Cinematical's Seven Pieces of Advice
Hardyboy
Posts: 5,906Chief of Staff
Sigh. . .everyone these days is an expert. Cinematical's online site recently posted its seven pieces of advice for the producers before they begin Bond 22. Some are sensible; others are, well, not. Anyway, you can read the article here, or, if you want to save your mouse-clicking finger, just read on:
Cinematical Seven: Seven Pieces of Advice for the Makers of Bond '22'
Posted Aug 20th 2007 11:08AM by James Rocchi
So, the 22nd James Bond film is in pre-production, with director Marc Forster already talking about locations and Bond Girls and more. But there have been disquieting notes and murmurs from the Bond camp -- filling Bond fans with dire contemplation of slightly grim possibility that Casino Royale's excellence may not be so easy to recapture. As a long-time Bond-watcher, I thought I'd draft a sort of open letter to the Bond production team about some very specific things they could do to make sure that Bond 22 maintains 007's freshly-renewed license to thrill. ...
1) Bulk Up the Bad Guy
If one thing hurt Casino Royale's air of excellence, it was the fairly disappointing physical mis-match between Daniel Craig's hulking, burly Bond and Mads Mikkelsen's pallid, frail Le Chiffre. Whoever your bad guys is this time around, please -- cast someone who looks like they could offer Craig's Bond a fairly even match in a fight. (One of the reasons GoldenEye worked as well as it did was Sean Bean's scary-competent, lean and wicked rogue 006 -- an extremely credible nemesis in both the brain and brawn departments.) Film-closing throw-downs aren't just fun, they're necessary -- we all want to see good and evil mix it up -- and nothing deflates the tension in an action film faster than knowing, at one glance, that our villain would fold up like a cheap tent after taking one punch. The producers of Bond 22 could try to save on the budget by hiring an unknown, but they shouldn't skimp on the tension by hiring someone who has less physical presence and capability than the formidable Mr. Craig.
2) Keep it Real ...
The Bond films at the end of the Brosnan run felt less like spy movies and more like idiotic variations on Saturday morning TV -- Die Another Day's plot of gene-spliced villains wearing electricity-shooting exoskeletons felt less like Ian Fleming and more like Stan Lee. And it's hard to imagine audiences accepting something like the plots of The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker, either, where the entire world was in peril and every life on the planet depended on Bond saving the day. Casino Royale had the balance right: lives were at stake, yes, but not millions of them; the stakes were comprehensible, and thereby much more affecting than grandiose, Dr. Evil-style schemes.
3) ... But Not Too Real
At the same time, the Bond films can't be too ripped-from-the headlines; escapism (which, at the end of the day, is what the Bond films are) is enhanced by realism, but poisoned by reality. Or, put another way: Do you really want to see Bond in the mountains of Pakistan, hunting Al-Quaeda? Of course not; it's an insult to the audience, the people actually trying to do that job, and pretty much everyone involved. Bond 22 should take place in a world that feels like our own; it should not take place in our world.
4) There's No 'Q' in 'Reboot'
Even with my happy memories of Desmond Llewelen's Major Boothroyd -- 'Q' to friends and co-workers -- you have to admit that those scenes also represented a gear-grinding stall in almost every Bond movie -- narrative momentum given up in favor or raised eyebrows and expensive throw-away sight gags. If the makers of Bond 22 decide to return to the past of the series and give us a 'Q' division scene -- gadgets and exposition, gags and banter -- then they'll find out, to their peril and ours, how swiftly some old roots can strangle the life out of new growth. I'm not saying there's no need for high-tech in the Bond series -- Casino Royale's portable defibrillator was as handy as it was cool -- but you can have high-tech without having high camp.
