Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Richard--W, Jun 20, 2009.
Credit where credit is due!
For the record, I didn't insult you personally...I just said the title of your thread was stupid and I explained that reasoning in my earlier post.
As far as I'm concerned, if the people that were involved with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are on board for another Bond flick then I'm absolutely THRILLED! Those two flicks are without a doubt better than anything from the Bond franchise in decades so this is anything but "bad news" in my book.
From a creative and dramatic perspective, and by any standard of professionalism, it is very bad news that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are writing another tiresome, amateur Bond script just like the last four tiresome, amateur Bond scripts. Note that I refer to the scripts, not the actor, director, dp, stuntmen, etc. But you are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to express your opinion here without anyone calling you or your opinion stupid.
Financial success is no indication of quality. As I indicated below, everyone turns out to see an event knowing it may not be the best film ever made but it will be an event, and that's enough. Going to see the 21st century Bonds is like to going to see an Elvis concert in the 1970s. Everybody is thrilled to be in the same stadium with Elvis. So thrilled they keep cheering him on even though the songs are only 30 seconds long and the show is over in 30 minutes. Why bother to be creative when it doesn't matter. It's not about quality. It's about the event of seeing Elvis live. People accept what they can get.
Further, many people who would like to express their disappointment and disgust with recent Bonds refrain from doing so because they know they will be hammered and called stupid by a small group of particularly vocal Bond buffs who insist that only positive views may be expressed here.
I think you are free to express that you didn't like the Craig films, or the Brosnan films or any films you didn't like. I simply objected to the subject of the thread mentioning "bad news" when all that happened was that screenwriters were announced.
As someone who has seen every Bond film multiple times, read the books, read the books about the movies, bought the movies on CED, VHS, DVD and BD, and basically studied them decades, I think the Craig films are the best in the series since the initial 3 or 4 Connery movies. Not to dismiss Roger Moore, Tim Dalton, or even George Lazenby (or Pierce Brosnan), but the Craig movies recaptured something that I think had been missing for too long. Not coincidentally, the new films also got rid of the self-parody that was part of the series for far too long.
BTW, I detailed what we know about the production of Bond 23 here, complete with links to the sources:
Um, no it doesn't and you should know better. If you want to continue with the persecution complex, however, that's fine with me. I don't need to explain myself any more than I already have. Good luck not enjoying the next Bond film!
The Bond films have morphed into something that doesn't resemble what a Bond movie used to feel like, if that makes any sense. For me, the ultimate Bond movie is 1981's For Your Eyes Only. The story has an epic feel to it and, more importantly, is just a heckuva alot of fun. Once you take the fun out of these movies, its no longer a Bond film. I, too, feel that this franchise needs a fresh group of writers. However, whoever tackles this job would need to bring the character back to Earth and not have him become some kind of superman or, worse, a Jason Bourne clone. Make him vulnerable somewhat. The idea of a superspy who has an answer for everything, can kick anyone's ass and happens to have just the right gadget on him just when he needs it is not grounded in reality and that aspect of the movies needs to change. Finally, most Bond movies typically run just over two hours, on average. I feel that's about the length ALL Bond movies should be
Casino Royal was based an good source material, and cleaned up by a decent writer. Die Another Day is what you get when Purvis and Wade are all you have.
Bond is essentially all these guys do, they're just the producers' henchmen. Show me something good in one of their movies and I'll tell you who else was responsible for it.
While For Your Eyes Only is my favorite of all Bond films, and will forever be so, I cannot agree that taking the "fun" out makes them no longer Bond films, in fact, I'd say they make better Bond films, much more real and true to life.
Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Except I'd have begged and pleaded with Haggis to work longer and harder on pruning and tightening and cleaning up Casino Royale. Perhaps even write it all by himself.
This thread is getting better by the minute.
You'd have liked Maibaum's and Hunt's versions of The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only a lot more than how these films ended up.
Was Bond's automobile anti-theft bit added by the producer in FYEO or was that done by the original writer? I admit still getting a chuckle out of that bit. FYEO, even with the changes mentioned, was one of Moores less stupid turns at the character.
Richard, thanks for the information about Wilson's re-write of FYEO. I didn't know that and I'd love to hear what he did to Maibaum's Spy Who Loved Me script if you have the time.
And as far as the new films go: I love Craig. Both movies (although I do have issues with Quamtum). Looking forward to the next one very much although it might be beneficial to change up the writing team soon.
"Quantum" was passable entertainment but it didn't feel like a Bond movie. For starters, it was too short. I absolutely hate trying to watch movies where you have two people beating the crap out of each other and it's hard to make out what the hell is happening because the cutting is too fast. The older films handled action sequences in such a way that you enjoyed watching them unfold. The opening sequence in The Living Daylights was breathtaking. Secondly, "Bond" doesn't do sequels. Every subsequent Bond movie always had its stand-alone storyline and that's what makes them stand apart. Watching Quantum felt like watching Casino Royale again, drawn out and pointless, like watching a tired sequel. Please bring back the 2-hour event Bond Adventure we all know and love.
Well, Spy is hardly an original story. The movie is essentially a remake of You Only Live Twice (and a better film, I'd say). The production was famously prohibited from using the story of Fleming's SWLM novel. I do not discount Maibaum's contributions to the SWLM script or the Bond series as a whole (he's the best writer in the series), but the comparisons to YOLT are glaring.
I actually agree and disagree with you. The way the action sequences are cut together is very unfortunate, especially in a franchise that's renown for incredible action sequences.
Furthermore, it's so eager to please audiences the movie stuffs all of its story into amazingly rushed expository sequences in order to get to the action that much quicker.
That said, I didn't mind the "sequel" feel although with the exception of the directly-linked opening, the filmmakers could've easily dropped the sequel feel without changing the story too much.
Interesting.. I didn't know that. I figured the novel itself was so atypical of a Bond story that the story itself would not have made a good movie.
Internet journalist Tom Huddleston of Time Out London has penned an open letter to playwright and screenwriter Peter Morgan advising him on how to approach Bond 23.
Ooooh, that's the pot calling the kettle black! Have you read some of your unpleasant posts on women in Bond films recently?
Guys, cut it out immediately.
I would highly suggest to end the debate right now.