-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

New Bond Film: Skyfall


  • Please log in to reply
383 replies to this topic

#21 of 384 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted June 22 2009 - 07:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.
The adjustment in question affects only the initial post, but I can make it global across the thread and will do so, since you asked.

Quote:
Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot! Again!
Posted Image Credit where credit is due!
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#22 of 384 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer

  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted June 22 2009 - 07:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
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.



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.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#23 of 384 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted June 22 2009 - 01:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
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.
For the record, it amounts to the same thing, as you know very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
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.

#24 of 384 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted June 22 2009 - 05:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Dial
I think the community is better served with a neutral thread title--otherwise it's a slippery slope towards "good news for Bond 23," "More bad new for Bond," and "OMG Can U blieve the new bond newz?"
... and then there will be chaos!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Favate
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."
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.

#25 of 384 OFFLINE   Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Producer

  • 4,852 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted June 23 2009 - 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
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:
http://www.hometheat....ed-2011-a.html

#26 of 384 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer

  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted June 23 2009 - 07:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
For the record, it amounts to the same thing, as you know very well.

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!
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#27 of 384 OFFLINE   cineMANIAC

cineMANIAC

    Screenwriter

  • 1,907 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2008
  • Real Name:Luis
  • LocationNew York City

Posted June 23 2009 - 08:50 AM

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
 

 


#28 of 384 OFFLINE   Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted June 23 2009 - 09:28 AM

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.
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#29 of 384 OFFLINE   Ron-P

Ron-P

    Producer

  • 6,283 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 25 2000
  • Real Name:Ron

Posted June 23 2009 - 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
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

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.
You have all the weapons you need...Now fight!


#30 of 384 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted June 23 2009 - 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
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.
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.

#31 of 384 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted June 23 2009 - 01:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
The Bond films have morphed into something that doesn't resemble what a Bond movie used to feel like, if that makes any sense.
It makes perfect sense, and you express my sentiments exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
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.
It's down to earth and played on the believable scale. It has a literate screenplay by Richard Maibaum. In Maibaum's version, the opening title sequence is the sinking of the fishing ship followed by the assault on the yacht. The sequence ends with the push into extreme close-up on Malina Havelock's eyes as the opening bars of the title song "For Your Eyes Only" start the segue into the opening titles. The interlude in the snow at Cortina d'Ampezzo was much shorter and played very differently.

Michael G. Wilson, the young Executive Producer who was not a professional writer and had no qualifications to do so, rewrote the script to keep himself in the WGA. He didn't think the pre-title scene was "big" enough, so he added the self-parody of Blofeld with the helicopter and repositioned Maibaum's opening after the titles. Wilson then rewrote the Cortina d'Ampezzo interlude to bring Malina Havelock there, turn the ice skater into a major character with dialog and a crush on Bond, added the motorcycle - machine gun fight, the ski chase, and the ice-rink fight with the hockey-players, and then he cut back on the main focus of the interlude, which was the introduction of Aristotle Kristatos and the murder of the agent Luigi. Both scenes are badly screwed up in Wilson's rewrite. When Maibaum saw this he complained privately that Wilson had thrown the entire kitchen sink into the interlude with no regard for story continuity, character arc, or believability and to the detriment of the escalating tension and suspenseful pace he had worked so carefully to build.

If you can make a copy that re-instates the sinking of the fishing ship and the machine gun assault on the yacht before the titles, then delete Blofeld with the helicopter, and delete nine-tenths of the Cortina d'Ampezzo interlude keeping only Bond's arrival at hotel with the message written on the mirror, the interview with Kristatos and the murder of Luigi, the film is less than perfect, but much improved, and closer to what Maibaum intended. His original script is gilt-edged true Bond and an absolute joy to read.

The film has other problems, mainly an inappropriate score and awkward, frantic direction by a first-timer who wasn't ready, but the underpinning of Maibaum's screenplay keeps it altogether. The second half of the film is especially good, and that's mostly how Maibaum wrote it.

What Wilson did to Maibaum's original script of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is even worse, but that's another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
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.
Well said and I'm in complete agreement. Connery's Bond in the early films and Moore's Bond in For Your Eyes Only are pretty much what you describe, and guess what? Maibaum wrote them.

If Purvis and Wade can't strike the right balance after four tries they will never get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
Finally, most Bond movies typically run just over two hours, on average. I feel that's about the length ALL Bond movies should be
Right.
That means sustaining the action sequences and not overcutting so that they're over too fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-P
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.
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.

#32 of 384 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,581 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted June 23 2009 - 02:44 PM

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.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#33 of 384 OFFLINE   MattFini

MattFini

    Supporting Actor

  • 607 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2004

Posted June 24 2009 - 12:33 AM

Great thread.

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.
Universal, please release Streets of Fire on Blu-ray.

#34 of 384 OFFLINE   cineMANIAC

cineMANIAC

    Screenwriter

  • 1,907 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2008
  • Real Name:Luis
  • LocationNew York City

Posted June 24 2009 - 12:47 AM

"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.
 

 


#35 of 384 OFFLINE   Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Producer

  • 4,852 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted June 24 2009 - 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
What Wilson did to Maibaum's original script of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is even worse, but that's another story.

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.

#36 of 384 OFFLINE   MattFini

MattFini

    Supporting Actor

  • 607 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2004

Posted June 24 2009 - 06:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
"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.

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.
Universal, please release Streets of Fire on Blu-ray.

#37 of 384 OFFLINE   Gary Seven

Gary Seven

    Grand Poo Pah

  • 1,431 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 15 2003
  • Real Name:Gaston
  • LocationLake Worth, Florida

Posted June 24 2009 - 06:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Favate
The production was famously prohibited from using the story of Fleming's SWLM novel.

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.

#38 of 384 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted June 27 2009 - 03:04 PM

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.

Quote:
An open letter to Peter Morgan

Dear Peter,

While we at Time Out are thrilled that you, one of our country’s most talented and inquiring screenwriters, have accepted the challenge of penning the next James Bond movie, there are a few salient points we feel you might like to keep in mind while writing what will inevitably become one of 2011’s most important and, we hope, enjoyable movies. We trust you accept our advice in the friendly spirit with which it’s intended…

Please give the characters room to breathe
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?

#39 of 384 OFFLINE   James 'Tiger' Lee

James 'Tiger' Lee

    Second Unit

  • 280 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 03 2007

Posted July 05 2009 - 08:39 PM


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W 

Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
The title of this thread is just stupid,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hughes
Amen. Stupid is putting it mildly...
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.

Ooooh, that's the pot calling the kettle black! Have you read some of your unpleasant posts on women in Bond films recently?



#40 of 384 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 39,953 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted July 07 2009 - 04:56 AM

Guys, cut it out immediately.

I would highly suggest to end the debate right now. 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations



Back to Movies (Theatrical)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow