USA Network edit of CR
J Buck
treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
Nick Xylas
> They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
> treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
Yeah, think how much of Haggis's godawful dialogue they could have
trimmed instead.
Adam H. Kerman
I thought the flirting scenes on the train that everyone here praised
was dialogue Haggis wrote to fix P+W's script.
They could have cut the airport scene short, a weak action sequence.
Nick Xylas
> I thought the flirting scenes on the train that everyone here praised
> was dialogue Haggis wrote to fix P+W's script.
>
highly as some here, he also wrote all that bollocks about armour and
little fingers.
J Buck
If *I* needed to shave 5 minutes off, it would've been a 5 minute
stretch between the naked-in-the-chair torture scene and Bond's
realization in Venice that Vesper had doublecrossed him.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
I liked it the first time I saw it in Die Hard 2.
Bingo... that's what could be cut easily... it doesn't affect the
outcome of the film much and could be shortened pretty easily.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Nick Xylas <nxy...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>On Jul 4, 10:18 pm, J Buck <jbuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
>>>>treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
>>>Yeah, think how much of Haggis's godawful dialogue they could have
>>>trimmed instead.
>>I thought the flirting scenes on the train that everyone here praised
>>was dialogue Haggis wrote to fix P+W's script.
>>They could have cut the airport scene short, a weak action sequence.
>I liked it the first time I saw it in Die Hard 2.
Hah!
I've never watched that movie straight through. I get bored of it every
time it's on television and I try to watch.
The original was really something special. They should have quit while
they were ahead.
Paul Clarke
> They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
> treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
This is a perfect example of why I haven't watched a film on network TV
in about 20 years. On the hierarchy of places to watch a movie, network
TV is on the bottom rung, just slightly above an airplane.
--
For another such kiss, I would invent an entire continent.
Nick Xylas
wrote:
2.
>
> Bingo... that's what could be cut easily... it doesn't affect the
> outcome of the film much and could be shortened pretty easily.
>
> Eric
Yes, but given that there are only three action sequences in the
film's entire 57-hour running time, surely cutting one of them would
make it even more tedious than it was already.
The Works
> Hah!
>
> I get bored of it every time it's on television and I try to watch.
>
> The original was really something special. They should have quit while
> they were ahead.
>
The Works
filmspam...@earthlink.net says...
discovery of 'what's her name's' murder while she was lying dead in the
hammock.
Seriously, a card game and love story represented by an action movie?
WTF???
Sean Black
<jim_ca...@hotmail.com> writes
>J Buck wrote:
>> They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
>> treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
>
>This is a perfect example of why I haven't watched a film on network TV
>in about 20 years. On the hierarchy of places to watch a movie, network
>TV is on the bottom rung, just slightly above an airplane.
>
I've seen full uncut versions of movies in the past (complete with
swearing/nudity) when I've flown with Virgin, that was with the little
screens in the back of the seat in front of you, so that may have made a
difference.
--
Sean Black
Paul Clarke
Well the good news is you have a whole slew of pre-DAD Bond films you
like to watch over and over again. Those of us who dig the Craig films
can look forward to two more movies at least.
Paul Clarke
Action films can, and IMHO should, have a good, dramatic story at their
core. DIE HARD was in part the story of John McClane reconciling with
his wife and finding renewed purpose. Woo's action classic THE KILLER
was about a hitman developing a moral conscience and trying to undo a
tragic accident he was responsible for. THE TERMINATOR had a love story
at its core--Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor--and had a subtext of the
dangers of overreliance on high technology. These are just some examples
off the top of my head.
The Works
says...
genre. Casino Royale's plot did not. It simply is not an action movie
waiting to be made any more than it is a comedy.
The producers bragged about how they had intended to do make CR from the
same vein as FRWL, which I believe is entirely reasonable and was very
much looking forward to, but after watching the two movies back-to-back,
I think they should stop trying to make classic Bond movies alltogether,
because either they are insufficiently capable of understanding the
source material, or they are insufficiently capable of understanding how
to effectively produce a movie, or possibly even both.
