret con way yet that is a masterpiece of the series to some????

    The point is that moment in the lift is nowhere as noticeable and expensive as the PTS moment, I'll take the Shanghai tense brilliantly shot sequence over all of SPECTRE despite the use of CGI, no doubt due to it's constraints to it's budget.

    SP had not of that as an issue and was given stupidly large budget.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    The most divisive and criticised Bonds of modern age, Spectre?

    You are talking about QUANTUM OF SOLACE. In comparison Spectre got received extremely well. What are your excuses for the ridiculously high BO Spectre made? Must have been all the divided people...

    If Spectre had been as bad as the lot of you always suggest, it would have stopped at 650 million or even below that.
Sign In or Register to comment.