5) Fire the Writers
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have written several 007 films -- notably The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, two of the worst entries in the history of the series. Under Wade and Purvis, the Bond formula became appallingly watered-down and tarted-up. (Plus, they managed to bite that hand that feeds them by taking a break to write the Rowan Atkinson Bond 'spoof" Johnny English, and turn disdain for their other assignment into a paycheck.) I don't know why it is Wade and Purvis keep getting these gigs -- I suspect that the producing team lead by the Broccoli heirs are comfortable with them -- but their familiarity with the series has turned into a kind of contempt for the character and the audiences. They're listed as being on the payroll for Bond 22, and they frankly shouldn't be. I'm not sure who you'd replace them with -- rumors had rom-com expert Richard Curtis being offered a gig on Bond 22 -- but the ugly fact is that they need to be thrown off the series, and fast -- when you know you're riding the gravy train, you're not going to go anywhere interesting.
6) No Funny Stuff
There's been some contention of if Daniel Craig was joking when he offered in an interview with The Daily Express that "They [the producers] just want more gags. The next one's going to be a lot funnier. Octopussy and Pussy Galore-style gags. They're all great names -- but that's the thing, the Bond jokes will be flipped on their heads. ... " Was Craig joking? Well, I hope so; if anything killed the Bond series, it was the focus on comedy that came with the aging of the wheezy, crepuscular Roger Moore -- who, as the series progressed, became much more comfortable with a limp one-liner than a stiff right cross. That's not to say that you can't have bleak comedy in a modern Bond -- Dame Judi Dench, playing the busy, harried head of intelligence, spitting out her sentiment "Christ, I miss the Cold War. ..." was a wickedly sharp laugh line that also help define the film's feel -- but the second you start going for laughs in and of themselves, you might as well just put Mike Myers in the role.
7) Keep Daniel Craig Happy
By which I mean, ask him about what he'd like to see in the films; ask him if he things plot points x or y are a good idea; where he'd like to see Bond's character go. Brosnan grew amazingly frustrated with the Broccoli's insistence that Bond couldn't have a history or a sense of a past -- and that frustration is no doubt what led to his sleepwalking through his last two films, trading actual work for paycheck-earning clock-punching. Right now, for better or for worse (and I'd say 'better,') Craig is Bond -- and if you want him to be good in the films, and you want him to keep making the films, then start asking him what he wants, and soon -- before he, too, turns into a tuxedo-clad cutout you can move from scene to scene, joke to joke, with his broken spirit slashing the life out of the series.
Personally, I agree with numbers 2, 3, 6, and 7. However--and I've made this point before--the villain does NOT need to be Bond's "physical" equal. Fleming's villains tended to be older than Bond and are usually very happy to hand the punching and kicking operations to the henchmen. When they chose to get their hands dirty, it was to torture a supine and helpless Bond. As to #4. . .c'mon, we all love Q. Giving him a break in one film is fine, but I'd love to see him back again. Finally, for #5, I know many of you are cheering Rocchi's request to fire the writers; but I think he's dead wrong about TWINE and he seems to be forgetting that Purvis and Wade also cowrote Casino Royale. Time was the saying was "What have you done for me lately?" Doesn't that fly anymore? Or does Rocchi think Paul Haggis did it all? Anyway. . .
Cinematical Seven: Seven Pieces of Advice for the Makers of Bond '22'
Posted Aug 20th 2007 11:08AM by James Rocchi
So, the 22nd James Bond film is in pre-production, with director Marc Forster already talking about locations and Bond Girls and more. But there have been disquieting notes and murmurs from the Bond camp -- filling Bond fans with dire contemplation of slightly grim possibility that Casino Royale's excellence may not be so easy to recapture. As a long-time Bond-watcher, I thought I'd draft a sort of open letter to the Bond production team about some very specific things they could do to make sure that Bond 22 maintains 007's freshly-renewed license to thrill. ...