As far as I'm concerned, the treatment of CR 06 is practcally as
ridiculous as the treatment of CR 67. The bloated, unnessecary action in
CR 06 obliterated any opportunity to expose cinematically the rich drama
that had been developed in the book, and the most faithful visual
representation of Flemin's book that we have today is the hour-long, CBS
teledrama starring the American, Barry Nelson in 1954.
Will there ever be movie that is a serious, faitful, sober
representation of the book that started such an impressive cultural
phenomenon? Probably not, and that is a shame. I was really PISSED OFF
at CR 06 - really, really, really, really, really, really, really PISSED
OFF, and it doesn't look like I'll ever get over it.
Paul Clarke
Debatable. An actionless art film could have been made of THE KILLER's
core plot, and the action in DIE HARD could have been dialed down to a
more somber, realistic level where the film became a dramatic thriller.
Would a faithful, period adaptation of Fleming's CASINO ROYALE be
interesting? Damn straight it would be. But it simply would not be
commercially viable. Given the parameters of the big-budget action
genre, CR did a superb job of delivering a thriller with a strong story
and characterization, excellent action sequences, while retaining some
of the core plot and spirit of Fleming's original.
> Will there ever be movie that is a serious, faitful, sober
> representation of the book that started such an impressive cultural
> phenomenon? Probably not, and that is a shame. I was really PISSED OFF
> at CR 06 - really, really, really, really, really, really, really PISSED
> OFF, and it doesn't look like I'll ever get over it.
You don't say? I'd never have guessed. You're perfectly entitled to your
opinion of course, just be aware there are those of us who loved CR and
viewed it as a much-needed reinvigoration of the series.
Just out of curiosity, are you as pissed off about other films that
essentially abandoned or distorted Fleming's originals, such as MR,
TMWTGG, AVTAK, YOLT? If not, why not? YOLT, for instance, is an obvious
example of an excellent Fleming novel being thoroughly reworked and
having several action sequences grafted on. At least CR kept some of the
basic story and one of the more 'difficult' sequences to film, i.e. the
torture of Bond by Le Chiffre.
Adam H. Kerman
>Action films can, and IMHO should, have a good, dramatic story at their
>core. DIE HARD was in part the story of John McClane reconciling with
>his wife and finding renewed purpose.
Hah! Hostage situation, robbery, and murder? Good opportunity to work
out all of one's frustrations in marriage, for both of them. I loved
when she socked the annoying reporter who might have put her children in
danger, too, by going to the house.
Other than the miraculous healing of Bruce Willis's feet, that is one
excellent action flick with great comedy.
Adam H. Kerman
>Debatable. An actionless art film could have been made of THE KILLER's
>core plot, and the action in DIE HARD could have been dialed down to a
>more somber, realistic level where the film became a dramatic thriller.
Die Hard is an adaptation of a novel and I think a movie script that
never got made, or possibly a sequel to a movie from the '60's. It had a
long gestation period.
Did it begin life as a dramatic thriller with little comedy? It's the
comedy that makes the movie memorable, simply because most action
thrillers lay on the comedy much too thick.
The Works
says...
> Would a faithful, period adaptation of Fleming's CASINO ROYALE be
> interesting? Damn straight it would be. But it simply would not be
> commercially viable. Given the parameters of the big-budget action
> genre, CR did a superb job of delivering a thriller with a strong story
> and characterization, excellent action sequences, while retaining some
> of the core plot and spirit of Fleming's original.
>
>
of the core plot and SPIRIT of Fleming's original'.
Would a faithful adaptation be commercially viable? Look to 'Gran
Torino' as a good character-driven movie that excelled quite well
without extraneous fluff and also, the current 'Public Enemies' which IS
in actuality a character driven period piece that in its opening weekend
trailed the mighty CR by only 30%, and which I predict will outperform
CR on a box to budget ratio.
The Works
> essentially abandoned or distorted Fleming's originals, such as MR,
> TMWTGG, AVTAK, YOLT?
>
I'm so pissed off at CR 06 because I expected so much from it. I
swallowed hook and sinker the pronounced "return to the roots" which
instead turned out to be nothing more than hyperbole to mask serious
shortcomings to what should have been an unqualified classic.
