TLD was really bad
ChaosInc
I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE.
Here are my problems:
The Teaser. What does Bond actually do here? He shoots a gun, throws a
grenade or two, steals a plane, steers with knees, ejects the rear-seat pilot.
Into the other plane. Which is pretty dumb, if you ask me. One of the
all-time lamest teasers.
The Sinking of the Sheffield: Errrrr... Explain to me again why they used that
preposterous "Sea Drill" to cut through the ship? First, that was the silliest
weapon I've ever seen. Second, if they were attempting to make this look like
a chinese Mig had sunk the ship with a torpedo, here's a brilliant idea: Sink
it with a Chinese MiG torpedo.
And don't tell me they needed the sea drill to get to the missile. Ships have
doors and ports, even sunken ones. And you can cut through steel if you have
to, even under water.
Next: A "Stealth Ship"? This dumb puppy looks an awful lot like Darth Vader's
pleasure-yacht. On top of that, we already have "Stealth Ships." They are
known as "Submarines." Aye, carumba.
M. They keep feeding her these pro-feminist lines like "The advantage of not
having balls is that I don't have to think with them all the time." We KNOW
she's a woman. We can see that. Is the screenwriter not confident we will
appreciate that without some throw-away dialogue to draw attention to the fact?
Get on with the story. This is Bond's movie, not M's. M should give Bond
his assignment and that's all. I don't really need a lot of character
development for M. There was precious little in the earlier Bonds; all we knew
of M was his voice, his look, his clothes, his upper-class accent, and his
imposing demeanor. And we liked it that way. Let M have a little mystery, for
christ's sake. M isn't Bond's wacky partner in a "buddy" movie.
The Villain and his Plan. I guess you either buy this ludicrous premise or you
don't. Put me in the later category. As I was watching the film, I kept
thinking: I don't mind that the guy's a media baron; fine, that's as good a
villain occupation as any. They can't all be vague "industrial magnates." But
why couldn't he have a more plausible reason to destroy China, other than
selling papers and getting broadcast rights to China?
(BTW: He's doing this to get broadcast rights to China, while he's
simultaneously targeting China's largest city for a nuclear holocaust, with
limited nuclear war with the British to follow shortly thereafter. Does
anybody detect a minor flaw in this scheme?)
Anyway, I kept thinking: Why can't this guy just have some sort of personal
grudge against China? Who knows--maybe he's even a misguided patriot and
thinks the war with China is inevitable. Or something more plausible. I
picked up the first draft of the screenplay recently and I found that the
Carver character as originally written did have a more plausible motivation: a
grudge against the Chinese for taking back Hong Kong. A very bad change, IMO.
"Cunning Linguist." Need I say more? This joke was old when Sean Connery was
still a bodybuilder.
Teri Hatcher. Hatcher wasn't that bad the second time around. It's her
character that's the problem. The script tells us there was this torrid
romance between her and Bond, that she got "too close." Give me a break. Is
there anyone in the world who didn't know the screenwriter was just trying to
manipulate us, and that she would soon be murdered, once they laid that "too
close" bullshit on us so thick?
I'm not saying I'd never believe Bond was "too close" to a woman. But I'm not
going to buy it just because the screenwriter decides to throw it in. To
convince me paris and bond had had a big relationship before, we'd have had to
seen a lot more of paris, a lot more of them together. (Note: I'm not saying
this is a good idea, or they should have done this. I'm saying this is what's
required to make this plausible. Me, I'd have just made her another Bond
chick. Who gets killed. A lot of Bond Chicks get killed; you don't have to
lay on the heavy emotion beforehand.
(BTW: Have you ever noticed that, if you're a woman in a James Bond flick,
screwing James Bond in the first half of the movie is just about the most
deadly thing you can do? It's like you're an Engineering guy in Star Trek.
You--are--going--to--die. No doubt about it. Much better to hold out and wait
until you're washed up on a tropical island, just before closing credits.
Safer that way.)
Dr. Kaufman. A lot of people here in this NG seem to think this was a nifty
scene, just because Bond kills Kaufman very cold-bloodedly. Well, I beg to
differ, but...
Yes, Kaufman's funny. But the funniness of the scene is at war with the
essence of the scene--He just killed Paris, for Christ's sake. Not the
smartest time for gratuitous yuk-yuks. And it only gets worse. "I'm supposed
to ask you how to get into the car. I'm sorry. I don't know what to say. I
feel like such an imbecile."
Funny? Yes. Plausible? No. And it just destroys whatever realism or drama
or danger the scene needs to work.
Finally, the exit line. "I'm just a professional doing a job."
Did Kaufman really think that this would convince Bond not to kill him? Of
course not. "Look, I'm just a hired killer who murdered your lover, so don't
think I'm a bad person." The line is in there for only one reason: To set up
Bond's line, "Me too." ("So am I," would have been better, but when you've
fucked up a scene this much already, why hold back?) Obvious.
Michelle Yeoh. Passably attractive, as long as you don't see the
three-pack-a-day teeth. And yes, can do martial arts. But not much else
there.
It's been pointed out before, but why does she have such a high-tech
headquarters in a ramshackle apartment that doesn't even have locks on the
doors? (No fewer than eight people enter the place.) And why on earth
wouldn't Q be able to get his hands on the Walther P-99? It's not a top secret
weapon, you know. It's commercially available.
Let's jump ahead:
The ending. Awful. Lots of shooting, lots of running around. The return of
the Sea Drill. And Bond makes his big escape by--ta da! --managing to open his
jacket's zipper. Big time drama, there.
Finally, the minor plusses in the film:
The Car. Dig the remote control action. Love how Brosnan smiled like a kid in
a candy store while he was driving it around. I was less thrilled with the
self-reinflating tires and hood-logo wire cutter. (Did Q know he'd face a wire
drawn across the road at exactly that height?)
And why, precisely, did Bond deliberately crash the car? He had already
escaped from the villains. If they wanted to work the stunt in, why not make
the crash unavoidable, rather than deliberate?
Q. Always good. Would have liked an explanation for the bizarre red suit,
however.
Well, that's it. Sorry I went on so terribly long. But I just hated this
movie. And I'm a big Bond fan, so I was awaiting it eagerly.
Fahim Ahmed
TLD was The Living Daylights...Tim Dalton
FA
Rhino
stirred, and added:
>:|Teri Hatcher. Hatcher wasn't that bad the second time around.
Second time around?
--
**** /\/\/\/\+-+- Rhino -+-+/\/\/\/\ ****
**** http://village.vossnet.co.uk/r/rhino ****
**** James Bond, Carry On Films, The Prisoner, Blondie****
**** Black Adder, Hammer Horror, John Wyndham, Trivia ****
**** James Herbert, Alexander Dumas and much more ****
Constable Downspout had very few desires, and almost
all of them involved pigeons!
Devon Hart
>
> I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE.
>
> Here are my problems:
>
> The Teaser. What does Bond actually do here? He shoots a gun, throws a
> grenade or two, steals a plane, steers with knees, ejects the rear-seat pilot.
> Into the other plane. Which is pretty dumb, if you ask me. One of the
> all-time lamest teasers.
>
I thought I was going senile for a second. I couldn't remember
any of this in The Living Daylights, then it dawned on me, you
mean "TND". I liked GE, but I was disappointed with TND for many
of the reasons you site.
The Shadow
>chao...@aol.com
>>Teri Hatcher. Hatcher wasn't that bad the second time around.
Rhino wrote :
>Second time around?
Yeah...I had her four times and she was better the second time IMHO (in my
horny opinion).
Devon Hart
>
> Yeah...I had her four times and she was better the second time IMHO (in my
> horny opinion).
Oh, Geez, that means I had sloppy sevenths . . . yuck!
ChaosInc
Jeeze, I wrote this long-ass review hoping for some argument and all I got were
some sloppy second jokes and a "I guess I kind of agree with you."
Somebody says Lazenby sucks and the debate goes on for a thousand posts.
youngalex
ChaosInc wrote in message <19990310033159...@ng11.aol.com>...
>
>
>"I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE."
I really like GE, IMO it is marginally the best bond film (TLD, GF, TSWLM,
DAF and FRWL all coming close; don't assume that this makes me a naive
newbie- I have watched all of the Bond films countless times and am a fan of
all but three; the bad LTK and the unfeasibly poor duo of AVTAK and MR) It
is beautifully filmed (really need to watch it in W/S) and technically
superb in general (lovely slick editing, excellent construction of all
action scenes (even importing a little of the 'odessa steps' style in the
bottling room scene)
Brosnan IS Bond; I would say that I find it a mystery why he is so regularly
berrated in this NG but; 'old is best' it is common epithet amongst 'Die
Hard' fans of anything. He has the looks and the charisma of Connery, The
accent and the demeanour of a man of Bond's supposed background;
education/upbringing, and while being a far more serious/talented actor than
either Moore or Lazenby, is also far better at showing the laconic charm/
self-amused humour than Dalton. He is extremely credible in his moments of
doubt (check out the sad understatement of his performance when he is
talking to Natalya on the beach) and takes the role sufficiently seriously
(unlike Connery did for most of his run) to show anger/frustration/fear
amidst the fisticuffs and shootouts (not to mention actually putting some
vigour into the physical element of the role....making him the only actor to
appear truly credible in standing toe-to-toe)
I think that (despite being fond of Octopussy, Maj. Amasova and Tracy Draco)
that the two Major Female character's in GE are the strongest to date. They
manage to have some substance and some character without the sort of
'by-the-numbers' disdain in the script which is actually mocking them.
Izabella Scorupco gives an excellent performance as Natalya we see her as
charming and humorous in a highly enjoyable triumph of common sense over PC
in the early scenes; endeavouring to break Boris' codes.
This is not a woman who gains her self-identity from talk-shows are feeble
political movements. She is a smart strong adult who can take humour as
humour without feeling threatened, and is not used as a merely token
character to show how 'right-on' the filmakers can be. She is amusingly
aggressive, not in a 'what a feisty chick' kind of way, more in a 'We need
some animal tranquilizers and a net down here stat.' sense. when she gives
Boris 'a kicking' you believe it. In the earlier Bond outings 'empowered
women' were always a cheapshot; to satiate the women's-libbers without the
audience ever really feeling that any of them constituted any real threat to
Bond.
More impressively; the filmakers refrain from making her masculine (i.e.
Linda Hamilton in T2) Her tender scenes with Bond are quite touching as she
develops a protective almost maternal instinct over him, which he visibly
responds to. Usually it is Bond who must protect, but it is an interesting
character development for a man who lost his parent's when he was young and
leads the life that he does, to see him respond to someone who wishes to
shelter him. We see clearly the 'musn't get too close' conflict within. I
suspect that much of this is down to the quality of performance from the two
actors, as opposed to hidden depth in the script.
Famke Janssen is assigned the character of another one of the 2-D gimmicky
'freaks'; a woman who crushes men with her thighs- tee-hee!(see Odd-Job,
Jaws, Wint and Kidd etc.) with little dialogue and none of it to write home
about, she imbues her performance with such zest and nuance that it raises
'Xenia' to one of 'the greats' (though she is killed off in a somewhat
'throwaway' manner) She manages to credibly inject every bit of interplay
between herself and others with the insane tactility of a giggly teenager
with a libido to cover the bible-belt when it rains. She is an animal in
bed, replete with the appropriate grunts and growls, snapping at and chewing
on her prey. Is approaching orgasm while mowing down the innocents at
Severnaya, and giggles playfully when Bond slams her into walls in the
sauna. Imagine if you will Lynn-Holly Johnson after completing 'Seal
training' (Navy that is; not Sea-World). She is an interseting Counterpoint
to Bond with whom it is stressed, she shares several passions. They race
cars, play cards, smoke cigars; he is a teenage regressive (it is often
suggested) with the juvenile humour and the dis-regard for property. She is
a hormonal teenager with a similarly irreverant streak.
I think that this (quite deliberate IMO) comparison is particularly astute
in a film that hinges on the dichotomy between Bond and Trevelyan; seperated
only by values......values that are separated only by fate.