1) Bulk Up the Bad Guy
If one thing hurt Casino Royale's air of excellence, it was the fairly disappointing physical mis-match between Daniel Craig's hulking, burly Bond and Mads Mikkelsen's pallid, frail Le Chiffre. Whoever your bad guys is this time around, please -- cast someone who looks like they could offer Craig's Bond a fairly even match in a fight. (One of the reasons GoldenEye worked as well as it did was Sean Bean's scary-competent, lean and wicked rogue 006 -- an extremely credible nemesis in both the brain and brawn departments.) Film-closing throw-downs aren't just fun, they're necessary -- we all want to see good and evil mix it up -- and nothing deflates the tension in an action film faster than knowing, at one glance, that our villain would fold up like a cheap tent after taking one punch. The producers of Bond 22 could try to save on the budget by hiring an unknown, but they shouldn't skimp on the tension by hiring someone who has less physical presence and capability than the formidable Mr. Craig.
2) Keep it Real ...
The Bond films at the end of the Brosnan run felt less like spy movies and more like idiotic variations on Saturday morning TV -- Die Another Day's plot of gene-spliced villains wearing electricity-shooting exoskeletons felt less like Ian Fleming and more like Stan Lee. And it's hard to imagine audiences accepting something like the plots of The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker, either, where the entire world was in peril and every life on the planet depended on Bond saving the day. Casino Royale had the balance right: lives were at stake, yes, but not millions of them; the stakes were comprehensible, and thereby much more affecting than grandiose, Dr. Evil-style schemes.
3) ... But Not Too Real
At the same time, the Bond films can't be too ripped-from-the headlines; escapism (which, at the end of the day, is what the Bond films are) is enhanced by realism, but poisoned by reality. Or, put another way: Do you really want to see Bond in the mountains of Pakistan, hunting Al-Quaeda? Of course not; it's an insult to the audience, the people actually trying to do that job, and pretty much everyone involved. Bond 22 should take place in a world that feels like our own; it should not take place in our world.
4) There's No 'Q' in 'Reboot'
Even with my happy memories of Desmond Llewelen's Major Boothroyd -- 'Q' to friends and co-workers -- you have to admit that those scenes also represented a gear-grinding stall in almost every Bond movie -- narrative momentum given up in favor or raised eyebrows and expensive throw-away sight gags. If the makers of Bond 22 decide to return to the past of the series and give us a 'Q' division scene -- gadgets and exposition, gags and banter -- then they'll find out, to their peril and ours, how swiftly some old roots can strangle the life out of new growth. I'm not saying there's no need for high-tech in the Bond series -- Casino Royale's portable defibrillator was as handy as it was cool -- but you can have high-tech without having high camp.
5) Fire the Writers
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have written several 007 films -- notably The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, two of the worst entries in the history of the series. Under Wade and Purvis, the Bond formula became appallingly watered-down and tarted-up. (Plus, they managed to bite that hand that feeds them by taking a break to write the Rowan Atkinson Bond 'spoof" Johnny English, and turn disdain for their other assignment into a paycheck.) I don't know why it is Wade and Purvis keep getting these gigs -- I suspect that the producing team lead by the Broccoli heirs are comfortable with them -- but their familiarity with the series has turned into a kind of contempt for the character and the audiences. They're listed as being on the payroll for Bond 22, and they frankly shouldn't be. I'm not sure who you'd replace them with -- rumors had rom-com expert Richard Curtis being offered a gig on Bond 22 -- but the ugly fact is that they need to be thrown off the series, and fast -- when you know you're riding the gravy train, you're not going to go anywhere interesting.
6) No Funny Stuff
There's been some contention of if Daniel Craig was joking when he offered in an interview with The Daily Express that "They [the producers] just want more gags. The next one's going to be a lot funnier. Octopussy and Pussy Galore-style gags. They're all great names -- but that's the thing, the Bond jokes will be flipped on their heads. ... " Was Craig joking? Well, I hope so; if anything killed the Bond series, it was the focus on comedy that came with the aging of the wheezy, crepuscular Roger Moore -- who, as the series progressed, became much more comfortable with a limp one-liner than a stiff right cross. That's not to say that you can't have bleak comedy in a modern Bond -- Dame Judi Dench, playing the busy, harried head of intelligence, spitting out her sentiment "Christ, I miss the Cold War. ..." was a wickedly sharp laugh line that also help define the film's feel -- but the second you start going for laughs in and of themselves, you might as well just put Mike Myers in the role.
