I can of course understand both your points, although it's like asking
Someone to make a list of why they love their wife, boyfriend etc.
If you can do it, I'd suggest you're not really in love at all. )
It's more like asking someone to rate the 23 most important persons in their life. Some have been great, some have been average, some have been absolute disappointments. You don't need to be a professional filmmaker or have special analytical skills to be able to tell than some are better than others, be it the script, the performances, special effects, story...
To take all 23 movies as a whole and say they are all magnificent and if you don't love them all that means you don't love the James Bond franchise is not realistic in my opinion. It's 23 movies over more than 50 years. They can't all be amazing. They did manage to mantain a very respectable quality level, but there have been troughs now and then.
Odd, if in a burning house, Could I pick 23 members of my family ?
Placing them in order ? As I say some of you are more Clinical than
I.
I guess Sophie's Choice wouldn't be a problem for some ! )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Odd, if in a burning house, Could I pick 23 members of my family ?
Placing them in order ? As I say some of you are more Clinical than
I.
I guess Sophie's Choice wouldn't be a problem for some ! )
Me and all the others will be pushing AVTAK back into the burning house.
Odd, if in a burning house, Could I pick 23 members of my family ?
Placing them in order ? As I say some of you are more Clinical than
I.
I guess Sophie's Choice wouldn't be a problem for some ! )
A Sophie's Choice would be between two. "We are going to burn all copies of CR or FRWL. Choose one". Now, that would be hard. But 23? Some of them I couldn't care less if I don't ever see them again. Really.
) Blasphemy !!
Honestly I have a top three or four, the rest are then all clumped
together. -{
By the way, I'm not " calling anyone out" just making an observation
for a chat. I know I'm lucky, I'm easily pleased.
Unlike the rest of you Fussy Fiona's
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
) Blasphemy !!
Honestly I have a top three or four, the rest are then all clumped
together. -{
By the way, I'm not " calling anyone out" just making an observation
for a chat. I know I'm lucky, I'm easily pleased.
Unlike the rest of you Fussy Fiona's
I could arrange most all of them into roughly three groups-
The ones I love
The one I have been known to love
The ones I'd still occasionally sleep with for fun
Some nights I love to pull it out, run my fingers down until I
find that magic button, then get her to open up, and slide in my .....
.......... bluray into the player !
I might not be able to write movies but I can write Porn ! )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
It would seem with Spectre all the pseudo intellectuals on AJB, who want
Character over action. Will not be disappointed with Spectre, as most reports
Say character development is very strong in the film.
Which you can't argue with ......... but I'm certain some will. )
If you write it properly, character is action -- it's doesn't have to be an either/or. But at the same time, what passes for character these days is usually biographical trivia and psychological baggage, which is not the same thing. Character is Goldfinger giving a lecture on his grand plan before murdering his audience showing he has a titanic ego; trivia and baggage is Bruce Wayne moping around for 20 years because sustaining a single emotion for decades is now considered normal and believable.
trivia and baggage is Bruce Wayne moping around for 20 years because sustaining a single emotion for decades is now considered normal and believable.
His parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid. If that doesn't leave emotional scars for life , I don't know what does. Also, I don't think "single emotion" is the best way to describe his psyche...But I digress. I think scriptwriters' willingness to explore their characters' psyches has saved many franchises that would otherwise be frankly boring by now. The other route was explored in the 90s (riding tsunamis, invisible cars, helicopters defying the laws of physics...). Now, that was not normal or believable.
trivia and baggage is Bruce Wayne moping around for 20 years because sustaining a single emotion for decades is now considered normal and believable.
His parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid. If that doesn't leave emotional scars for life , I don't know what does. Also, I don't think "single emotion" is the best way to describe his psyche...But I digress. I think scriptwriters' willingness to explore their characters' psyches has saved many franchises that would otherwise be frankly boring by now. The other route was explored in the 90s (riding tsunamis, invisible cars, helicopters defying the laws of physics...). Now, that was not normal or believable.
Of course it does. But people survive great trauma and go on to live emotionally complex and satisfying lives. But the comic book approach to characterization these days is that such limits them to one or two defining emotions that govern their state each and every day for years and years -- this, to a modern audience, is not only more accurate to how people actually live but also more intense. Older films show the effects of trauma but not to so limiting a point. Bond, in the same way, is shown in the Craig films to be Bruce Wayne-damaged, even though he is not like that in the books. It's one of the reasons I still find the 60s Bond superior -- Connery's and Lazenby's Bonds are not one-trick ponies defined by a single moment in their lives. To me, that's inauthentic writing.