TMWTGG made a better movie than a book (which I very recently have
provided argument for), and with respect to AVTAK, you're getting
desperate aren't you?
MR is something to get pissed at, but it was a good movie and it was
faithful to the souce material in every respect but tone. CR was (in my
opinion) not a good movie and was UNfaithful to the souce material in
every respect BUT tone.
YOLT is an equal disgrace, an unforgivable POS as a representation of
the source material - the end of the series misplaced at the end of its
beginning.
I guess it's only fitting that CR give symmetry - the beginning of the
series misplaced at the beginning of the end, an unforgivable POS as a
representation of the source material.
The Works
> example of an excellent Fleming novel being thoroughly reworked and
> having several action sequences grafted on. At least CR kept some of the
> basic story and one of the more 'difficult' sequences to film, i.e. the
> torture of Bond by Le Chiffre.
>
relative to YOLT, such as the rewriting of the character and the
abandonment of the essence of the novels in order to make it
'contemporary'. The essence of the novels was NEVER contemporary. This
is what leads me to believe the producers have no clue as to what they
are doing, whereas Broccoli was absolutely spot-fucking on.
Overall, I would rank YOLT higher than CR, but would rank CR higher than
DAD and 'whatever Brosnan's first Bond movie was' - GE, it finally came
to me. Therefore, I can see why many embrace the 'improvement' of
direction taken after the Brosnan era films and I'm happy somebody has
enjoyed CR because of this, but classic Bond it is not.
Eric Grayson
<t...@works.org> wrote:
I just deleted a long rant I wrote about what I didn't like about CR 06
and why I thought it was poorly made.
You can all thank me later for not having to read it. I know it's
regarded highly here, but not by me.
Eric
The Works
filmspam...@earthlink.net says...
and at least I wouldn't have to listen to myself for a change.
Adam H. Kerman
>I just deleted a long rant I wrote about what I didn't like about CR 06
>and why I thought it was poorly made.
>You can all thank me later for not having to read it. I know it's
>regarded highly here, but not by me.
Eric, who would ask you to do that?
Self censorship is not allowed. Please post the bloody thing.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Die Hard was one of the seminal action films of all time. It redefined
the action genre after the Bond pictures had gotten too slick and
Moore-ish.
Dr. No was one of the other ones.
One might argue that The Rock is another, as it introduced
Cuisinart-cutting to the world (although I'd suggest maybe Alien III
beat it by a couple of years). That's a trend I hope to see
obliterated.
There have been other landmarks, like the introduction of the pass
system in fights, which happened about 1935-7. And Douglas Fairbanks
in the 1920s really invented the action picture. If you haven't seen
The Mark of Zorro (1920), you should. Watch it and remember that there
isn't a single digital stunt in it.
Eric
Paul Clarke
I'd say go ahead and post it. No cow is sacred around here. Even GF has
been had a go at, and I hear there are those who actually *like* MR. Sheesh.
(I must confess that I likely won't read it though. There comes a point
when reading rants against films I really like is merely tiresome and
irritating.)
Eric Grayson
<jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's why I didn't.
I think the Bond films have lost their way and did so long before CR.
CR helped push them back in the right direction a little bit but not
enough IMHO.
I love GF, always have. I hate MR, always have. CR I just don't much
like.
I still have to remind people that the idea that Bond is intended to be
a realistic secret agent, either in the books or the movies, is
ridiculous. The idea that somehow Bond is redeemed by making him a
grittier, mod-2000s style agent is not necessarily a good one,
regardless of how much we still hate the Moore years (and I do still
hate most of them.) I fear we've jettisoned too much about what was
Bond in the books and movies and embraced too much about what we feel
is trendy.
IMHO the reboot threw the baby out with the bathwater, not that the
bathwater didn't need throwing out.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
>Paul Clarke <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Eric Grayson wrote:
>>>I just deleted a long rant I wrote about what I didn't like about CR 06
>>>and why I thought it was poorly made.
>>>You can all thank me later for not having to read it. I know it's
>>>regarded highly here, but not by me.
