Michael Reuben
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 1998
- Messages
- 21,763
- Real Name
- Michael Reuben
Credit where credit is due!Richard--W said:Quote:
Credit where credit is due!Richard--W said:Quote:
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.Richard--W said:Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.
Some people have very strong feelings about the Bond films. Some people feel so strongly about Bond films they think it gives them license to insult other people personally instead of discussing / debating the film.
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.Brent M said: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.
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.Sam Favate said:Given the immense blockbuster status of the last two films, it hardly seems a stretch to say most people won't consider this "bad news."
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.Richard--W said: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.
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!Richard--W said:For the record, it amounts to the same thing, as you know very well.
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.Luisito34 said: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
This thread is getting better by the minute.Ron-P said: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.
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.Richard--W said:(1977) is even worse, but that's another story.
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.Luisito34 said:"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.
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.Sam Favate said:The production was famously prohibited from using the story of Fleming's SWLM novel.
Perhaps the greatest stride writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and erstwhile colleague Paul Haggis made with ‘Casino Royale’ was giving Bond and his companions a real sense of life, depth and emotional conflict. We’re used to Bond the wisecracking automaton, but with an actor like Daniel Craig in the role this approach is a terrible waste. ‘Quantum of Solace’ reduced Bond to little more than grunts and sneers – a smart thug who faces off against a loquacious but rather pathetic villain. You’ve already proved your worth as a master of verbal sparring in your previous scripts, so we’re sure you’ll have the murderous banter down pat. The challenge will be to make us care about Bond again.
The rest is here:
An open letter to Peter Morgan... from Time Out Film - Time Out London
Although well-intentioned, Mr. Huddleston's assessment misses the mark. Based on the results of previous films, I don't believe Peter Morgan will be able to overcome the burden of co-authors Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and the two Eon producers.
Perhaps HTF members have some suggestion of their own to offer Peter Morgan?
Ooooh, that's the pot calling the kettle black! Have you read some of your unpleasant posts on women in Bond films recently?Originally Posted by Richard--W /forum/thread/289286/bond-23#post_3574682
Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.
Some people have very strong feelings about the Bond films. Some people feel so strongly about Bond films they think it gives them license to insult other people personally instead of discussing / debating the film.Jason Hughes said:Amen. Stupid is putting it mildly...