A few additional comments about CR
ftsen...@aol.com
review a few weeks ago, felt like I should be fair and address the
other side as well...
While IMHO it's an excellent reboot of the long-running franchise, it
won't be everyone's cup of tea. For people who liked the more
comical Bond of Moore and (to a certain extent) Brosnan, you'll be in
for a disappointment. The humor and one-liners are still there, but
significantly fewer and far between. Furthermore, while the action
scenes in CR are terrific, there is no scene that combines the comedy
and action that Brosnan's films were famous for, nothing that made you
say "wow" and laugh out loud at the same time, such as the great
remote-controlled car chase in the parking structure in TND (which
nearly everyone talked about for weeks after the release), or the big
tank chase in GE (e.g. Brosnan straightening his tie while wrecking
everything in his path), and so on. The action scenes in CR are
clearly more gritty and raw, and less "fun," so to speak. Brosnan's
Bond films were fun enough that you could take your 10-year old kid to
see them with you, while CR's darker and more serious tone is clearly
much more suited for the adult crowd.
JMO opinion of course; what do others think?
-Frank
GSHATTERHAND
A fair-minded look for sure, Frank. But I didn't care for CR much even
though I hate comedy in Bond films and don't miss one-liners at all.
It's a more subtle mix of fantasy and danger I miss.
About the remote-controlled car chase in TND and the tank in GE.
(Neither one of which is a particular favorite.) Your description of
those being scenes that get a "wow" and a "laugh out loud" might be
accurate in a purely descriptive sense. I'd have to say that was almost
the exact reation by most of the public to the ejector seat when GF
first came out.
But I'm a bit uncomfortable with any idea it's laughs or comedy most
people miss who don't care for CR. That seems to kind of reduce the
complaints to "hey, it wasn't funny" which IMO is not what's wrong with
CR.
Actually, I never thought of Brosnan's films as comic at all though
they had some light-hearted moments. I guess the perfect Bond film for
me would be one in which there are no one-liners that are meant to
generate actual laughter, no groaner or comically impossible actual
scenes, and yet you know what you're seeing could only happen within
the formerly unique world of James Bond.
Many would immediately say "Oh, like CR is anything you would see in
the real world" and they are right. But CR is the kind of story and
action you see in dozens of excellent action films and just like the
rest of the pack now. Though a miss is as good as a mile, I think CR
missed by a very small margin and threw out a bit too much tradition in
their reboot.
Mike Feeney
I think your reasoning above is an oversimplification, Frank. I'm a
huge fan of DAF and MR (two of the more humorous films in the series),
but I wasn't disappointed with CR in the least. I loved it, and CR
ranks among my top five Bond films now.
Furthermore, I never cared much for the remote-controlled car chase in
TND. An interesting concept, I suppose, but the execution of it just
didn't work for me. However, I do greatly enjoy the tank chase from GE
-- a perfect example of the type of over-the-top action sequence the
Bond films have become famous for. And I thought the action sequences
in CR *were* fun, contrary to your hypothesis. The free-running chase
at the beginning of the film and the truck fight were both thrilling
and very entertaining, IMO.
Mike
Alric Knebel
You're right, in a way. I didn't TALK about the remote control car for
weeks afterward, but I thought about it a lot later every time I needed
an example of how absurd Bond had become. Same goes with the tank
chase, and all the way up to the invisible car and the surfing on a
melting glacier. It's not funny enough to be FUNNY, so what's the
intent here? I never laughed out loud at those scenes, and instead
cussed with disappointment, knowing that it was going to be another
silly entry into a ridiculous franchise. I didn't understand who the
intended audience was for that tripe, and I really couldn't comprehend
the tastes of the audience it DID find, regardless of who the filmmakers
were aiming for.
Here's my updated take on CR. Here's a flaw in the story. After Bond
smashes that nice vehicle into the guardrail as he was parking it, he
coolly saunters off as a crowd gathers around the damage, then makes his
way into the surveillance compound. The assumption is that every
security guard in the resort would run to investigate a fender-bender.
This doesn't work for me, and I would have preferred the movie take more
time and find a more realistic means for Bond to discover who had made
that phone call from that location at that moment he was interested in.
But I realized this bit of calculated coolness was a necessary nod to
the old style, and this sort of humorous one-upmanship is the the sort
of thing typical in action flicks. I enjoyed the film immensely, but
I'm hoping they drop even these vestiges for the next film, and make it
even grittier, now that the studio knows this is what people want. I
mean, when you see CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, how mature its plotting is,
we see that Bond can go even further in a realistic direction and gain
even more credibility. It might not make more money in the short-term,
but it'll remain pertinent beyond a trendy shelf-life.