>>I'd say go ahead and post it. No cow is sacred around here. Even GF has
>>been had a go at, and I hear there are those who actually *like* MR. Sheesh.
>>(I must confess that I likely won't read it though. There comes a point
>>when reading rants against films I really like is merely tiresome and
>>irritating.)
>That's why I didn't.
I'll read it! Who cares if he won't?
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
I'll tell you what...
As I have time (HAH!) over the next few days, I'll refashion it into a
larger post about the Bond films losing their touch. That oughta get
stuff stirred up.
dgates
wrote:
>They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
>treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
I've been thinking about this question.
Maybe they felt that it was because the sequence was so
self-contained. Once Bond has returned to the table and made his quip
about "That last hand nearly killed me," there are no further
references to the scene. Is that right?
Did the network cut the quip also? What about the explanation of how
the medical kit in the car works?
Paul Clarke
> I'll read it! Who cares if he won't?
I sure don't!
Paul Clarke
Hell, I'd read that. Sounds like good fuel for debate!
Pink Freud
"dgates" <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote in message
news:l1jq551usjcevfovn...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 19:18:02 -0700 (PDT), J Buck <jbu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
>>treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
>
> I've been thinking about this question.
>
> Maybe they felt that it was because the sequence was so
> self-contained. Once Bond has returned to the table and made his quip
> about "That last hand nearly killed me," there are no further
> references to the scene. Is that right?
>
Except for: "You were nearly dead an hour ago!"
J Buck
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 19:18:02 -0700 (PDT), J Buck <jbuc...@yahoo.com>
I have no idea (other than time constraints) why it was cut. And yes,
"That last hand nearly killed me" was cut; had to be, really, as it
would've made no sense standing alone. Since it's been a couple weeks,
I don't recall exactly where the cuts occurred, i.e., I don't recall
the last scene before it and the first scene immediately after.
Fuoco Insensato
> They cut Bond being poisoned and having to give himself electroshock
> treatment. If they needed to trimn 5 minutes, why that? Absurd.
It would have been better if someone had taken the time to think about
it carefully and trim a minute off here, a minute off there, and so
forth, until the required 5 minutes were saved, rather than hack an
entire scene out. Vandalism.
Nick Xylas
wrote:
Yep. 'Tis said that a good editor can trim 10 minutes off a feature
film without the director even noticing.
Fuoco Insensato
10 minutes lopped off OHMSS might have made all the difference. When
people say they found Lazenby not as exciting as Connery, I wonder how
many really mean that the film itself was slightly too long?
Eric Grayson
<eea556c9-af79-4b3c...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Fuoco Insensato <fuocoin...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
AMEN MY BROTHER, PREACH ON!
Peter Hunt was a better editor than he was a director. As a director,
he was too much in love with some stuff and couldn't let it go.
BTW, I'd say a good editor could trim maybe 5 minutes out of a feature
without the director noticing. 10 would surprise me.
Eric
Nick Xylas
> BTW, I'd say a good editor could trim maybe 5 minutes out of a feature
> without the director noticing. 10 would surprise me.
Just going by what I've been told. I wouldn't know. My source was Dov
S-S Simens who gave a series of popular filmmaking seminars in the
'80s, one of which I attended. His point was that a first time
director really needs to use an experienced editor, and it's possible
that he was using hyperbole to emphasise that point.
J Buck
wrote:
That would've made too much sense, and an editor would've had too put
a little thought and time into it.
Eric Grayson
<a476a7ad-9947-4471...@s13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Xylas <nxy...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
I agree. The problem is that the director knows intimately how hard it
was to get some of the footage that he's going to put in the film. The
editor only looks at it and says, "this doesn't forward the story."
And the editor should generally win that fight.
Part of the reason that Thunderball is as bloated as it is, according
to then-editor Hunt, is that he had 3 producers insisting that "that
shot was cool" and that it had to go back in. I guess the dog peeing
was too much for Saltzman, but yeesh.
OHMSS has much the same bloated feel to me that TB has, although in
this case it's Hunt who can't get rid of some of the footage he shot.
Eric