I like the character of Trevelyan for precisely this reason. Nuances that
bothered others such as the exeggerated diction, I believe work very well to
portray Alec as he is supposed to be; A sort of mutant clone of Bond, a
reminder (for the purpose of a little dramatic irony), of who Bond might be,
if he wasn't a 'good guy' (rather like 'Annakin Skywalker' in 'The Star Wars
Trilogy' if you will)
Add to this, the usual plethora of impressive sets/ inventive stunts (with
the perhaps unfair but nonetheless prejudicial advantage of greater
technology; credibility= empathy) the full compliment of requisite 'Bond'
Elements. Some genuine chemistry (the 'What could possibly go wrong?' retort
when Natalya refuses to board the 'choppers' at the end, always makes me
smile for the believability of the moment; there's a genuine affection
there) and probably my favorite pre-credits sequence (It may be far-fetched,
but it is literally 'jaw-dropping', ((as opposed to the beginning of MR
which was quite literally 'jaws-dropping'....sorry.....)) and unlike the
other openers it is pivotal to the ensuing plot, and manages to set-up what
follows very efficiently and effectively) and you have something of a
classic. And anyway, it's worth the price of admission just to see Pierce
Brosnan hanging upside down in the toilet cubicle.
">Here are my problems:
>
>The Teaser. What does Bond actually do here? He shoots a gun, throws a
>grenade or two, steals a plane, steers with knees, ejects the rear-seat
pilot.
>Into the other plane. Which is pretty dumb, if you ask me. One of the
>all-time lamest teasers."
If you reduce anything to a series of perfunctory sentences it will sound
uninteresting. In application it was somewhat more involving. The key
elements were the 'Hitchcockian' suspense technique of setting all the
action off against the impending arrival of the missiles; simple but rarely
fails, and the fact that it showed more effectively M's affection for Bond
after setting her up (deliberately) as being officious and confrontational
in GE. Also, having some doubting smart-arse always makes you cheer harder
for the good guy.
">The Sinking of the Sheffield: Errrrr... Explain to me again why they used
that
>preposterous "Sea Drill" to cut through the ship? First, that was the
silliest
>weapon I've ever seen. Second, if they were attempting to make this look
like
>a chinese Mig had sunk the ship with a torpedo, here's a brilliant idea:
Sink
>it with a Chinese MiG torpedo.
>And don't tell me they needed the sea drill to get to the missile. Ships
have
>doors and ports, even sunken ones. And you can cut through steel if you
have
>to, even under water.
>Next: A "Stealth Ship"? This dumb puppy looks an awful lot like Darth
Vader's
>pleasure-yacht. On top of that, we already have "Stealth Ships." They are
>known as "Submarines." Aye, carumba."
Agree with all of this Verbatim. couldn't have put it better. (Glad you did
so I didn't have to)
"M. They keep feeding her these pro-feminist lines like "The advantage of
not
>having balls is that I don't have to think with them all the time." We
KNOW
>she's a woman. We can see that. Is the screenwriter not confident we
will
>appreciate that without some throw-away dialogue to draw attention to the
fact?
> Get on with the story. This is Bond's movie, not M's. M should give
Bond
>his assignment and that's all. I don't really need a lot of character
>development for M. There was precious little in the earlier Bonds; all we
knew
>of M was his voice, his look, his clothes, his upper-class accent, and his
>imposing demeanor. And we liked it that way. Let M have a little mystery,
for
>christ's sake. M isn't Bond's wacky partner in a "buddy" movie."
>
>
I agree that some of the dialogue is crass and am indifferent to the
supposition that the part is overstated. but you must remember the tightrope
being walked by the filmmakers; they must keep all core elements of
franchise in tact to avoid disappointing the fans, but if they do not vary
them, they are simply making the same film over and over. So...while you may
like some changes and dislike others (it is unavoidable that pretty much
everybody would prefer certain elements one way or the other..... just look
at this NG) you can appreciate their reasons for stirring things up
occasionally. Perhaps as the character develops it will become a very
positive thing involving M (a little) more. Dame Judi Dench is certainly an
excellent actress who I enjoy watching.
>"why couldn't (the villain) have a more plausible reason to destroy China,
other than
>selling papers and getting broadcast rights to China?"
Agreed! a fairly major point that annoyed me greatly.
>(BTW: He's doing this to get broadcast rights to China, while he's
>simultaneously targeting China's largest city for a nuclear holocaust, with
>limited nuclear war with the British to follow shortly thereafter. Does
>anybody detect a minor flaw in this scheme?)
This doesn't necessarily hold water...he would still increase his
readership. (this is stupid, but not an anomalous)
>Anyway, I kept thinking: Why can't this guy just have some sort of
personal
>grudge against China? Who knows--maybe he's even a misguided patriot and
>thinks the war with China is inevitable. Or something more plausible. I
>picked up the first draft of the screenplay recently and I found that the
>Carver character as originally written did have a more plausible
motivation: a
>grudge against the Chinese for taking back Hong Kong. A very bad change,
IMO.
It's a shame....it would have made far more sense (BTW thank you for
bringing this to my attention...I wasn't aware that this was the case)
>
"Cunning Linguist." Need I say more? This joke was old when Sean Connery
was still a bodybuilder."
It may not be a great joke, but it's sexier coming from a woman (see my
above comments about 'Natalya'. It also demonstrates a change in character
for 'Moneypenny' (Lois Maxwell would certainly never said anything of the
sort) and is a further insight into the evolving relationship between Bond,
M and Moneypenny. 'M' smiles. The previous 'M's' would not have smiled. At
no previous time would these three character's have shared a joke.
>"Teri Hatcher. Hatcher wasn't that bad the second time around. It's her
>character that's the problem. The script tells us there was this torrid
>romance between her and Bond, that she got "too close." Give me a break.
Is
>there anyone in the world who didn't know the screenwriter was just trying
to
>manipulate us, and that she would soon be murdered, once they laid that
"too
>close" bullshit on us so thick?
>I'm not saying I'd never believe Bond was "too close" to a woman. But I'm
not
>going to buy it just because the screenwriter decides to throw it in. To
>convince me paris and bond had had a big relationship before, we'd have had
to
>seen a lot more of paris, a lot more of them together. (Note: I'm not
saying
>this is a good idea, or they should have done this. I'm saying this is
what's
>required to make this plausible. Me, I'd have just made her another Bond
>chick. Who gets killed. A lot of Bond Chicks get killed; you don't have
to
>lay on the heavy emotion beforehand."
I also found this hugely annoying. after all of Bond's carefully developed
on-screen relationships (some very credible with a good deal of 'chemistry')
we are simply told that the woman whom he has been closest to, is a woman
who we only see for a couple of minutes and isn't even interseting. A very
cheap effort.
"Dr. Kaufman. A lot of people here in this NG seem to think this was a
nifty
>scene, just because Bond kills Kaufman very cold-bloodedly. Well, I beg to
>differ, but...
>
>Yes, Kaufman's funny. But the funniness of the scene is at war with the
>essence of the scene--He just killed Paris, for Christ's sake. Not the
>smartest time for gratuitous yuk-yuks."
I disagree with you here. Comedy is often used as a particularly effective
counterpoint to brutality, in order to make it more chilling (see 'give that
man a hand' in 'Robocop' or 'Torture you? that's good..that's a good
idea!...I like that!' from 'Reservoir dogs' amongst hundreds of other
examples that I can't think of right now)
"And it only gets worse. "I'm supposed
>to ask you how to get into the car. I'm sorry. I don't know what to say.
I
>feel like such an imbecile."
>Funny? Yes. Plausible? No."
Why Not???
And it just destroys whatever realism or drama
>or danger the scene needs to work.
>Finally, the exit line. "I'm just a professional doing a job."
>Did Kaufman really think that this would convince Bond not to kill him? Of
>course not. "Look, I'm just a hired killer who murdered your lover, so
don't
>think I'm a bad person." The line is in there for only one reason: To set
up
>Bond's line, "Me too."
Every line is there to set up another... (perhaps not always so
transparently or immediately).......that's the most important rule of
screenwriting.
">Michelle Yeoh. Passably attractive, as long as you don't see the
>three-pack-a-day teeth. And yes, can do martial arts. But not much else
>there."
About time Bond got some help from someone who might plausibly have been
there, and might realistically be able to help him. Incidentally, her teeth
are white and she is gorgeous (anything else I'm prepared to argue
about...........kidding)
It's been pointed out before, but why does she have such a high-tech
>headquarters in a ramshackle apartment that doesn't even have locks on the
>doors.
Because nobody is going to investigate a place that they're not even locked
out of. Also, as we have seen in every bond film breaking into somewhere
never appears to present an obstacle to anybody anyway.
>
"Let's jump ahead:
>
>The ending. Awful. Lots of shooting, lots of running around. The return
of
>the Sea Drill. And Bond makes his big escape by--ta da! --managing to open
his
>jacket's zipper. Big time drama, there."
Yes......the ending blows!!!!!
">Finally, the minor plusses in the film:
>
>The Car. Dig the remote control action. Love how Brosnan smiled like a
kid in
>a candy store while he was driving it around. I was less thrilled with the
>self-reinflating tires and hood-logo wire cutter. (Did Q know he'd face a
wire
>drawn across the road at exactly that height?)"
Don't even start on the logic of 'Q's gadgets....I can't think of one that
does make sense.
"And why, precisely, did Bond deliberately crash the car? He had already
>escaped from the villains. If they wanted to work the stunt in, why not
make
>the crash unavoidable, rather than deliberate?"
because it was funny, typical of his nonchalance and bound to annoy 'Q'
>
>
>Well, that's it. Sorry I went on so terribly long. But I just hated this
>movie. And I'm a big Bond fan, so I was awaiting it eagerly.
I didn't hate it...but it's a long way down on the list.
Love and Kisses,
TomXXX
>
abs...@my-dejanews.com
chao...@aol.com (ChaosInc) wrote:
Well, I was in the middle of a long response, but I had to go to work. I'll
post it now anyway.
Absorb
-----------------You thought your wooden castle was invincible
until the day it was hit with a flaming arrow-----------------
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
abs...@my-dejanews.com
chao...@aol.com (ChaosInc) kakimashita:
> I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE.
Really? I really liked TND and GE.
> The Teaser.
<snip>
The shooting was nice, but I really liked the plane part of the sequence.
Why? Well, I liked the fact that Bond was flying the plane, the mountains
looked nice, and it was funny when he ejected the other guy into the other
plane, none of which are brilliant reasons.
> The Sinking of the Sheffield:
<snip snip>
Well, they could have thought that it was just easier to drill through the
thing and sink it instead of obtaining a Chinese Mig torpedo or bothering to
have a strike team steal the missle from the ship, but I think that Carver
wanted a flashy weapon and a good story for his papers, so he went with the
sea drill for pizzazz. Yes, he could have done it differently, but he was a
media baron after all.
> Next: A "Stealth Ship"?
<snip>
He was showing off. "Look, I have a stealth ship! Ain't it cool?" I
thought it was part of the "villian has elaborate and unnecessary stainless
steel lair" getup.
> M.
<snip>
I liked the line, but I see what you mean. While I like her, too much of M
is a bad thing.
> The Villain and his Plan. I guess you either buy this ludicrous premise or you
> don't. Put me in the later category. As I was watching the film, I kept
> thinking: I don't mind that the guy's a media baron; fine, that's as good a
> villain occupation as any. They can't all be vague "industrial magnates." But
> why couldn't he have a more plausible reason to destroy China, other than
> selling papers and getting broadcast rights to China?
I think that's a good enough reason. He wants the power to manipulate the
world through media, which I thought was a nice change from the "industrial
magnates".
> Anyway, I kept thinking: Why can't this guy just have some sort of personal
> grudge against China? Who knows--maybe he's even a misguided patriot and
> thinks the war with China is inevitable. Or something more plausible. I
> picked up the first draft of the screenplay recently and I found that the
> Carver character as originally written did have a more plausible motivation: a
> grudge against the Chinese for taking back Hong Kong. A very bad change, IMO.
That would have added to the film, I agree.
> "Cunning Linguist." Need I say more? This joke was old when Sean Connery was
> still a bodybuilder.
Yup. Speaking of this, I didn't like Moneypenny in this film. She seemed
like a arrogant young exec.
> Teri Hatcher.
<snip>
I didn't like the actress or the character. Paris Carver had nothing to do
and was no one. So she was close to Bond. Wow. We aren't given any
compelling reason to like or care about her, and we don't even know anything
about her other than the fact that she was Carver's wife. Very poor
character developement.
> Dr. Kaufman.