Another thing I didn't like was the winking explosive device on the fuel
truck. The winking light reminded me too much of a "gadget." I know
that this device served as just a blasting cap, while the real explosion
would come from the ignited the fuel in the fuel truck. But the winking
light diminished its realism. Real explosives don't have winking lights
and digital counters. Therefore the realism can be enhanced. Maybe the
filmmakers, seeing the success of this outing, might go even further in
a realistic direction.
And I have to say again, I can't wait for the DVD.
--
______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Mike Feeney
So you'd like to see every last ounce of fun stripped away from future
Bond films? No thank you. The Bond films have always been
distinguishable from bland, boring, dry movies (like the horrible Jack
Ryan series -- seriously, I thought I was going to die from boredom
during Patriot Games -- the film lacked even the tiniest fraction of
fun). If you want to watch a Jack Ryan movie... then go watch a Jack
Ryan movie. But don't try to makes James Bond fans watch James Bond in
a Jack Ryan movie. Casino Royale should represent the extreme limit
of grittiness and "realism" in the Bond series -- it would be a mistake
to take the series any further in this direction.
Mike
Did I mention how utterly joyless Patriot Games was?
JHause
Mike Feeney wrote:
> Did I mention how utterly joyless Patriot Games was?
Let's cast Ben Affleck! Problem solved...
dgates
wrote:
>ftsen...@aol.com wrote:
>> Just like to add a few more comments on CR; after my hugely positive
>> review a few weeks ago, felt like I should be fair and address the
>> other side as well...
>>
>> While IMHO it's an excellent reboot of the long-running franchise, it
>> won't be everyone's cup of tea. For people who liked the more
>> comical Bond of Moore and (to a certain extent) Brosnan, you'll be in
>> for a disappointment. The humor and one-liners are still there, but
>> significantly fewer and far between. Furthermore, while the action
>> scenes in CR are terrific, there is no scene that combines the comedy
>> and action that Brosnan's films were famous for, nothing that made you
>> say "wow" and laugh out loud at the same time, such as the great
>> remote-controlled car chase in the parking structure in TND (which
>> nearly everyone talked about for weeks after the release), or the big
>> tank chase in GE (e.g. Brosnan straightening his tie while wrecking
>> everything in his path), and so on. The action scenes in CR are
>> clearly more gritty and raw, and less "fun," so to speak. Brosnan's
>> Bond films were fun enough that you could take your 10-year old kid to
>> see them with you, while CR's darker and more serious tone is clearly
>> much more suited for the adult crowd.
>>
>> JMO opinion of course; what do others think?
>>
>> -Frank
>
>
>A fair-minded look for sure, Frank. But I didn't care for CR much even
>though I hate comedy in Bond films and don't miss one-liners at all.
I'm wondering about these "one-liners," as in "those bad things that
were in Roger Moore movies but not in CR."
Don't we appreciate lines like "That's a change, the three little pigs
watching the big bad wolf," and "You'd be surprised the amount of wear
and tear that goes on out in the field?"
Also, didn't CR have some jokes that we would call "one-liners?"
>It's a more subtle mix of fantasy and danger I miss.
>
>About the remote-controlled car chase in TND and the tank in GE.
>(Neither one of which is a particular favorite.) Your description of
>those being scenes that get a "wow" and a "laugh out loud" might be
>accurate in a purely descriptive sense. I'd have to say that was almost
>the exact reation by most of the public to the ejector seat when GF
>first came out.
>
>But I'm a bit uncomfortable with any idea it's laughs or comedy most
>people miss who don't care for CR. That seems to kind of reduce the
>complaints to "hey, it wasn't funny" which IMO is not what's wrong with
>CR.
I'm with ya. I'd say it's a sense of "wonder" that's missing, I could
also see replacing that with "joy."
>Actually, I never thought of Brosnan's films as comic at all though
>they had some light-hearted moments. I guess the perfect Bond film for
>me would be one in which there are no one-liners that are meant to
>generate actual laughter...
Hmm, I disagree here. There's nothing wrong with an intelligent
character saying something that he knows to be funny. Although I
can't remember any specific lines, I feel like we got some of those
out of Mathis.
>... no groaner or comically impossible actual scenes...
Yeah, I think we know what you're talking about here. Tarzan yells
and funny parrots and winking fish and x-ray devices that don't do
what they'd really do and so on.
>and yet you know what you're seeing could only happen within
>the formerly unique world of James Bond.
Why "formerly?" Because movies from Flint to Spy Kids have pulled off
so much amazing stuff of their own?