The thing is, it's not really an exploration of the person's psyche if that psyche is defined by only one or two emotions. Humans are much, much more complex than that. What it really is is allowing the writer to limit the discussion in a way that allows them to not have to deal with the complexity. So, the writer creates a series of scenes that basically show the same thing but in different form. That's what makes a lot of modern films so limiting to me.
It's one of the reasons I still find the 60s Bond superior -- Connery's and Lazenby's Bonds are not one-trick ponies defined by a single moment in their lives.
No, they are one-trick ponies defined by nothing in their lives, because it's not there in the movie to begin with. You just see them acting and reacting to what's in front of them, not inside them, which is not bad per se. Actions do define characters. But don't tell me that the way to show real complex human emotion is showing no emotion at all when something very traumatic happens to a character. The scars will always be there, and will reappear now and again. That's totally believable.
Plus, it's not "one or two emotions". You get a full range: anger,self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required is what's interesting to me in modern movies as opposed to just being at the top of their game.
If you don't like that approach, fair enough. I do, and I'd say it's here to stay, so I'm lucky.
anger, self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required
Ummm... you just described TND...
It's okay, really. Don't feel badly.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I honestly don't see Craig's Bond as 'damaged,' per se. Yes, as the credits roll in CR and as QoS unfolds, he's understandably a bit of a mess, which works for me (and the story being told). In SF, he's back from a physical trauma and dealing with the politics of the situation, but he isn't emotionally damaged---IMO, his experiences make him what he is, which is very much Fleming's Bond in the novels, to my mind.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's one of the reasons I still find the 60s Bond superior -- Connery's and Lazenby's Bonds are not one-trick ponies defined by a single moment in their lives.
No, they are one-trick ponies defined by nothing in their lives, because it's not there in the movie to begin with. You just see them acting and reacting to what's in front of them, not inside them, which is not bad per se. Actions do define characters. But don't tell me that the way to show real complex human emotion is showing no emotion at all when something very traumatic happens to a character. The scars will always be there, and will reappear now and again. That's totally believable.
Plus, it's not "one or two emotions". You get a full range: anger,self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required is what's interesting to me in modern movies as opposed to just being at the top of their game.
If you don't like that approach, fair enough. I do, and I'd say it's here to stay, so I'm lucky.
Nah, they're one-trick ponies. There's a difference between showing "real complex emotion" and simply showing the same emotion sustained for two hours, or in the case of the oversimplification of characters these days, their lifetimes. Again, that's a cartoonish or comic book version of people and their resilience. Everyone faces trauma. That's life. Learning to swallow it and move on is part of growing up.
If real people obsessed about it the way contemporary movie characters do, it would no longer be an emotional scar. It would be a mental illness. With Bruce Wayne, the character is already ridiculous -- a guy who dresses up in a rubber bat suit to chase criminals. Okay, I can accept on some level that there's little reason to take him seriously as a flesh-and-blood human being. And he is more or less mentally ill. But not only is Bond in the books shown with more dimension, but he's been shown with more in the previous films. In fact, Connery displays more of an emotional range in one scene than Craig does typically in an entire film.
It is the current approach, though, and I don't suspect it will change soon until a younger generation comes up and finds it bizarre or laughable, kind of like an older generation might.
Right now, we've had Bond's orphan status -- like Bruce Wayne's -- brought up over and over again, in Casino Royale and Skyfall, where it becomes a central defining quality. In Quantum of Solace, Bond is described by Green as being "damaged," as suggested by Vesper in the train scene, too, with his chip on his shoulder and so forth, as well as being reckless, and Skyfall all but confirms this, to the degree that Bond's psychological and physical record evidence it as well as his loony plan to battle Silva's helicopter-born crack commando team with a shotgun, old man, and boss who can't shoot straight.
Bond's emotions are confined to two or three, almost entirely negative, and so close to one another, it's as though the writers just took out a thesaurus and looked up different versions of the same negative ones. Enough already. Give Bond a break. We've had three films like this. And now a fourth that promises a lot of the same, though I'm hoping for at least some glimmer of more from Bond. It's crap writing, beating a dead horse, let alone a one-trick pony. If Bond were a TV series, maybe it might make sense because there'd be many episodes, and they have to fill up time and drag things out serial style. But they make a Bond movie at best once every two years. Let Bond be a full-blooded human being again and not just a type stuck in the same rut.
It's one of the reasons I still find the 60s Bond superior -- Connery's and Lazenby's Bonds are not one-trick ponies defined by a single moment in their lives.
No, they are one-trick ponies defined by nothing in their lives, because it's not there in the movie to begin with. You just see them acting and reacting to what's in front of them, not inside them, which is not bad per se. Actions do define characters. But don't tell me that the way to show real complex human emotion is showing no emotion at all when something very traumatic happens to a character. The scars will always be there, and will reappear now and again. That's totally believable.