7) Keep Daniel Craig Happy
By which I mean, ask him about what he'd like to see in the films; ask him if he things plot points x or y are a good idea; where he'd like to see Bond's character go. Brosnan grew amazingly frustrated with the Broccoli's insistence that Bond couldn't have a history or a sense of a past -- and that frustration is no doubt what led to his sleepwalking through his last two films, trading actual work for paycheck-earning clock-punching. Right now, for better or for worse (and I'd say 'better,') Craig is Bond -- and if you want him to be good in the films, and you want him to keep making the films, then start asking him what he wants, and soon -- before he, too, turns into a tuxedo-clad cutout you can move from scene to scene, joke to joke, with his broken spirit slashing the life out of the series.
Personally, I agree with numbers 2, 3, 6, and 7. However--and I've made this point before--the villain does NOT need to be Bond's "physical" equal. Fleming's villains tended to be older than Bond and are usually very happy to hand the punching and kicking operations to the henchmen. When they chose to get their hands dirty, it was to torture a supine and helpless Bond. As to #4. . .c'mon, we all love Q. Giving him a break in one film is fine, but I'd love to see him back again. Finally, for #5, I know many of you are cheering Rocchi's request to fire the writers; but I think he's dead wrong about TWINE and he seems to be forgetting that Purvis and Wade also cowrote Casino Royale. Time was the saying was "What have you done for me lately?" Doesn't that fly anymore? Or does Rocchi think Paul Haggis did it all? Anyway. . .
Vox clamantis in deserto
Comments
And as for Q? I really can't decide, I'm not sure anyone could ever take over from Desmond. John Cleese didn't even manage in my eyes, and if he can't then not many can.
But Number 7 is spot on. Craig is wise, I think he proved that in the many interviews leading up to Casino Royale. He's their star, and keeping him happy is very important. Just look what happened to Pierce...
I can only agree with numbers 2, 3, and 7. As far as number 6 goes, I like the one-liners. There have been some, like the Christmas line, that make me cringe but for the most part I think they have worked. I think every film should have at least one, maybe even two.:) I thought Craig had two quips in the last film, one in the PTS when he says "Yes, considerablely" after shooting the guy, and the Broadchest comment, while not a one liner, was funny. I almost forgot the "That last hand almost killed me" line and the line when Bond says he won't start worrying until he starts weeping blood.
I neither agree not disagree with this one. I want to be convinced of the reality that is the Bondian universe. It does not mean that it needs to be real (I can believe that Superman can fly and the Superman films were hardly real) but rather I want a film with a good quality screenplay and performances that leaves me convinced that what is happening is possible within the fictional universe. If it means that the film should be more realistic, so be it, however it's not a requirement for me as I remain absolutely convinced by TSWLM.
I completely agree. Having Bond hunt down Al-Quaeda terrorists in Pakistan would leave a bad taste in my mouth. One of the things I love about Bond is that although some of the films have had political subtexts, they have always been vague or have referred to 'rogue' elements. Reading some of the possible plots in one of the other threads leave me feeling extremely uncomfortable. I do not want Bond 22 to be a film version of 24.
I passionately disagree. Q IMO is too important not to come back. In fact, the idea that the scene with Q in Bond 22 must be identical to the scene with Q in DAD is surely nonsence. Putting aside whether the 'Q scenes' in the previous Bond were good or not, I'm sure that the writers will be able to make sure that the 'Q scene' matches the tone of CR. Plus, in CR, when Bond was using the defibrillator, why couldn't Q have been there to tell him how to use it? As I said, I very much disagree with this suggestion.