<snip>
I see what you're saying, and yes, it may have been better if it had been
played straight, but I liked it anyway. As for the line, I think that the
Dr. knew that Bond was going to kill him and he was just trying to save his
life, even though he knew Bond wouldn't buy it.
> Michelle Yeoh.
<snip>
I liked her a lot. If I got to be the "Bond girl" in a Bond movie, I would
want a character like this. Maybe she forgot to lock the door to her
hideout? As for the gun, perhaps Q was going to give it to Bond later.
> The ending.
I agree, except that I thought the fact that Bond had to cut his vest off was
amusing.
> And why, precisely, did Bond deliberately crash the car? He had already
> escaped from the villains. If they wanted to work the stunt in, why not make
> the crash unavoidable, rather than deliberate?
Boys with toys...
> Q. Always good. Would have liked an explanation for the bizarre red suit,
> however.
Wasn't Q undercover as an Avis rep?
> Well, that's it. Sorry I went on so terribly long. But I just hated this
> movie. And I'm a big Bond fan, so I was awaiting it eagerly.
Bummer. Except for the ending, I really liked this film. And I loved the
title sequence; great eye candy.
ChaosInc
I disagree with you here. Comedy is often used as a particularly effective
counterpoint to brutality, in order to make it more chilling (see 'give that
man a hand' in 'Robocop' or 'Torture you? that's good..that's a good
idea!...I like that!' from 'Reservoir dogs' amongst hundreds of other
examples that I can't think of right now)
COUNTERPOINT: I completely disagree.
Robocop was a satire. 'Nuff said. Broadly comic elements work just fine in
what is essentially a comedy.
The "Torture you?" line in PF wasn't really funny. It was the character trying
to be funny. There's a difference.
In TND, Kaufman says things that would be just terrific in a mel brooks spy
spoof. Or in Austin Powers. This is not "light" comedy. This is not just
some throwaway line that gets a laugh. This is a scene that is BROADLY
comical. Out-and-out comedy. A parody of how someone in Kaufman's position
would behave.
Kaufman's scene is the most over-the-top piece of self parody yet in a James
Bond film. Only the double-taking pigeon in MR comes close.
"And it only gets worse. "I'm supposed
>to ask you how to get into the car. I'm sorry. I don't know what to say.
I
>feel like such an imbecile."
>Funny? Yes. Plausible? No."
Why Not???
Because Kaufman is a comic figure, and the line is parody. No one in his
situation would act this way--apologizing to the man you're about to kill
because you "feel like such an imbecile."
And it just destroys whatever realism or drama
>or danger the scene needs to work.
>Finally, the exit line. "I'm just a professional doing a job."
>Did Kaufman really think that this would convince Bond not to kill him? Of
>course not. "Look, I'm just a hired killer who murdered your lover, so
don't
>think I'm a bad person." The line is in there for only one reason: To set
up
>Bond's line, "Me too."
Every line is there to set up another... (perhaps not always so
transparently or immediately).......that's the most important rule of
screenwriting.
Not really. Yes, lines are written to set up other lines. My objection is
that it is TRANSPARENTLY OBVIOUS that the ONLY reason Kaufman says this is to
set Bond up. There is no reason for Kaufman himself to say it; it is not going
to save his life.
It's like Kaufman decided, "Hmmm, let me set up Bond for a great 'f-you' line
with which to dispatch me from this earth."
"I'm just a professional doing a job" is obviously the screenwriter talking,
not a hired killer named Dr. Kaufman who is about to be killed.
If the audience can see the NEXT line coming down the road ten miles away, then
Dr. Kaufman could have too. And the screenwriter should have rewritten it.
Mind you, this is a lesser criticism. Had the broadly comic elements of the
scene been eliminated, I wouldn't squawk too much about an obvious set-up for
Bond's punch line.
But Bond STILL should have said, "So am I," rather than "Me too." "Me too"
sounds like an eight-year old.
Quarterdeck
ChaosInc wrote:
> I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE.
>
...Your remarks make plain you are referring to TND, but from my vantage point, you
are correct on both counts. I caught a bit of TLD last night on TBS, and Lord if it
didn't put me to sleep. Dalton is enormously overrated by some here. I didn't find
him interesting in the part. He seldom seem to veer away from being perpetually
pissed off, and this is not Bond.
Peredur Glyn
known as Quarterdeck <Quart...@nospam.com> wrote something vaguely
similar to this:
>I caught a bit of TLD last night on TBS, and Lord if
>it
>didn't put me to sleep. Dalton is enormously overrated by some here.
As is Thunderball. It's all a matter of opinion, and I happen to think
that Dalton was very good as Bond.
No offence.
Yours,
Peredur.
--
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
***----- P.G.C. Davies -- Per...@llonnod.demon.co.uk -- ICQ: 12712530 ------***
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
"They do say, Mrs M, that verbal |"The Facts of Life are such that we are all
insults hurt more than physical | human and we all make mistakes. Alas, the
pain. They are, of course, wrong | Facts of Death do not allow us to properly
as you will soon discover when I | correct those mistakes. By then it is far too
stick this toasting fork in your | late to clear out the dark dirty secrets from
head." | the closets of our souls."
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Rowan Atkinson, Blackadder III | Raymond Benson, 'The Facts Of Death' -------*
***--------------------------------------------------------------------------***
anton...@my-dejanews.com
>
>
>> The Teaser.
><snip>
>
>The shooting was nice, but I really liked the plane part of the sequence.
>Why? Well, I liked the fact that Bond was flying the plane, the mountains
>looked nice, and it was funny when he ejected the other guy into the other
>plane, none of which are brilliant reasons.
>
The perfect blend of suspense and action. And the dialogue at MI6 was an
excellent addition.
>> The Sinking of the Sheffield:
><snip snip>
>
>Well, they could have thought that it was just easier to drill through the
>thing and sink it instead of obtaining a Chinese Mig torpedo or bothering
to
>have a strike team steal the missle from the ship, but I think that Carver
>wanted a flashy weapon and a good story for his papers, so he went with the
>sea drill for pizzazz. Yes, he could have done it differently, but he was a
>media baron after all.
Yes, you're right. But it was stupid anyway.
>
>> Next: A "Stealth Ship"?
><snip>
>
>He was showing off. "Look, I have a stealth ship! Ain't it cool?" I
>thought it was part of the "villian has elaborate and unnecessary stainless
>steel lair" getup.
>
Yet we're so eagerly waiting to see this fantastic things...
>> M.
><snip>
>
>I liked the line, but I see what you mean. While I like her, too much of M
>is a bad thing.
>
Ditto.
>> The Villain and his Plan. I guess you either buy this ludicrous premise
or you
>> don't. Put me in the later category. As I was watching the film, I kept
>> thinking: I don't mind that the guy's a media baron; fine, that's as
good a
>> villain occupation as any. They can't all be vague "industrial
magnates." But
>> why couldn't he have a more plausible reason to destroy China, other than
>> selling papers and getting broadcast rights to China?
>
>I think that's a good enough reason. He wants the power to manipulate the
>world through media, which I thought was a nice change from the "industrial
>magnates".
>
It was a nice idea ruined by lack of plot development. The newspaper side
was only started and, by the end of the movie, Carver motives were laughable
at best.
>> Anyway, I kept thinking: Why can't this guy just have some sort of
personal
>> grudge against China? Who knows--maybe he's even a misguided patriot and
>> thinks the war with China is inevitable. Or something more plausible.
I
>> picked up the first draft of the screenplay recently and I found that the
>> Carver character as originally written did have a more plausible
motivation: a
>> grudge against the Chinese for taking back Hong Kong. A very bad change,
IMO.
>
>That would have added to the film, I agree.
>
If that were the case, I'd have prefered to see an adaptation of Zero Minus
Ten.
>> "Cunning Linguist." Need I say more? This joke was old when Sean
Connery was
>> still a bodybuilder.
>
>Yup. Speaking of this, I didn't like Moneypenny in this film. She seemed
>like a arrogant young exec.
>
Don't tell.
>> Teri Hatcher.
><snip>
>
>I didn't like the actress or the character. Paris Carver had nothing to do
>and was no one. So she was close to Bond. Wow. We aren't given any
>compelling reason to like or care about her, and we don't even know
anything
>about her other than the fact that she was Carver's wife. Very poor
>character developement.
>
Yes; Hatcher did her best to make one dislike the character even more. But I
liked Brosnan's acting in her scenes.
>> Dr. Kaufman.
><snip>
>
>I see what you're saying, and yes, it may have been better if it had been
>played straight, but I liked it anyway. As for the line, I think that the
>Dr. knew that Bond was going to kill him and he was just trying to save his
>life, even though he knew Bond wouldn't buy it.
>
He could have shout it from Strattsburg and still see the results.
>> Michelle Yeoh.
><snip>
>
>I liked her a lot. If I got to be the "Bond girl" in a Bond movie, I would
>want a character like this. Maybe she forgot to lock the door to her
>hideout? As for the gun, perhaps Q was going to give it to Bond later.
>
I think that was a setup for Desmond's retirement.
>> The ending.
>
>I agree, except that I thought the fact that Bond had to cut his vest off
was
>amusing.
>
We had an overdose of action in the second half of the film, and we had no
reason to expect something better in the end. It was ridiculous. Stamper
thought Bond was death? Give me a break. And Carver killed with his personal
weapon.
Yikes. Not to mention the classical Bond in water finish.
>> And why, precisely, did Bond deliberately crash the car? He had already
>> escaped from the villains. If they wanted to work the stunt in, why not
make
>> the crash unavoidable, rather than deliberate?
>
>Boys with toys...
>
Have wheels we'll crash.
>> Q. Always good. Would have liked an explanation for the bizarre red
suit,
>> however.
>
>Wasn't Q undercover as an Avis rep?
>
They pretended to present it that way, but I can't find a reason.
>> Well, that's it. Sorry I went on so terribly long. But I just hated
this
>> movie. And I'm a big Bond fan, so I was awaiting it eagerly.
>
>Bummer. Except for the ending, I really liked this film. And I loved the
>title sequence; great eye candy.
The first half, excellent; Brosnan was good when he was given the chance;
Yeoh wasn't the prettiest Bond girl but an amazing partner and I the score
made me surrender. It's right in the middle of my list.
Antonio Az
http://members.xoom.com/quisqueyano
"I sign them, but I don't take them"
The Shadow
Peredur Glyn wrote :
>As is Thunderball. It's all a matter of opinion, and I happen to think
>that Dalton was very good as Bond.
>
>No offence.
I think we can all agree that the television adaptation of Casino Royale
with Jimmy "C.I.A." Bond was just plain terrible.
Bernie Hanssen
ChaosInc wrote:
All Avis Rent-A-Car front desk people wear those red jackets. Doesen't that make
them all look like a bunch of dorks? (Notice that Bond had to go to the Avis
counter to pick up his car.)
-Tester. Mr. Tester.-
Rhino
not stirred, and added:
>:|I think we can all agree that the television adaptation of Casino Royale
>:|with Jimmy "C.I.A." Bond was just plain terrible.
Normally I'd post an opposing answer just for the hell of it, but I
speak the truth when I say I actually liked it. I thought Peter Lorre
was a superb Le Chiffre and that the end torture scene was superbly
done - the name changes I can live with
TimSCurtin
>Date: 3/11/99 1:40 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <7c968l$kvm$1...@cletus.bright.net>
>
>
>
>I think we can all agree that the television adaptation of Casino Royale
>with Jimmy "C.I.A." Bond was just plain terrible.
>
>
>
I'll say this for it: I liked Peter Lorre. A lot.
TC
H.V.C.
<19990310033159...@ng11.aol.com>...
> I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE.
>
> Here are my problems:
>
> The Teaser. What does Bond actually do here? He shoots a gun, throws a
> grenade or two, steals a plane, steers with knees, ejects the rear-seat
pilot.
> Into the other plane. Which is pretty dumb, if you ask me. One of the
> all-time lamest teasers.
>
> The Sinking of the Sheffield: Errrrr... Explain to me again why they used
that
> preposterous "Sea Drill" to cut through the ship?
This never happened in The Living Daylights. Die.
But yes, TND was pretty disappointing. A nice movie, but nothing great. ie,
disappointing.
--
High Voltage Cable
AIM: JoshCable --- ICQ#: 19494247
Lewis Black: http://www.tir.com/~jtcable/lewispage.html
Xenogears sucks.