>Many would immediately say "Oh, like CR is anything you would see in
>the real world" and they are right. But CR is the kind of story and
>action you see in dozens of excellent action films and just like the
>rest of the pack now. Though a miss is as good as a mile, I think CR
>missed by a very small margin and threw out a bit too much tradition in
>their reboot.
I'm curious what the next one will be like.
There are many movies that I've enjoyed a lot more than I enjoyed CR.
For example, The Fifth Element. But I sure haven't gotten as many
"bonus hours" out of those movies as I have out of CR. For the 2 or
so hours I put in watching it on the big screen, I wonder if I've now
gotten an additional 6 "bonus" hours out of it, just by discussing it
(AKA, pulling it apart to see how it works) here.
dgates
I'm curious, how does the studio know that this is what "people" want?
By "this," you mean the removing of all "calculated coolness" and
"humorous one-upmanship?" For example, in GF, Connery would have to
have found a different way out of that cell? And in TB, there would
be no swimming pool full of sharks at all?
>I
>mean, when you see CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, how mature its plotting is,
>we see that Bond can go even further in a realistic direction and gain
>even more credibility. It might not make more money in the short-term,
>but it'll remain pertinent beyond a trendy shelf-life.
If I'm one of the "people" (as in "the studio knows this is what
people want"), there's no way they should believe that I'd want James
Bond to be more like Clear and Present Danger, or The Spy Who Came in
from the Cold, or anything else that might be "relevant."
>Another thing I didn't like was the winking explosive device on the fuel
>truck. The winking light reminded me too much of a "gadget." I know
>that this device served as just a blasting cap, while the real explosion
>would come from the ignited the fuel in the fuel truck. But the winking
>light diminished its realism. Real explosives don't have winking lights
>and digital counters. Therefore the realism can be enhanced. Maybe the
>filmmakers, seeing the success of this outing, might go even further in
>a realistic direction.
>
>And I have to say again, I can't wait for the DVD.
I have to say, I can't imagine making the big decisions that the Bond
producers have to make. In a general way, they know that people
sometimes complain about the movies being "too silly." But then they
also know that Bond movies have almost always been "outrageous" in
some way.
I've got to think that, as early as 1961, the filmmakers knew that
everything that happened once Bond and Honey were captured by the
dragon was outrageous. Look at those sets they're led through. Look
at those outfits they're forced to wear.
Why is Honey put in that "slowly filling with water" trap? Because
it's cool! How does Bond manage to get through the ventilator shafts
and into the perfect position to singlehandedly destroy the nuclear
reactor (while also going heads-up against Dr. No at the same time)?
Because it's cool.
And that's the very first Bond movie!
I can't imagine being the producers and trying to figure out how to
bridge the two elements that fans claim they want from Bond movies.
dgates
<strom...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yeah, Patriot Games didn't do a thing for me either.
What do fans of the books think? Could we have a list of Fleming
titles, ranked (by some individual's subjective opinion) from most
realistic to most fantastic? I'm curious where CR would fall on the
list.
aus...@gmail.com
> titles, ranked (by some individual's subjective opinion) from most
> realistic to most fantastic? I'm curious where CR would fall on the
> list.
I guess I would group the novels differently, based on 'small' vs.
'large' themes. Although Fleming could at times construct whole
universes that seemed to exist beyond the lifespan of his antagonists,
he also was content to impose Bond into rather conventional
'detective' stories of the type made popular by Mickey Spillane and
Raymond Chandler.
For me, the best 'large'-themed books were the ones that seemed
rooted at least to some degree in the Cold War, or the ones that
featured rogue villains who could be believed in that context. In
order of personal preference, they are:
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE-I don't think there's any doubt that this
is Fleming's best book, and where anyone should start to read.
THUNDERBALL-a great plotline makes for a compelling read, and nary a
jetpack in site.
CASINO ROYALE-one could argue that this is a 'small' theme, but
it's done convincingly and believably.
LIVE AND LET DIE-Fleming's 'Negro' dialect is painfully
embarrassing to modern ears, but accepted enough in his time.
Otherwise, the book is a great read, and screenwriters appropriated
several of its scenes for later films (the reef-dragging in "For Your
Eyes Only", the aquarium fight and shark mutilation of Felix Leiter
in "License to Kill")
Then there were the 'large' themed books that got progressively
wackier, including:
DR. NO-I could see why the ending of this was considered unfilmable
in 1963. I still enjoyed the book, but the direction Fleming was
taking into fantastic elements was unmistakeable.
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE-book closely followed the movie.
Both were a bit whacked out.