Uh, no. I liked the screenplay for TWINE (although granted, it was far from perfect.) As for CR, although I think it is an extremely overrated screenplay and although in an ideal world I would fire Haggis, I think it's best to have the same team that wrote CR writing Bond 22; that way, Bond 22 will follow on from CR in a more direct way.
This writer had to go and insult Moore?
Sure. Why not? Obviously the star should be kept happy; however I doubt that this suggestion will be taken up.
I agree with with 3 and 7 but disagree with 1, 4, 5 and 6 (I'm neutral about 2.) I very much hope that the producers don't read this site.
1) No need to bulk up the main baddie; in fact, I'd go quite the opposite. Give the main villain a fearsome henchman...but I'd like a bit of old-school, older-guy, twisted father-figure-style main villain (I actually think Eon is going to take this guy's advice, though: look for the main villain to be more in line with GE's 006 this time round). Maybe I'll get my wish in #23...
2) Absolutely f*****g right.
3) Ditto.
4) I have to agree. I think hi-tech gimmicks have their place, but the Q briefing would need serious re-invention, IMRO, to avoid becoming a drag on narrative momentum. If they're going to go anachronistic, and take a narrative pause---in the interest of character---I'd rather see a bit of May, Bond's Scottish Treasure B-)
5) Please do. I need the work ;%
6) I think the humour was perfect in CR...they could go a bit lighter, but any further than that would be a step backward, as far as I'm concerned.
7) By all means. Give the man whatever he wants---and I mean whatever he wants...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What a load of fluff! LeChiffre, was brilliant. I am one of the converted with regards to my like of LeChiffre. The first time I saw Canino Royale I didn't much care for LeChiffre. I think I was too busy analyzing the character of the new Bond to pay attention to how deep of a character LeChiffre was. His quiet arrogance was brilliant. "You changed your shirt Mr. Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire." Mads' delivery on that line is classic. It just oozes smug confidence and arrogance. That arrogance grows ten fold when he beats Bond at cards. The torture scene was one of the Bond franchises best, and I cant fathom how increasing the size of LeChiffre's pectoral muscles would have improved it any.
Villains aren't hated more or feared more because their biceps are bigger. They are hated and feared more by meshing together a brutal combination of evil, arrogance, and cunning. Writers need to build a slow, "can't wait for him to get his" type of feel if they want to create a villain that is truly hated.
I too would like to see the villian go back to the "Bad Daddy", an older fellow - not some muscle bound monster. His assistants can be gorillas. Biggest mistake that Eon made was not using Anthony Dawson as Blofeld past "Thunderball", after which we got a sucession of Dr. Evil's.
"Q" as he was should be forever schuttled. Cleese is a gifted fellow but out of place in a good oo7 film. Personally I would prefer Q branch be staffed with quiet fellows like the one who shot DC in the arm with the tracking implant.
Purvis & Wade should be dumped, thanked for their previous contributions, given a plaque and handshake - that's it.
I would encourage EON to hire Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg. These guys are the most observant and gifted film makers extent. So far they have mastered comedy, if they ever turned their vast talents to something serious - LOOK OUT!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
What a well-phrased quote. Excellent post, thanks hb. Rocchi may not 100% agree with what the producers or the fans (that's us, folks) have in mind but it's very clear that he's been thinking about the Bond situation and has gone deeper than most journalists. I'm backing Hardyboy- numbers 2,3,6, and 7.
http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/brosnan_interview_aug07.php3?t=&s=
Prehaps PB had more to offer, but I also read that they refused to give his Bond a "past" - so what can he do but hit the marks, look good and crack one liners? You would have to add a grim face for the actions scenes, and be very fit to do all the running.
Sounds like he was glad to give it up!!!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
They could bulk up the villain by making him more interesting. I'd have had that Truman Capote guy from Craig's film as Le Chiffre. Bulk up the henchman maybe, I couldn't even recall them from CR. They were like the sort you find working in Dixons. Mads was, to me, like the less memorable goons in FYEO.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thing is, they can't be underdone or overdone. There has to be balance, in use and in humor