Lies, lies you dirty jezebel
Why, why, why, why don't you go to hell?
The Shadow
Rich Handley wrote in message ...
>Oh, I agree, Rhino -- I couldn't stand Valerie or "Clarence" Leiter,
>but the rest of it was great! I keep wondering how Nelson would have
>been had he used a British accent. And Lorre was wonderful!
Well...maybe I was wrong.
I'll be hiding under the house for a little while.
Rich Handley
>"The Shadow" <mie...@bright.net> asked for a Vodka Martini, shaken,
>not stirred, and added:
>>:|with Jimmy "C.I.A." Bond was just plain terrible.
>speak the truth when I say I actually liked it. I thought Peter Lorre
>was a superb Le Chiffre and that the end torture scene was superbly
>done - the name changes I can live with
Oh, I agree, Rhino -- I couldn't stand Valerie or "Clarence" Leiter,
but the rest of it was great! I keep wondering how Nelson would have
been had he used a British accent. And Lorre was wonderful!
Sincerely,
Rich Handley (Card...@NO-SPAMunix.asb.com)
Nightmark
>but the rest of it was great! I keep wondering how Nelson would have
>been had he used a British accent. And Lorre was wonderful!
Nelson is absolutely terrible in the first few minutes of the show, but as the
production goes along, he warms up to the material rather well, I think.
There's some genuine tension between him and Lorre, and after a while, I get
caught up in the story, bizarre alterations and all.
Many of today's fans are youngsters who have been spoiled by slick, big-budget
production values, and would consider the Climax! CR to be the worst just
because it's in B&W and has cheap sets. Me, I just see it as a genuine attempt
to bring Fleming's novel to TV under the restraints of the time. It's a
wonderful little pop culture artifact, and I'm grateful that videos of it are
commercially available.
Christopher Mills
Shadow House Press
http://www.shadowhouse.com/
Nigh...@aol.com
bondie
rarity in the series. We should be seeing more of her rather than less; and I am
glad to hear that TWINE will see her in the thick of the action. Anyone for an
adaptation of Colonel Sun with Dench ?
Dan Hartung
wrote:
>
>Peredur Glyn wrote :
>>As is Thunderball. It's all a matter of opinion, and I happen to think
>>that Dalton was very good as Bond.
>>
>>No offence.
>
>
>
>
>I think we can all agree that the television adaptation of Casino Royale
>with Jimmy "C.I.A." Bond was just plain terrible.
Well, especially since the sexy half-naked bond on the video cover
isn't even in it!
--
Dan Hartung | "I believe we can fly
dhartung (at) wwa (dot) com | on the wings that we create"
http://www.wwa.com/~dhartung/ | -- M. E.
Rhino
not stirred, and added:
>:|
>:|Rich Handley wrote in message ...
>:|>Oh, I agree, Rhino -- I couldn't stand Valerie or "Clarence" Leiter,
>:|>but the rest of it was great! I keep wondering how Nelson would have
>:|>been had he used a British accent. And Lorre was wonderful!
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|
>:|Well...maybe I was wrong.
>:|
>:|I'll be hiding under the house for a little while.
>:|
Shall I get yer coat?
--
**** /\/\/\/\+-+- Rhino -+-+/\/\/\/\ ****
**** http://village.vossnet.co.uk/r/rhino ****
**** James Bond, Carry On Films, The Prisoner, Blondie****
**** Black Adder, Hammer Horror, John Wyndham, Trivia ****
**** James Herbert, Alexander Dumas and much more ****
OK, so what's the speed of dark?
Rhino
stirred, and added:
>:|Am I the only one who enjoys seeing Dame Dench on screen ? The women can act - a
>:|rarity in the series. We should be seeing more of her rather than less; and I am
>:|glad to hear that TWINE will see her in the thick of the action. Anyone for an
>:|adaptation of Colonel Sun with Dench ?
Can't argue with that - CS is crying out to be filmed
Walter von Tagen III
>
>Can't argue with that - CS is crying out to be filmed
I'd love to see Colonel Sun filmed - either with Dame Judi's M. or
Robert Browns' M. being the kidnap victim. If Bond was going to rescue
his old chief he might be doing it against the wishes of the current
regime. I wonder if PB can play tension as Bond. Too bad he doesn't
smoke <smirk>
Walter in sillycon vale
The Shadow
Rhino wrote :
>Shall I get yer coat?
Yes, please do.
Ash
>I was terribly disappointed with TLD, even more than I was with GE.
From the rest of your message, I can only surmise that someone stuck the
wrong tape in your VCR. You're confusing TND with TLD.
>The Teaser. What does Bond actually do here? He shoots a gun, throws a
>grenade or two, steals a plane, steers with knees, ejects the rear-seat pilot.
>Into the other plane. Which is pretty dumb, if you ask me. One of the
>all-time lamest teasers.
Actually, it wasn't that bad, until Bond ejected the pilot into the other
aircraft. Not spectacular, but not bad. Better than some of the ones
from previous films.
>The Sinking of the Sheffield: Errrrr... Explain to me again why they used that
>preposterous "Sea Drill" to cut through the ship? First, that was the silliest
>weapon I've ever seen. Second, if they were attempting to make this look like
>a chinese Mig had sunk the ship with a torpedo, here's a brilliant idea: Sink
>it with a Chinese MiG torpedo.
I'm guessing that this fills in the "gadget" quotient of the film.
>Next: A "Stealth Ship"? This dumb puppy looks an awful lot like Darth Vader's
>pleasure-yacht. On top of that, we already have "Stealth Ships." They are
>known as "Submarines." Aye, carumba.
Actually, there is a stealth ship in existance, that looks very much like
that ship in TND.
>M. They keep feeding her these pro-feminist lines like "The advantage of not
>having balls is that I don't have to think with them all the time." We KNOW
>she's a woman. We can see that. Is the screenwriter not confident we will
>appreciate that without some throw-away dialogue to draw attention to the fact?
If I recall, the line immediately preceding M's line was "With all due respect,
M, I don't think you have the balls for this." Or something similar, something
that questionned her abilities using a metaphor of male genitals for
competence. Call me silly, but I think the line was quite appropriate for
the situation; it dropped to the same crass level as the insult and did it
one better. Certainly, we'd expect M to react that way, any other and we'd
have said that her response wasn't in character.
> Get on with the story. This is Bond's movie, not M's.
Give it up. The line took up perhaps 30 seconds to a minute at most. It was
tossed out there, and they moved on without dwelling on it.
> M should give Bond
>his assignment and that's all. I don't really need a lot of character
>development for M.
Perhaps not, but the heated exchange she had with the Admiral certainly
establishes the importance of Bond's mission and the deadline he faces. And
it was done by showing us the events leading to it, better than just having
M tells us that there's a deadline and having to demonstrate some other way
that this is important.
>The Villain and his Plan. I guess you either buy this ludicrous premise or you
>don't. Put me in the later category. As I was watching the film, I kept
>thinking: I don't mind that the guy's a media baron; fine, that's as good a
>villain occupation as any. They can't all be vague "industrial magnates." But
>why couldn't he have a more plausible reason to destroy China, other than
>selling papers and getting broadcast rights to China?
>(BTW: He's doing this to get broadcast rights to China, while he's
>simultaneously targeting China's largest city for a nuclear holocaust, with
>limited nuclear war with the British to follow shortly thereafter. Does
>anybody detect a minor flaw in this scheme?)
It was explained in Carver's monologue in the climax that he hoped for a
limited nuclear exchange to wipe out the Chinese government entirely, then have
his pet General come in immediately after that to assume control of the rest
of the country and negotiate a peace with the UK.
>Anyway, I kept thinking: Why can't this guy just have some sort of personal
>grudge against China? Who knows--maybe he's even a misguided patriot and
>thinks the war with China is inevitable. Or something more plausible. I
>picked up the first draft of the screenplay recently and I found that the
>Carver character as originally written did have a more plausible motivation: a
>grudge against the Chinese for taking back Hong Kong. A very bad change, IMO.
Agreed.
>(BTW: Have you ever noticed that, if you're a woman in a James Bond flick,
>screwing James Bond in the first half of the movie is just about the most
>deadly thing you can do? It's like you're an Engineering guy in Star Trek.
>You--are--going--to--die.
Actually, the technical term for those Star Trek guys is "red shirt." And they
belonged to Security, not engineering.
>And why on earth
>wouldn't Q be able to get his hands on the Walther P-99? It's not a top secret
>weapon, you know. It's commercially available.
Budget perhaps? I'm purely guessing here, but I'd expect that Q probably
has one and didn't have any room for the P-99 that year.
Ash.
--
:::: ex...@oblique.net :::::::::::::::::::: There are 293 days remaining. ::::
"I'm immortal. I'm stuck as a child. And I'm flunking math..."
:::::::::::::::::::: Anya, fr. Buffy the Vampire Slayer ::::::::::::::::::::::
Quarterdeck
Peredur Glyn wrote:
> In the ancient parchments of <36E75BC5...@nospam.com>, the one
> known as Quarterdeck <Quart...@nospam.com> wrote something vaguely
> similar to this:
(if not downright verbatim!)
>
>
> >I caught a bit of TLD last night on TBS, and Lord if
> >it
> >didn't put me to sleep. Dalton is enormously overrated by some here.
>
> As is Thunderball. It's all a matter of opinion, and I happen to think
> that Dalton was very good as Bond.
>
> No offence.
...None taken! Quite obviously this is a matter of opinion. However, what should be
just as obvious is that the mere statement of one man's opinion doesn't somehow
eviscerate someone elses. Now, moving from the general to the specific:
We know that Ian Fleming had a hand in the creation of the cinematic Bond -- both
with McClory and later with Broccoli and Saltzman. So much so in the case of the
latter that Broccoli was eventually irked when Fleming kept rejecting his treatments
and drafts. Fortunately for us, Fleming saved us from Dr. No as a monkey (Broccoli's
idea), thanks to his unstinting respect for the character he created. It is also a
matter of history that Fleming set the wheels in motion for the James Bond we came
to know on screen with the suggested hire of his acquaintance Berkley Mather.
Everyone connected with the production -- including Fleming -- knew when the final
draft of the screenplay was approved that Dr. No was a send up, and I think we have
to bear that in mind as we look back at Dalton's two pictures. When, 24 years after
Dr. No, Dalton returned to the books to fashion his persona of Bond, he shortchanged
-- imho -- Fleming's contribution to the cinematic Bond -- and missed out on the
crucial elements of sardonic humor and irony which so successfully characterized
original cinematic Bond. The result -- again imho -- in TLD was a fairly ponderous
pissed off misogynist Bond -- which -- again -- missed the balance set at the
beginning by Fleming & the producers. The result is that the moviegoing public
didn't take to Dalton, as Mike Wilson conceded in an interview during the hiatus
between LTK & GE. He said that Dalton hadn't found his stride with the character and
registered with audiences -- and I must agree with him.
Now there is a tendency to box people into categories in this ng. You have
apparently seen my post about Thunderball in another thread. I do believe
Thunderball remains the most successful expression of the Bond formula, with respect
to maintaining the balance between character, story, action and hardware. I also
think that Connery remains the most effective as Bond -- again maintaining the
balance between gravity and humor. By now, you're probably gagging, but fortunately
there is the old saw: "One man's pleasure, etc."
Kindest regards,
Quarterdeck
Mark
> <snip>.
>
> >The Sinking of the Sheffield: Errrrr... Explain to me again why they used that
> >preposterous "Sea Drill" to cut through the ship? First, that was the silliest
> >weapon I've ever seen. Second, if they were attempting to make this look like
> >a chinese Mig had sunk the ship with a torpedo, here's a brilliant idea: Sink
> >it with a Chinese MiG torpedo.
>
> I'm guessing that this fills in the "gadget" quotient of the film.
>
<snip>
I think the reason they didn't use a real torpedo is simply because, torpedo's
aren't that easy to get ahold of these days. While you can simply smuggle guns out
of the US, Torpedo's are available really only for military purposes. General Chang
would have to really explain himself before he could get a real torpedo. Carver's
drill serves as the substitute.
James Robert Calhoun
I think the reason they didn't use a real torpedo is simply because, torpedo's
aren't that easy to get ahold of these days. While you can simply smuggle
guns out of the US, Torpedo's are available really only for military
purposes. General Chang would have to really explain himself before he
could get a real torpedo. Carver's drill serves as the substitute.