MOONRAKER-a much better book than the movie, and it makes one wonder
why they chose to denude the character of Drax so much for the film.
There's a tremendous bridge game that I enjoy every time I read it
(and I don't play bridge), and there are some good action sequences
that didn't make it into the film, but could have quite easily. I
consider this book to be the greatest wasted opportunity in the history
of the films, and I wish they would redo it with a Hugo Drax that is
truer to Fleming's vision.
GOLDFINGER-this one was actually panned and spoofed in Britain when
it first appeared. This whole 'realism vs. fantasy' argument has
been around long before the movies ever existed.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE-by this time, Fleming had grown so bored with the
character of Blofeld that he turned him into a cartoon and then had
Bond kill him off. Unlike Conan-Doyle's similar dispatch of
Moriarty, there was no public outcry to bring him back.
The 'small' themed books are mostly a waste of time, and include:
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER-Fleming didn't much like America, and didn't
write very convincingly about it.
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY--short story collection
THE SPY WHO LOVED ME--intended to be written from a woman's point of
view, a misfire all the way around.
OCTOPUSSY AND THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS--I remember virtually nothing of
them, but I believe they are short stories or novellas
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN-boring book, boring film. There are a
few redeeming sex scenes that show Fleming wasn't above a bit of
raunch to push some books.
J Buck
dozens of excellent action films and just like the rest of the pack now.
Though a miss is as good as a mile, I think CR missed by a very small
margin and threw out a bit too much tradition in their reboot.>
That is as well put as anything I have read on CR in the last 5 weeks.
Nicely written, sir.
Alric Knebel
FUN? The novels aren't FUN, and weren't intended to be so. When I want
fun, I look to AMERICAN PIE or YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.
> The Bond films have always been
> distinguishable from bland, boring, dry movies (like the horrible Jack
> Ryan series -- seriously, I thought I was going to die from boredom
> during Patriot Games -- the film lacked even the tiniest fraction of
> fun).
I wasn't bored for a single instant. Not one. And you're right, it
didn't have a single fraction of fun. That's because it was a DRAMA.
You want to know another movie that's not FUN? THE GODFATHER. Another
one: DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES.
> If you want to watch a Jack Ryan movie... then go watch a Jack
> Ryan movie. But don't try to makes James Bond fans watch James Bond in
> a Jack Ryan movie.
I've got an idea: Let's make a JAMES BOND movie like a JAMES BOND novel.
That's a good idea. If you want to watch a FUN movie, watch PIRATES
OF THE CARIBBEAN. There's lots of fun in that. But Bond IS like Jack
Ryan, whether you know it or not.
> Casino Royale should represent the extreme limit
> of grittiness and "realism" in the Bond series -- it would be a mistake
> to take the series any further in this direction.
I don't agree. I suggest that they leave people like you even further
behind, and aim for a mature audience.
> Mike
> Did I mention how utterly joyless Patriot Games was?
Yes, you did. You made the mistake of thinking it was supposed to be
fun. It was intended for MATURE AUDIENCES.
Alric Knebel
Ticket sales, critical acclaim, and sustaining interest past the point
that seeing a certain film is "trendy." Like when it's new. Most
people will see it out of curiosity, then later never look back on it as
a film they were fond of. There have been James Bond movies I can't
tell you if I saw them or not. They became so ridiculous, and
ridiculously alike, I can't tell one from the other.
> By "this," you mean the removing of all "calculated coolness" and
> "humorous one-upmanship?" For example, in GF, Connery would have to
> have found a different way out of that cell? And in TB, there would
> be no swimming pool full of sharks at all?
Yes, get rid of it. There's no real drama in that stuff. It looks
silly and it's too extravagant to be dramatic.
>>I
>>mean, when you see CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, how mature its plotting is,
>>we see that Bond can go even further in a realistic direction and gain
>>even more credibility. It might not make more money in the short-term,
>>but it'll remain pertinent beyond a trendy shelf-life.
>
>
> If I'm one of the "people" (as in "the studio knows this is what
> people want"), there's no way they should believe that I'd want James
> Bond to be more like Clear and Present Danger, or The Spy Who Came in
> from the Cold, or anything else that might be "relevant."
The enthusiasm with which CR was received might suggest to them that
something must have been wrong with the other ones.
>>Another thing I didn't like was the winking explosive device on the fuel
>>truck. The winking light reminded me too much of a "gadget." I know
>>that this device served as just a blasting cap, while the real explosion
>>would come from the ignited the fuel in the fuel truck. But the winking
>>light diminished its realism. Real explosives don't have winking lights
>>and digital counters. Therefore the realism can be enhanced. Maybe the
>>filmmakers, seeing the success of this outing, might go even further in
>>a realistic direction.