>
Yeah. I was under the impression that the purpose of the sea drill was to
provide easy access to the storage room where the [what the hell ship was
it? Devonshire?] kept the Tomahawk missles. An impromptu service door, if
you will. I'm a relative newcomer [etc] and not trying to jump all over
you, but if Chang could negotiate the theft of enough stealth material to
build that Jesus great boat, don't you think he could nick a torpedo or
two? Besides, a torpedo would blow the whole side [or a good portion
thereof] of the ship to rat-shit, and put the possibility of getting a
Tomahawk in jeopardy.
Regardless, I think that it was a cheesy idea and the execution of this
bit in TND was painful. Couldn't you imagine some gaffer turning a manual
crank just off camera to operate the drill as it's being launched towards
the HMS...whatever? And the computer graphics of the drill being released
seemed like an obvious cop-out.
Richard Ashton
Quarterdeck wrote:
> We know that Ian Fleming had a hand in the creation of the cinematic Bond -- both
> with McClory and later with Broccoli and Saltzman. So much so in the case of the
> latter that Broccoli was eventually irked when Fleming kept rejecting his treatments
> and drafts. Fortunately for us, Fleming saved us from Dr. No as a monkey (Broccoli's
> idea),
I've read differently here - that in fact it was Wolf Mankiwicz who made Dr. No a monkey
and that indeed it was Broccoli who rejected that notion and saved the script from being
self parody. It was Broccoli who wanted to get the writers back to Fleming.
> thanks to his unstinting respect for the character he created. It is also a
> matter of history that Fleming set the wheels in motion for the James Bond we came
> to know on screen with the suggested hire of his acquaintance Berkley Mather.
> Everyone connected with the production -- including Fleming -- knew when the final
> draft of the screenplay was approved that Dr. No was a send up,
A send up? Well, not exactly. I think that Terence Young knew exactly the right balance
of humor and playing it deadly straight. I don't think that there is any attempt to be
parody when Bond shoots Dent - but instead a sly and dark sense of irony and humor.
> and I think we have
> to bear that in mind as we look back at Dalton's two pictures. When, 24 years after
> Dr. No, Dalton returned to the books to fashion his persona of Bond, he shortchanged
> -- imho -- Fleming's contribution to the cinematic Bond -- and missed out on the
> crucial elements
Okay - now we disagree entirely. IMHO, the TLD's post credit scene in Bratislava, echoed
the tone of Fleming's short story The Living Daylights (or aka Berlin Escape). A re-read
of the short story shows how much attention the filmmakers paid to the short story and
if anything, it's my opinion that Dalton's Bond is the most Flemingesque. There's
precious little humor in the story, just a dark and cynical Bond doing a job he doesn't
really want to do. And I can't vouch for how much humor Fleming injected into the movies
- I've always attributed that to Maibaum, Young and the producers who were looking to
reach a broader audience.
> of sardonic humor and irony which so successfully characterized
> original cinematic Bond. The result -- again imho -- in TLD was a fairly ponderous
> pissed off misogynist Bond -- which -- again -- missed the balance set at the
> beginning by Fleming & the producers. The result is that the moviegoing public
> didn't take to Dalton, as Mike Wilson conceded in an interview during the hiatus
> between LTK & GE.
I don't think that Dalton got a fair shake. Imagine him if Martin Campbell had directed
him in GE? It would be a very different type of film. I always felt that the problem was
that John Glen was not a gifted director the way that Young or Hamilton were and
therefore, Dalton got stuck in a pair of films that went on too long for their own good.
I doubt Connery, Moore or Brosnan would have been any better or would have found a
bigger audience.
> He said that Dalton hadn't found his stride with the character and
> registered with audiences -- and I must agree with him.
Well, Michael wrote those screenplays - Dalton acted them. There were less 'witticisms'
in Dalton's two films. That's not Dalton's fault is it? He doesn't write movies.
> Now there is a tendency to box people into categories in this ng. You have
> apparently seen my post about Thunderball in another thread. I do believe
> Thunderball remains the most successful expression of the Bond formula, with respect
> to maintaining the balance between character, story, action and hardware. I also
> think that Connery remains the most effective as Bond -- again maintaining the
> balance between gravity and humor. By now, you're probably gagging, but fortunately
> there is the old saw: "One man's pleasure, etc."
I'd say that Goldfinger is the most successful expression of the formula. TB dragged on
too long and bogged down in technology instead of character. (Thats not to say I don't
like TB - it's a comparative statement to GF).
RA
Mac
> Dear QD, let me retort on a few points...
>
> Quarterdeck wrote:
>
> > We know that Ian Fleming had a hand in the creation of the cinematic Bond -- both
> > with McClory and later with Broccoli and Saltzman. So much so in the case of the
> > latter that Broccoli was eventually irked when Fleming kept rejecting his treatments
> > and drafts. Fortunately for us, Fleming saved us from Dr. No as a monkey (Broccoli's
> > idea),
>
> I've read differently here - that in fact it was Wolf Mankiwicz who made Dr. No a monkey
> and that indeed it was Broccoli who rejected that notion and saved the script from being
> self parody. It was Broccoli who wanted to get the writers back to Fleming.
That's what I heard. In fact, Dick Maibaum used to say that Broccoli
would shout "You made Dr. No a monkey!" to tease Maibaum when Cubby was
trying to make a point.
I believe the monkey was supposed to be the villain's pet and was called
"Dr. No". So, it wasn't a ridiculous Planet Of The Apes type thing.
--
MAC
RCC
The idea was not so much parody as another element to hide the real villain.
In Wolf's version Dr. No was Professor Dent's pet monkey. Dent was the real
villain and used the misdirection of Dr. No to keep the authorities looking
elsewhere. In other words, Bond, and the others were out looking for No
while Dent was pulling off his scheme.
According to Wolf who was a friend of Harry Saltzman's, NOT (pointedly) of
Broccoli's, it was merely legend that parody was their goal. Broccoli
wanted things brought down to a workable level, such as having Wiseman play
No without bald wig and claws, however he was a stickler (at this point) for
staying close to the book. They'd paid for the book, why would they leave
it behind. (Years later, with success absolutely assured, Broccoli
apparently left this entire concept behind beginning with YOLT)
Also, Wolf absolutely never mentioned this Mather business. He gave
complete credit to Maibaum and Young for creating Bond's film persona and
the fact that the wit continued for years after Mather's supposed
contribution seems to bear that out.
Fleming, according to Wolf had little or nothing to do with the film series.
He seemed to want the adulation (and cash) that came from Bond but had
apparently wearied of the concept because of the various earlier attempts to
bring Bond to the screen. In his opinion, Maibaum was the screen soul of
James Bond and having seen the various non-Maibaum efforts, which do tend to
come out "soulless", I tend to agree.
--
RCC
Mac wrote in message <36ED025E...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net>...
Rory Geoghegan
before it got anywhere near the ship, either by using an anti-torpedo weapon
OR by decoying it using either chaff, flares or the new 'shark' decoy.
Rory
Quarterdeck wrote in message <36EC752A...@nospam.com>...
>
>
>Peredur Glyn wrote:
>
>> In the ancient parchments of <36E75BC5...@nospam.com>, the one
>> known as Quarterdeck <Quart...@nospam.com> wrote something vaguely
>> similar to this:
>
>(if not downright verbatim!)
>
>>
>>
>> >I caught a bit of TLD last night on TBS, and Lord if
>> >it
>> >didn't put me to sleep. Dalton is enormously overrated by some here.
>>
>> As is Thunderball. It's all a matter of opinion, and I happen to think
>> that Dalton was very good as Bond.
>>
>> No offence.
>
>...None taken! Quite obviously this is a matter of opinion. However, what
should be
>just as obvious is that the mere statement of one man's opinion doesn't
somehow
>eviscerate someone elses. Now, moving from the general to the specific:
>
>We know that Ian Fleming had a hand in the creation of the cinematic
Bond -- both
>with McClory and later with Broccoli and Saltzman. So much so in the case
of the
>latter that Broccoli was eventually irked when Fleming kept rejecting his
treatments
>and drafts. Fortunately for us, Fleming saved us from Dr. No as a monkey
(Broccoli's
>idea), thanks to his unstinting respect for the character he created. It is
also a
>matter of history that Fleming set the wheels in motion for the James Bond
we came
>to know on screen with the suggested hire of his acquaintance Berkley
Mather.
>Everyone connected with the production -- including Fleming -- knew when
the final
>draft of the screenplay was approved that Dr. No was a send up, and I think
we have
>to bear that in mind as we look back at Dalton's two pictures. When, 24
years after
>Dr. No, Dalton returned to the books to fashion his persona of Bond, he
shortchanged
>-- imho -- Fleming's contribution to the cinematic Bond -- and missed out
on the
>crucial elements of sardonic humor and irony which so successfully
characterized
>original cinematic Bond. The result -- again imho -- in TLD was a fairly
ponderous
>pissed off misogynist Bond -- which -- again -- missed the balance set at
the
>beginning by Fleming & the producers. The result is that the moviegoing
public
>didn't take to Dalton, as Mike Wilson conceded in an interview during the
hiatus
>between LTK & GE. He said that Dalton hadn't found his stride with the
character and
>registered with audiences -- and I must agree with him.
>
>Now there is a tendency to box people into categories in this ng. You have
>apparently seen my post about Thunderball in another thread. I do believe
>Thunderball remains the most successful expression of the Bond formula,
with respect
>to maintaining the balance between character, story, action and hardware. I
also
>think that Connery remains the most effective as Bond -- again maintaining
the
>balance between gravity and humor. By now, you're probably gagging, but
fortunately
>there is the old saw: "One man's pleasure, etc."
>
Quarterdeck
Richard Ashton wrote:
> Dear QD, let me retort on a few points...
..Hi Richard. Let's have at it.
> Quarterdeck wrote:
>
> > We know that Ian Fleming had a hand in the creation of the cinematic Bond -- both
> > with McClory and later with Broccoli and Saltzman. So much so in the case of the
> > latter that Broccoli was eventually irked when Fleming kept rejecting his treatments
> > and drafts. Fortunately for us, Fleming saved us from Dr. No as a monkey (Broccoli's
> > idea),
>
> I've read differently here - that in fact it was Wolf Mankiwicz who made Dr. No a monkey
> and that indeed it was Broccoli who rejected that notion and saved the script from being
> self parody. It was Broccoli who wanted to get the writers back to Fleming.
...Quoting Lycett's "Fleming" bio:
"Broccoli told Guy Hamilton, his original choice as director, that he was going to "fix"
the book which was "full of nonsense". With input from Mankowitz, he (Broccoli) wanted to
introduce a variety of fantastic elements such as portraying the reclusive Dr. No as a
monkey rather than a man. Declining the job this time, Hamilton tried to convince Broccoli
that the project's charm lay in Ian's detail." p 393
> > Everyone connected with the production -- including Fleming -- knew when the final
> > draft of the screenplay was approved that Dr. No was a send up,
>
> A send up?
...See the entry for the Berkely Mather lot towards the end of the Christies "James Bond"
catalog. Mather, et al considered the story "a send up."
> Well, not exactly. I think that Terence Young knew exactly the right balance
> of humor and playing it deadly straight.
...Young and Connery worked together, but Young credits Connery for nailing down the "suave"
persona. You can see the difference between the scenes at Pussfellers on location -- and in
Dent's office on the set. In any event, I would argue that it is this "right balance" which
eluded Glen and Dalton in TLD & LTK. Connery extracted the humor in a situation, and I
don't think Dalton had this quality. Ie: the limpet explosion in Kerim's office, to which
Bond quips "Found your technique too violent?" Dalton's Bond would never say something like
this, and yet this is the spirit of the "Bitch is dead now" Bond of the books who slept with
two married women ("Moonraker") for recreation. The Bond of the books and early films was a
bit of an sob and a cocksman. Yet we have Dalton's Bond embracing Kara like father would his
young daughter. Did Dalton ever seem to _desire_ any woman in his pictures? I think
Connery got it right in Dr. No -- boinking Miss Taro in one breath -- and arranging to book
her with the Superintendent in another. Dalton failed to summon up Bond's libido -- as well
as his sense of humor.
> I don't think that there is any attempt to be
> parody when Bond shoots Dent - but instead a sly and dark sense of irony and humor.
...We have our own opinions certainly. But in 1962, the crew considered Dr. No a send-up --
fire breathing dragons, bikini clad shell collectors, missile toppling, killer tarantulas,
metal handed villains and all.
> > and I think we have
> > to bear that in mind as we look back at Dalton's two pictures. When, 24 years after
> > Dr. No, Dalton returned to the books to fashion his persona of Bond, he shortchanged
> > -- imho -- Fleming's contribution to the cinematic Bond -- and missed out on the
> > crucial elements
>
> Okay - now we disagree entirely.
...That's alright.
> IMHO, the TLD's post credit scene in Bratislava, echoed
> the tone of Fleming's short story The Living Daylights (or aka Berlin Escape). A re-read
> of the short story shows how much attention the filmmakers paid to the short story and
> if anything, it's my opinion that Dalton's Bond is the most Flemingesque.
...Fleming is on record as having wanted David Niven and Roger Moore to play Bond in 62.
Therefore no Bond could be more "Flemingesque" than Roger Moore's! However, when confronted
with Broccoli's choice of Sean Connery, Fleming contributed to the shaping and direction of
the Bond character and the storylines. I think it was Young who said that "Fleming grew to
love Sean."
> I can't vouch for how much humor Fleming injected into the movies - I've always
> attributed that to Maibaum, Young and the producers who were looking to reach a broader
> audience.
...He contributed during the development and scriptwriting phase, and it was Fleming (see
Christies entry) who picked his friend Mather to write the screenplay. Mather is said to
have given Bond the key lines in the film which helped shape and distinguish the character.
Connery had Mather on set for the next to to contribute the humor and the lines on the fly
-- uncredited of course. Fleming's YOLT reveals the extent to which the humorous screen
persona of Bond developed for Dr. No had found its way into the Bond of the books.
>
> I don't think that Dalton got a fair shake.
...Really? TLD seemed to afford him much more in the way of production polish and resources
than Connery had in 62. And yet Connery made Bond work in Dr. No -- and made a splash with
critics and audiences -- despite the rough edges, second rate background score and B-movie
production values. And he did this -- imho -- because he was very handsome on screen,
exuding a charismatic machismo effortlessly -- something others in the role have tried to
evoke through posturing, smirks, etc. Watching Dalton last week in TLD, I was underwhelmed
by the "ordinary" quality of his appearance and performance. He was ok in the part, but not
great, lacking those star qualities which hold your attention. I dare say if he had more of
those qualities, it wouldn't matter who directed him, etc. He'd be playing the part today.
> Imagine him if Martin Campbell had directed
> him in GE? It would be a very different type of film.
...This is the fascinating but fairly irrelevant "what if" game. What if Sean had done
OHMSS, What if OHMSS had followed Thunderball, etc. We are left with the product for better
or worse.
> I always felt that the problem was that John Glen was not a gifted director the way that
> Young or Hamilton were and therefore, Dalton got stuck in a pair of films that went on too
> long for their own good.
...If the films seemed too long, I'd aver its because the lead actor is not holding your
attention. That's precisley my point. I watched TLD, and at around the time Bond bundles the
cello into the back of the Aston, I was bored.
> Well, Michael wrote those screenplays - Dalton acted them. There were less 'witticisms'
> in Dalton's two films. That's not Dalton's fault is it? He doesn't write movies.
...That's no excuse really. There were less witticisms in Dr. No, FRWL and Goldfinger -- but
Connery was smart enough to recognize the necessity to have more of them -- more humor in
those pictures, and requested Mather on the set contributing lines for each of the three
pictures. He also ad-libbed his own.
> I'd say that Goldfinger is the most successful expression of the formula.
...Not fully evolved enough. Bond get's captured too early and seems to visit the story.
Imho Thunderball was the last great Bond film. It's rental figures attest to its popularity
-- right up there with the Sound of Music as I recall.
> TB dragged on too long and bogged down in technology instead of character.
...the tech bog occured in YOLT.
Thanks for sharing your interesting observations & be well,
Quarterdeck
>
> RA
Quarterdeck
RCC wrote:
> Richard, and Mac are correct. Wolf used to tell the story quite often.
> <snip>According to Wolf who was a friend of Harry Saltzman's, NOT (pointedly)
> of Broccoli's, it was merely legend that parody was their goal.
...Not legend, fact: the producers were worried about how what they considered
to be a parody would play with audiences. As for your other assertions, let's
turn to Lycett:
""But even he (Saltzman) was having difficulty finding the money to finance his
Bond project, until his friend, the playwright Wolf Mankowitz, put him in touch
with Albert R. Broccoli...Broccoli told Guy Hamilton, his original choice of
director, that he was going to "fix" the book which was "full of nonsense." With
input from Mankowitz, he (Broccoli) wanted to introduce a variety of fantastic
elements such as portraying the reclusive Dr. No as a monkey rather than a man.
Declining the job this time, Hamilton tried to convince Broccoli that the
project's charm lay in Ian's detail."
The implication here is that Lycett's source was Hamilton.
> Also, Wolf absolutely never mentioned this Mather business.
...Which doesn't mean it didn't occur. Perhaps it irked Mankowitz to have been
bested by Mather. See the entry in the Christies catalog for the Bond auction
which describes the cache of Mather papers about the whole subject.
> He gave complete credit to Maibaum and Young for creating Bond's film persona
> and the fact that the wit continued for years after Mather's supposed
> contribution seems to bear that out.
...It seems the wit for the first three or four owes more to Mather and Connery
than Maibaum. Connery hired Mather to be onset during the shooting of the next
few Bonds to contribute lines impromptu, and he did -- uncredited.
> He seemed to want the adulation (and cash) that came from Bond but had
> apparently wearied of the concept because of the various earlier attempts to
> bring Bond to the screen.
...Fleming did review (and reject) many treatments and scripts, contribute
lines, and bring in his friend "Mather" to polish the screenplay on Dr. No. He
also reviewed the script for FRWL and contributed material.
Quarterdeck
RCC wrote:
>
> >...Not legend, fact: the producers were worried about how what they
> considered
> >to be a parody would play with audiences.
>
> Yes, they were absolutely worried about a number of things, including the
> concept of No as an angry myopic bald chinese man with claws (which they
> obviously changed) and Fleming's "dragon" all of which came from the
> original book, not the subsequent screenplays.
...The context of the "parody" relates to Mather's treatment, namely the way the
character of Bond had been written. Find a copy of the Christies Bond auction
catalog, locate the entry for all of the Mather papers, and read for yourself.
> Wolf simply stated (with Saltzman's backing, NOT Broccoli's) that the piece
> belonged in the realm of satire unless certain elements were taken out.
> Broccoli demanded they be left in, which IMHO saved the series.
...That's lovely. But Wolf didn't write the treatment that went into production.
Mather did. And it was his script which was deemed a "send up" by the producers.
>
>
> One must also take into account Wolf's attitude toward the entire project.
> Certainly he could see a Bond series in the future, however this was a
> period of time when the cultural elite, especially in the film world, didn't
> want anything to do with a comic book hero disguised as a spy.
...Right. That surely explains why he did "Where the Spies Are" in 65 & "Casino
Royale" in 67. Hollywood is also about money, and he must have kicked himself
for missing out on _the_ film series of the 60s.
> Saltzman had produced some very stark, artistic pieces, and Wolf came onboard
> thinking
> this was where Bond was going to go.
...He came onboard thinking this -- after "Espresso Bongo," "Two Faces of Dr.
Jekyll" & "The Day the Earth Caught Fire." Those are pretty heady films, after
all. Aren't they.
> Parody? No. Satire? Definitely. As a matter of fact, an excellent
> pointer as to Wolf's intentions comes from the only Bond film to bear his
> name, Casino Royale. THAT is parody. Wolf's original for Dr. No was
> satire.
...Great for Wolf. _I_ was referring to Berkley Mather. Fleming recommended
Mather for the job -- he got it -- wrote it -- and got credited for it. It was
Mather's treatment that was deemed "a send up." See Christies.
> And my source was Wolf, who was a lot closer to the script at this point
> than even Hamilton.
...Than the director? You've got Wolf on the brain! (<;
>
> >...It seems the wit for the first three or four owes more to Mather and
> Connery
> >than Maibaum.
>
> I completely disagree with this statement. Whether Mather was involved or
> not, Bond's wry wit definitely contains qualities of Maibaum and especially
> Young. Connery has always credited Young with the creation of the Bond
> persona.
...And Connery also hired Berkley Mather uncredited to be on the set for the
next few pictures to work on his lines.
> That's also the way Wolf told the story. And Maibaum.
...Look this is getting puerile. Expand your horizons. Ian Fleming reviewed the
scripts for Dr. No, FRWL & Goldfinger. He rejected many treatments of Dr. No --
and it was this meddling that made Broccoli et al glad to get him out of the
way. But Fleming got his way by getting them to hire his man Berkley Mather.
Fleming also contributed lines and bits for FRWL.
>
>
> However, you are correct in one assertion. Maibaum's original for Dr. No
> was apparently quite bland, almost workmanlike. This, according to Maibaum
> was because of the huge number of drafts he'd turned out in order to get
> everyone to agree on a single storyline. At the last minute the script was
> given by Broccoli to Young to rewrite. In doing so, Broccoli specifically
> stated he wanted the Fleming back into the script. Young rewrote the script
> quite quickly with the help of Mather (and Joanna Harwood).
...Harwood was just a script girl pal of Youngs...if you gather my meaning.
Mather did what he was supposed to do -- polish Maibaum's script. If you look
at a Maibaum effort like FYEO -- the humor is not as crisp as the first few
films. He wrote well and some very good lines like "Red wine with fish." But
some of the wittier asides for Bond were crafted on set by Mather, and by
Connery. Films are a team effort. The work of one man doesn't somehow eviscerate
the work of another. Suffice to say that no writer likes to get passed on, or
have his work mucked with. Each is passionate about his or her own vision. Hence
Fleming's own crack to Maibaum: "So you're the fellow they've hired to f*ck up
my work." It's understandable.
>
>
> As film is a medium that subsists on collaboration, I would not be surprised
> if Mather had a large part in the humor of the script, however, from what
> I've been told over the years, I simply can't support your argument that
> Mather and Connery were the wit of Bond.
...It's not an "argument." It's a documentary fact.
> The years without either belay
> that concept entirely.
...Right. And there hasn't been a witty or sophisticated Bond in ages. Maibaum's
later humor was "cornball" and trite -- nowhere near what Mather and Connery and
Young were doing in the early series.
Richard Ashton
Quarterdeck wrote:
> ...The context of the "parody" relates to Mather's treatment, namely the way the
> character of Bond had been written. Find a copy of the Christies Bond auction
> catalog, locate the entry for all of the Mather papers, and read for yourself.
Okay, here's the thing. Harwood got a screen credit for merely providing the gag of
the portrait of Lord Nelson. That's from Terrence Young on the Dr. No laserdisc. He
doesn't mention Mather at all - which I find odd if what you say is true.
> ...Right. That surely explains why he did "Where the Spies Are" in 65 & "Casino
> Royale" in 67. Hollywood is also about money, and he must have kicked himself
> for missing out on _the_ film series of the 60s.
I don't think he did at all. I believe EON offered him a multi-picture deal which he
refused. Anyone else hear of this? I think I'm right.
> > Saltzman had produced some very stark, artistic pieces, and Wolf came onboard
> > thinking
> > this was where Bond was going to go.
>
> ...He came onboard thinking this -- after "Espresso Bongo," "Two Faces of Dr.
> Jekyll" & "The Day the Earth Caught Fire." Those are pretty heady films, after
> all. Aren't they.
I think you missed RCC's point. He was referring to Harry's Woodfall films, things
like The Entertainer et al. Those were pretty stark dramas. That was Harry's
producing background untill Bond. Cubby, on the other hand, was a producer of big
action films. He knew the territory better, which again indicates Cubby's
underestimated guidance.
> ...Great for Wolf. _I_ was referring to Berkley Mather. Fleming recommended
> Mather for the job -- he got it -- wrote it -- and got credited for it. It was
> Mather's treatment that was deemed "a send up." See Christies.
Haven't seen the Christie's stuff. Can you post some of it? My concern here is that
this position is very contrary to the history laid down from the likes of Young,
Cubby and even Peter Hunt. One of the things that would be really great would be if
Connery would put his version of events on the record. He probably has the best
first hand account of all.