>>
>>And I have to say again, I can't wait for the DVD.
>
> I have to say, I can't imagine making the big decisions that the Bond
> producers have to make. In a general way, they know that people
> sometimes complain about the movies being "too silly." But then they
> also know that Bond movies have almost always been "outrageous" in
> some way.
Not SO outrageous. I just watched FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and I swear,
there wasn't a single outrageous thing about it, plot-wise. The worst
thing about it was the calculated glibness in some of the one-liners.
Other than that, not a thing was outrageous about it.
> I've got to think that, as early as 1961, the filmmakers knew that
> everything that happened once Bond and Honey were captured by the
> dragon was outrageous. Look at those sets they're led through. Look
> at those outfits they're forced to wear.
I agree. And the ending is boring as hell. But this was their first
outing, and they weren't sure what worked.
> Why is Honey put in that "slowly filling with water" trap? Because
> it's cool! How does Bond manage to get through the ventilator shafts
> and into the perfect position to singlehandedly destroy the nuclear
> reactor (while also going heads-up against Dr. No at the same time)?
> Because it's cool.
It's NOT cool. I saw that a couple of weeks ago and it was ridiculous.
That wasn't in the book like that, and it was just ridiculous.
> And that's the very first Bond movie!
Myself, I take it as the time it came out. This was at a time when
Raquel Welch was able to make movies. Competition wasn't what it is
today, and a lot of filmmakers of this type of stuff were lazy. Look at
the quality of science fiction back then. Studios didn't take it
seriously and it showed. Same with Bond. You can't bring THAT
sensibility to a modern audience, or the absurdity will be passed over
by the audience for something more sophisticated, that meets the same
level of adventure without the silliness.
> I can't imagine being the producers and trying to figure out how to
> bridge the two elements that fans claim they want from Bond movies.
If they go back to the old way, I'll simply stop watching the damned
things. As I had. I saw them only off and on within the last few
years. There's one of the Brosnan films I missed completely, not even
bothering with it on DVD. There was nothing captivating about the
plots, nothing to get involved in vicariously, because Bond was so
"cool" (unfazed), I knew he was never in any danger. There was very
little difference between the Austin Powers parody and the real James
Bond. That in itself is a sad commentary. CR is the first Bond film
I've been really excited about. I fell for the hype for DAD, and while
I didn't see it in the theater, I bought the DVD when it went on sale
for $10. But I hated it. And I do mean HATED it. I was so angry at
how bad it was, I vowed that I was done with it, and would never see
another one.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>I can't imagine being the producers and trying to figure out how to
>bridge the two elements that fans claim they want from Bond movies.
Which is part of why I think CR works so brilliantly - because it has
many of the elements people want to see in a Bond movie, but also has
a more coherent plot and more layered characters than we expect in 007
films. The film proves these things aren't mutually exclusive.
Time and time again, the franchise has realised when the silliness
quotient has gotten too high - and it's dialed back for more serious
fair. But the films also need a balance. It need not be a Jack Ryan
film - it needs the exotic locations and the beautiful women and James
Bond needs to be a bit of a bastard... because one thing is for sure,
most action heroes are Good Guys, with little or no shades of grey.
Bond, by his very nature, might be cool - but I suspect Jack Ryan and
Jason Bourne would be easier to get along with.
-- Keith Gow --
Tom Zielinski
<aus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167019818.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As for "the greatest wasted opportunity in the history of the films", you're
entitled to your opinion certainly, but Fleming's "Thunderball", "On Her
Majesty's Secret Service", and "You Only Live Twice" trilogy is a
masterpiece of pulp writing. Each novel is terrific in its own right; when
taken in toto is truly great stuff.
The single biggest gaffe (still) that EON ever made was not properly
bringing properly this trilogy to the screen.
Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman."
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know an agonizingly missed opportunity when I see one..."
aus...@gmail.com
> As for "the greatest wasted opportunity in the history of the films", you're
> entitled to your opinion certainly, but Fleming's "Thunderball", "On Her
> Majesty's Secret Service", and "You Only Live Twice" trilogy is a
> masterpiece of pulp writing. Each novel is terrific in its own right; when
> taken in toto is truly great stuff.
Seems to me that TB and OHMSS made it to the screen basically intact,
comparatively speaking, while YOLT had little in common with its source
beside the title.
>
> The single biggest gaffe (still) that EON ever made was not properly
> bringing properly this trilogy to the screen.
The public's attention span has never been notably long, and they
probably felt it not worth the gamble.