> ...And Connery also hired Berkley Mather uncredited to be on the set for the
> next few pictures to work on his lines.
This is where I have a problem. I think that given the likes of Simon Raven would
later get "additional dialogue" credits (for OHMSS) I can't help but think Mather
would have gotten better recognition.
> ...Look this is getting puerile. Expand your horizons.
Be nice.
> Ian Fleming reviewed the
> scripts for Dr. No, FRWL & Goldfinger. He rejected many treatments of Dr. No --
> and it was this meddling that made Broccoli et al glad to get him out of the
> way. But Fleming got his way by getting them to hire his man Berkley Mather.
> Fleming also contributed lines and bits for FRWL.
If that were so, then how come Fleming never incorporated this humor into his books?
Fleming couldn't write that kind of humor. It would appear that in the light of
Connery's casting that Fleming adopted Connery's Scottishness to Bond's parentage.
But, he never adopted the humor. Odd?
> ...Harwood was just a script girl pal of Youngs...if you gather my meaning.
> Mather did what he was supposed to do -- polish Maibaum's script. If you look
> at a Maibaum effort like FYEO -- the humor is not as crisp as the first few
> films.
That script was co-written and re-written by others. I believe that Maibaum went on
record as disliking what they did to FYEO.
> He wrote well and some very good lines like "Red wine with fish." But
> some of the wittier asides for Bond were crafted on set by Mather, and by
> Connery. Films are a team effort. The work of one man doesn't somehow eviscerate
> the work of another. Suffice to say that no writer likes to get passed on, or
> have his work mucked with. Each is passionate about his or her own vision. Hence
> Fleming's own crack to Maibaum: "So you're the fellow they've hired to f*ck up
> my work." It's understandable.
I think IF's statement was Fleming just being Fleming.
> ...It's not an "argument." It's a documentary fact.
Steady on. History is nothing more than a conspiracy of opinions. Let's keep it an
arguement. Facts are terribly hard to prove. You'll pull out your Christie's
catalog, and I'll pull out a Terence Young interview. Next thing you know the whole
thing'll escalate to who's got the biggest Dr. No archive.
> ...Right. And there hasn't been a witty or sophisticated Bond in ages. Maibaum's
> later humor was "cornball" and trite -- nowhere near what Mather and Connery and
> Young were doing in the early series.
"cornball" and trite? It's all "cornball" and trite. But the key is delivery.
Connery could do - no one could do it better. Moore couldn't do as Connery had.
Hence, his "witicisms" appear "cornball" and trite. They're pretty much the same,
but the delivery is very different. The humor was written, but it was Connery's
ironic delivery that made them come alive.
Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais wrote dialog for NSNA. Nothing brilliant. But
uttered by Connery it works. Likewise with The Rock.
I think too much credit is being given to Mather (and I'm arguing it was Maibaum)
when truth is that a lot of it was unique to Connery's performances.
Richard
RCC
(The content below is snipped for space, nothing else)
>
>
>RCC wrote:
>
>>
>> >...Not legend, fact: the producers were worried about how what they
>> considered
>> >to be a parody would play with audiences.
>>
>> Yes, they were absolutely worried about a number of things, including the
>> concept of No as an angry myopic bald chinese man with claws (which they
>> obviously changed) and Fleming's "dragon" all of which came from the
>> original book, not the subsequent screenplays.
>
>...The context of the "parody" relates to Mather's treatment, namely the
way the
>character of Bond had been written. Find a copy of the Christies Bond
auction
>catalog, locate the entry for all of the Mather papers, and read for
yourself.
That's fine, you've never previously clarified which draft we were
discussing. From your earlier statements it seemed you were talking about
the drafts previous to Mather's involvement. However, if Mather wasn't
involved until the final Young draft, which, if I'm not mistaken was the
shooting script. How does that make Mather's draft a "parody"? According
to Yule, Maibaum wrote the draft immediately previous to filming, then Young
was called in to rewrite with Mather as assistant. This would have come
after the supposed "parody" problem.
Would you mind posting some of the Mather material?
>...That's lovely. But Wolf didn't write the treatment that went into
production.
>Mather did. And it was his script which was deemed a "send up" by the
producers.
Mather's script? Do you mean Mather wrote a version of his own? The only
notations I've found other than yours say Mather was one of Young's
assistants on his final rewrite of Maibaum's script.
>...Right. That surely explains why he did "Where the Spies Are" in 65 &
"Casino
>Royale" in 67. Hollywood is also about money, and he must have kicked
himself
>for missing out on _the_ film series of the 60s.
However that doesn't affect the fact that the monkey business (sic) came
from him and not Broccoli, which was my initial reason for entering the
thread.
>...He came onboard thinking this -- after "Espresso Bongo," "Two Faces of
Dr.
>Jekyll" & "The Day the Earth Caught Fire." Those are pretty heady films,
after
>all. Aren't they.
No need to get prissy. Mankowitz was by this time the darling of the
English theatre set, which was where Saltzman looked for quite a bit of his
talent. Saltzman had by this time produced (as films) Look Back In Anger,
The Entertainer, and most memorably Saturday Night And Sunday Morning and it
was his decision that Mankowitz be involved in the project.
This is one of the problems with the Lycett book. Mankowitz was a friend of
Saltzman's and an acquaintance of Broccoli's. He came onboard at Saltzman's
request, not Broccoli's. As a side note, he supposedly brought the two
producers together in the first place.
>
>...Than the director? You've got Wolf on the brain! (<;
But you see, this is where your argument falls apart. Hamilton wasn't even
the director when Wolf wrote the script! There was no director, and even
when there came the possibility, Bryan Forbes was first choice, so how would
Hamilton, who came in later know more than the writer? As a matter of fact,
the early drafts of any script are completed before the director gets the
assignment. Hamilton was third choice, Young being fourth. By that time,
only Eon knows how many drafts were already under the table.
>...And Connery also hired Berkley Mather uncredited to be on the set for
the
>next few pictures to work on his lines.
While I've only heard this from you, if you'll read my last post, you'll
find I didn't disagree with this, only the assertion that they were
specifically responsible for the humor of the character. As far as I've
been able to find, Connery hasn't mentioned this at all.
>...Look this is getting puerile. Expand your horizons. Ian Fleming reviewed
the
>scripts for Dr. No, FRWL & Goldfinger. He rejected many treatments of Dr.
No --
>and it was this meddling that made Broccoli et al glad to get him out of
the
>way. But Fleming got his way by getting them to hire his man Berkley
Mather.
>Fleming also contributed lines and bits for FRWL.
I'm not the one acting puerile. You stated certain things as fact earlier
in the thread because you've read them in a catalog and I made you clarify
them from another POV, a point of view that comes from personal experience
and you seem to be getting snippy about it.
You then used Lycett as a basis for part of your argument and Lycett himself
shot it down in one line. Personally, Lycett is wrong almost as often as he
is right, however his take on the early Fleming is spot on and the book is a
damn fine read, but for detail, nothing beats interviewing the people
involved from the start.
Expand your own horizons.
>...Harwood was just a script girl pal of Youngs...if you gather my meaning.
Yes, that's quite well documented. And if so small a contribution is noted
with a screen credit, why is Mr. Mather so obviously absent from the other
films he supposedly worked on?
>Mather did what he was supposed to do -- polish Maibaum's script.
Yet Young gets credit for the rewrite with Mather being his assistant. I
could be wrong, but I've found no notation on Mather doing anything other
than assisting Young. This leads me to the next question, could it be
possible that Mr. Mather was overestimating his effect on the production?
If you look
>at a Maibaum effort like FYEO -- the humor is not as crisp as the first few
>films. He wrote well and some very good lines like "Red wine with fish."
But
>some of the wittier asides for Bond were crafted on set by Mather, and by
>Connery. Films are a team effort. The work of one man doesn't somehow
eviscerate
>the work of another. Suffice to say that no writer likes to get passed on,
or
>have his work mucked with. Each is passionate about his or her own vision.
Hence
>Fleming's own crack to Maibaum: "So you're the fellow they've hired to f*ck
up
>my work." It's understandable.
That's exactly what I said at the end of my previous post. However, below
you take the time to take the opposite stance yet again giving full credit
to Connery and Mather.
>...It's not an "argument." It's a documentary fact.
As I said before, I have to disagree. Over the years I've spent time with a
number of the writers on the series, Maibaum, Mankowitz, Wood, and each one
had a different take on their "contributions" to the series, right or wrong,
but in talking with each of them you get a sense of who they are, what they
can do. That's why I simply don't buy what you state as "fact",
specifically that Mather and Connery created the humor.
And you're right, I've never read the Christie's catalog. However I also
don't see myself using a Christie's catalog as a reference in order to state
it's content as fact. Especially after the supposed problems with
provenance they had on the last Bond auction.
(That was a dig at Christies, not at you.)
>...Right. And there hasn't been a witty or sophisticated Bond in ages.
Maibaum's
>later humor was "cornball" and trite -- nowhere near what Mather and
Connery and
>Young were doing in the early series.
You also have to remember that times change, that Broccoli and Moore shared
a very specific sense of humor and that Maibaum left the series a number of
times when he felt things were getting too ridiculous. Yes, he always
returned, but when he returned, he immediately tried to put Bond back in his
element and tone down the "cornball". Hence Wood's TSWLM and MR were
followed up by Maibaum's FYEO (rewritten and adjusted by just about everyone
on Earth including Moore).
Did these variants of the theme match up to the original? Not to us
die-hards, however the first four Bond's have one other specific connecting
factor and that's Terence Young. Maibaum and Young really had the feel for
the character and to me, they are the key to the early films. Young was
even called in to "fix" Hamilton's Goldfinger. Whether Mather contributed
or not, it was Young's sense of style, timing, and yes, humor that made Bond
what he was. Connery has said this numerous times and I'll stick with him
on this one until I see some evidence to the contrary.
RCC
Quarterdeck
Richard Ashton wrote:
> Ummm. This is getting long, but some new comments are down below. 'Evening QD...
>
> Quarterdeck wrote:
>
> > ...The context of the "parody" relates to Mather's treatment, namely the way the
> > character of Bond had been written. Find a copy of the Christies Bond auction
> > catalog, locate the entry for all of the Mather papers, and read for yourself.
>
> Okay, here's the thing. Harwood got a screen credit for merely providing the gag of
> the portrait of Lord Nelson. That's from Terrence Young on the Dr. No laserdisc. He
> doesn't mention Mather at all - which I find odd if what you say is true.
....Was this before or after his stroke? In any event, Harwood was Young's, ahem,
scriptgirl. Mather was handpicked by Fleming and got the job. You know, I don't get
residuals from the Mather estate to write this stuff. See if you can get hold of the
Christies Bond auction catalogue, locate the lot entry for all of the Mather papers and
commentary, and decide for yourself. If Connery felt it necessary to hire Mather to
write his lines impromptu & uncredited on the set of subsequent pics -- one can conclude
that Mather had something going for him.
>
>
> > ...Right. That surely explains why he did "Where the Spies Are" in 65 & "Casino
> > Royale" in 67. Hollywood is also about money, and he must have kicked himself
> > for missing out on _the_ film series of the 60s.
>
> I don't think he did at all. I believe EON offered him a multi-picture deal which he
> refused. Anyone else hear of this? I think I'm right.
....Sounds probable to me. My point however was that -- while he may have refused in 62
-- the fact of his opting into pictures like "Where the Spies Are" & "Casino Royale"
demonstrates that he had second thoughts about the spy thriller genre later on -- after
Bond went on to be a hit. Even Cary Grant who was offered and turned down Bond in 62
ended up in a Bond genre pic a few years later -- Charade. Folks in the trade thought
Bond was B movie Monogram material. That's the likely reason the Mankowitzs and Grants
of trade turned Bond down.
>
> > ...He came onboard thinking this -- after "Espresso Bongo," "Two Faces of Dr.
> > Jekyll" & "The Day the Earth Caught Fire." Those are pretty heady films, after
> > all. Aren't they.
>
> I think you missed RCC's point. He was referring to Harry's Woodfall films, things
> like The Entertainer et al. Those were pretty stark dramas. That was Harry's
> producing background untill Bond. Cubby, on the other hand, was a producer of big
> action films. He knew the territory better, which again indicates Cubby's
> underestimated guidance.
....It's very possible I missed his point. All the same, let's look at what he said:
"One must also take into account Wolf's attitude toward the entire project. Certainly he
could see a Bond series in the future, however this was a period of time when the
cultural elite, especially in the film world, didn't want anything to do with a comic
book hero disguised as a spy. Saltzman had
produced some very stark, artistic pieces, and Wolf came onboard thinking this was where
Bond was going to go."
....Let's stop here and summarize: RCC is saying that Wolf thought that Bond was going to
take the route of Saltzman's very dark artistic pieces. Ok. Let's continue:
When he was told no, that they were going to play Bond as a straightforward spy
adventure, he brushed off the whole idea, put it together with a distinctly satirical
bent and went on from there."
....How is the second half of RCC's statement consistent with the first half, in effect:
Wolf thought that Bond was going to take the route of Saltzman's very dark artistic
pieces...and then "brushed off the whole idea" when he was "told no, that they were
going to play Bond as a straightforward spy adventure"? Does that follow logically?
>
> Haven't seen the Christie's stuff. Can you post some of it? My concern here is that
> this position is very contrary to the history laid down from the likes of Young,
> Cubby and even Peter Hunt.
....Don't forget Guy Hamilton who surely must have contributed the Broccoli/Mankowitiz
comments about Dr. No. The Mather material relates to screenplays and documentary papers
from the Mather estate. A new angle on the history. It doesn't supplant the history laid
down by others -- it merely adds to it.
>
> This is where I have a problem. I think that given the likes of Simon Raven would
> later get "additional dialogue" credits (for OHMSS) I can't help but think Mather
> would have gotten better recognition.
....I guess I'm not as hung up as some who remain glued to certain accounts of the making
of the series. Mather was a pseudonym for a Lieutenant Colonel or something or other --
a friend of Flemings. I don't know what the terms were for Mather vis a vis Connery in
later pictures -- but I have no reason to believe that the Mather estate would wish to
fabricate the story out of whole cloth. The Mather lot didn't require the Connery
details -- it was valuable enough on its own with respect to drafts of Dr. No.
>
>
> > ...Look this is getting puerile. Expand your horizons.
>
> Be nice.
....Nice but getting exasperated.
>
> If that were so, then how come Fleming never incorporated this humor into his books?
....We're talking two mediums here, print and celluloid. Fleming's YOLT had much more
humor than any previous novel -- thinking now about the Tiger/Bond exchanges. I think
Fleming was canny enough to understand what would make his print creation "work" on
screen. He was fond of NBNW for example, and Grant had Bondian ripostes in that picture,
ie: "Poured any good drunks lately?" "Now what _can_ a man do with his clothes off for
an hour." etc.
>
>
> I think IF's statement was Fleming just being Fleming.
....Maibaum smoothed him over, and I think the fair thing to conclude is that all writers
-- people who create -- are sensitive about their work being mucked with by someone
else. I watched a sci-fi writer complain about the changes made to an award winning
Star Trek script -- and to hear him talk about it in 98 or 99 -- he was still steaming
and ired.
>
> I think too much credit is being given to Mather (and I'm arguing it was Maibaum)
> when truth is that a lot of it was unique to Connery's performances.
....Truth? Did I hear reference to truth? It seems some are mistrustful of things they
simply haven't read before -- yet despite this -- they will ardently seek to backhand
it. I have tried to relate _one_ facet of the story from a source I have no reason to
mistrust. I really don't care if one accepts it or not. One may lionize whom one will --
perhaps at the expense of the truth. From my vantage point -- all of the people we are
speaking about contributed to some extent to the end result on screen.
Q
>
>
> Richard
Mac
to post here - this is *not* an insult, I got on very well with Blox,
and always enjoyed reading his posts) can I quote this:
"Maibaum first began chronicling Bond's exploits back in the early '60s
when he penned Dr. No in collaboration with Wolf Mankowitz. "We read the
book again," he fondly recalled, "and we both fell on the floor
laughing. A Chinaman with with two hooks, Fu Man Chu. That's gone out
with long winter underwear." Instead of including the character of Dr.
No, whom they considered too ludicrous, the two writers decided Dr. No
would actually be a monkey that sat on the shoulder of Professor Dent,
SPECTRE's number two man.
"When we handed in the treatment both Cubby and Harry screamed,
hollered, and yelled, 'That's terrible, we want the Chinaman with the
two hooks!' So, as a matter of fact, Wolf Mankowitz didn't like it and
he quit. But now, of course, it worked so well that whenever Cubby and I
have an argument about something, he'll yell at me, 'Dr. No was a
monkey!'"
Richard Maibaum talking to Cinefantastique.
--
MAC
RCC
I would agree with your statement if I hadn't known Wolf. As has been
documented elsewhere, Wolf had the amazing ability to be totally
unpredictable. He did things his own way whether we understood his motives
or not. I remember him ripping one of my plays to shreds in front of a huge
audience of theatre professionals. When it came my turn to debate his
review, I asked him what specifically he didn't like about the play. He
said "I loved the play itself, I hated the director." then spent the rest of
the review reducing the poor girl to tears.
Look, I may seem to be defending him irregardless, but I'm not. All I'm
telling you is what he, and others have told me over the years. I'm not
trying to get personal, I'm not attacking you or Mr. Mather, I'm simply
imparting information in the same manner you are within a forum of debate.
Questioning my logic won't get you anywhere if you don't know what I'm
referencing, the same way my questioning your source will get me nowhere if
I haven't seen it.
I suggest we simply agree to disagree and move on.
RCC
Quarterdeck
Mac wrote:
> Hullo, Quarterdeck
....Howdy.
>
> "Maibaum first began chronicling Bond's exploits back in the early '60s
> when he penned Dr. No in collaboration with Wolf Mankowitz. "We read the
> book again," he fondly recalled, "and we both fell on the floor laughing.
> A Chinaman with with two hooks, Fu Man Chu. That's gone out with long
> winter underwear." Instead of including the character of Dr. No, whom they
> considered too ludicrous, the two writers decided Dr. No would actually be
> a monkey that sat on the shoulder of Professor Dent, SPECTRE's number two
> man.
....As an aside, and recalling that the first Maibaum screenplay for B&S was
"Thunderball," it's interesting to see how the SPECTRE element from
"Thunderball" found it's way into UA's non-SPECTRE stories like Dr. No, and
later FRWL, and YOLT.
> "When we handed in the treatment both Cubby and Harry screamed, hollered,
> and yelled, 'That's terrible, we want the Chinaman with the two hooks!'
....Would this have been before or after Hamilton quit as director -- urging
Broccoli to recover the charm of Ian's stories? (source: Lycett)
> So, as a matter of fact, Wolf Mankowitz didn't like it and he quit. But
> now, of course, it worked so well that whenever Cubby and I have an
> argument about something, he'll yell at me, 'Dr. No was a monkey!'"
....Young was interviewed at Cannes in `81 and as I recall stated that the
producers gave him teh drafts etc. and told him to come up with the story.
He worked with his script girl -- Harwood -- and the Mather draft and came
up with the story we know. The Christies catalog suggests that Mather was
Fleming's hand picked contribution as I have mentioned -- and it is
plausible that a writer would want to save his property from desecration.
Trusting Maibaum's own account, it would seem that we ultimately have Young,
Mather & Harwood to staving off Maibaum & Mankowtiz's monkey madness.
Quarterdeck
RCC wrote:
> I would agree with your statement if I hadn't known Wolf. As has been
> documented elsewhere, Wolf had the amazing ability to be totally
> unpredictable.
...Yes. Mac's previous post in this thread has Maibaum recalling that both he
and Mankowitz had created the monkey bit.
> He did things his own way whether we understood his motives or not.
...Giving him the benefit of the doubt here, I would aver that he thought the
monkey bit would have been a novel "twist". That said, I am glad it was passed
on -- no matter who made that decision. Dent got what he deserved in Taro's flat
-- and we got what we deserved: Bond's dinner table confrontation with Dr. No.
> I remember him ripping one of my plays to shreds in front of a huge audience
> of theatre professionals. When it came my turn to debate his review, I asked
> him what specifically he didn't like about the play. He said "I loved the
> play itself, I hated the director." then spent the rest of the review reducing
> the poor girl to tears.
....no comment.
>
> Look, I may seem to be defending him irregardless, but I'm not. All I'm
> telling you is what he, and others have told me over the years. I'm not
> trying to get personal, I'm not attacking you or Mr. Mather, I'm simply
> imparting information in the same manner you are within a forum of debate.
...That's fine. We know the extent of Mankowitz's involvement. The Mather
contribution is just another piece to the post Mankowitz puzzle.
>
> said "I loved the play itself, I hated the director." then spent the rest of
> the review reducing the poor girl to tears.
>
> Questioning my logic won't get you anywhere if you don't know what I'm
> referencing,
...I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying. Here it is again:
RCC: "One must also take into account Wolf's attitude toward the entire project.
Certainly he could see a Bond series in the future, however this was a period of
time when the cultural elite, especially in the film world, didn't want anything
to do with a comic book hero disguised as a spy. Saltzman had produced some
very stark, artistic pieces, and Wolf came onboard thinking this was where Bond
was going to go."
...Ok, "Wolf came onboard thinking this was where Bond was going to go" --
namely in the direction of Saltzman's "very stark, artistic pieces." Let's
continue:
RCC: "When he was told no, that they were going to play Bond as a
straightforward spy adventure, he brushed off the whole idea, put it together
with a distinctly satirical bent and went on from there."
...You have Mankowitz coming "onboard thinking this was where Bond was going to
go -- namely in the direction of Saltzman's "very stark, artistic pieces" -- and
then doing a 180 & "brushing off the whole idea" of a "straightforward spy
adventure" -- putting the story "together with a distinctly satirical bent."
How _does_ this follow?
Quarterdeck
RCC
only way I can try to explain it further is, the man had the ability to do a
complete 180 in a millisecond. Possibly the term "blew off" would be
clearer. In other words, "Screw you, if you're not going to do it my way,
I'm sure as hell not going to do it your way."
And yes, the word "temperamental" definitely applied.
--
RCC
Levi Ramsey
was
>"Thunderball," it's interesting to see how the SPECTRE element from
>"Thunderball" found it's way into UA's non-SPECTRE stories like Dr. No,
and
>later FRWL, and YOLT.
According to IMDb, Maibaum penned DN with Harwood and (uncredited) Young.
Levi Ramsey
Stato (Stato's Football Predictions)
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/7591
Chief Predictor (Blunt Views)
http://www.touchdownclaymores.addr.com/bluntviews
Editor (Metallica En Francais) [FORTHCOMING SITE]
Remove nospam to reply, or just click on the link above...
Mac
> ....Would this have been before or after Hamilton quit as director --
> urging Broccoli to recover the charm of Ian's stories? (source: >Lycett)
Who knows for sure? But Wolf was involved very early on with the
project. And we are talking about a 'treatment'.
> ....Young was interviewed at Cannes in `81 and as I recall stated that
> the
> producers gave him teh drafts etc. and told him to come up with the
> story.
> He worked with his script girl -- Harwood -- and the Mather draft and
> came
> up with the story we know. The Christies catalog suggests that Mather
> was
> Fleming's hand picked contribution as I have mentioned -- and it is
> plausible that a writer would want to save his property from
> desecration.
> Trusting Maibaum's own account, it would seem that we ultimately have
> Young,
> Mather & Harwood to staving off Maibaum & Mankowtiz's monkey madness.
And Broccoli and Saltzman. They rejected the "pet monkey" idea, and sent
Maibaum back in the direction of the Fleming material.
--
MAC
Rhino
Martini, shaken, not stirred, and added:
>:|According to IMDb, Maibaum penned DN with Harwood and (uncredited) Young.
I think it's been mentioned before, but just to clarify, Harwood's
input to the script was the joke about the painting, nothing more
--
**** /\/\/\/\+-+- Rhino -+-+/\/\/\/\ ****
**** http://village.vossnet.co.uk/r/rhino ****
**** James Bond, Carry On Films, The Prisoner, Blondie****
**** Black Adder, Hammer Horror, John Wyndham, Trivia ****
**** James Herbert, Alexander Dumas and much more ****
"You know I am no stranger, I know rules are a bore
But just to keep you from danger, I am the Law!"
--The Human League--