Plus, it's not "one or two emotions". You get a full range: anger,self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required is what's interesting to me in modern movies as opposed to just being at the top of their game.
If you don't like that approach, fair enough. I do, and I'd say it's here to stay, so I'm lucky.
Nah, they're one-trick ponies. There's a difference between showing "real complex emotion" and simply showing the same emotion sustained for two hours, or in the case of the oversimplification of characters these days, their lifetimes. Again, that's a cartoonish or comic book version of people and their resilience. Everyone faces trauma. That's life. Learning to swallow it and move on is part of growing up.
If real people obsessed about it the way contemporary movie characters do, it would no longer be an emotional scar. It would be a mental illness. With Bruce Wayne, the character is already ridiculous -- a guy who dresses up in a rubber bat suit to chase criminals. Okay, I can accept on some level that there's little reason to take him seriously as a flesh-and-blood human being. And he is more or less mentally ill. But not only is Bond in the books shown with more dimension, but he's been shown with more in the previous films. In fact, Connery displays more of an emotional range in one scene than Craig does typically in an entire film.
It is the current approach, though, and I don't suspect it will change soon until a younger generation comes up and finds it bizarre or laughable, kind of like an older generation might.
Right now, we've had Bond's orphan status -- like Bruce Wayne's -- brought up over and over again, in Casino Royale and Skyfall, where it becomes a central defining quality. In Quantum of Solace, Bond is described by Green as being "damaged," as suggested by Vesper in the train scene, too, with his chip on his shoulder and so forth, as well as being reckless, and Skyfall all but confirms this, to the degree that Bond's psychological and physical record evidence it as well as his loony plan to battle Silva's helicopter-born crack commando team with a shotgun, old man, and boss who can't shoot straight.
Bond's emotions are confined to two or three, almost entirely negative, and so close to one another, it's as though the writers just took out a thesaurus and looked up different versions of the same negative ones. Enough already. Give Bond a break. We've had three films like this. And now a fourth that promises a lot of the same, though I'm hoping for at least some glimmer of more from Bond. It's crap writing, beating a dead horse, let alone a one-trick pony. If Bond were a TV series, maybe it might make sense because there'd be many episodes, and they have to fill up time and drag things out serial style. But they make a Bond movie at best once every two years. Let Bond be a full-blooded human being again and not just a type stuck in the same rut.
I agree with everything you say. This really helps me better understand why I don't care for the Craig films. I always just thought Craig's Bond lacked personality, but I see that it's more that his Bond just has a very limited range of emotion.
It's one of the reasons I still find the 60s Bond superior -- Connery's and Lazenby's Bonds are not one-trick ponies defined by a single moment in their lives.
No, they are one-trick ponies defined by nothing in their lives, because it's not there in the movie to begin with. You just see them acting and reacting to what's in front of them, not inside them, which is not bad per se. Actions do define characters. But don't tell me that the way to show real complex human emotion is showing no emotion at all when something very traumatic happens to a character. The scars will always be there, and will reappear now and again. That's totally believable.
Plus, it's not "one or two emotions". You get a full range: anger,self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required is what's interesting to me in modern movies as opposed to just being at the top of their game.
If you don't like that approach, fair enough. I do, and I'd say it's here to stay, so I'm lucky.
Nah, they're one-trick ponies. There's a difference between showing "real complex emotion" and simply showing the same emotion sustained for two hours, or in the case of the oversimplification of characters these days, their lifetimes. Again, that's a cartoonish or comic book version of people and their resilience. Everyone faces trauma. That's life. Learning to swallow it and move on is part of growing up.
If real people obsessed about it the way contemporary movie characters do, it would no longer be an emotional scar. It would be a mental illness. With Bruce Wayne, the character is already ridiculous -- a guy who dresses up in a rubber bat suit to chase criminals. Okay, I can accept on some level that there's little reason to take him seriously as a flesh-and-blood human being. And he is more or less mentally ill. But not only is Bond in the books shown with more dimension, but he's been shown with more in the previous films. In fact, Connery displays more of an emotional range in one scene than Craig does typically in an entire film.
It is the current approach, though, and I don't suspect it will change soon until a younger generation comes up and finds it bizarre or laughable, kind of like an older generation might.
Right now, we've had Bond's orphan status -- like Bruce Wayne's -- brought up over and over again, in Casino Royale and Skyfall, where it becomes a central defining quality. In Quantum of Solace, Bond is described by Green as being "damaged," as suggested by Vesper in the train scene, too, with his chip on his shoulder and so forth, as well as being reckless, and Skyfall all but confirms this, to the degree that Bond's psychological and physical record evidence it as well as his loony plan to battle Silva's helicopter-born crack commando team with a shotgun, old man, and boss who can't shoot straight.
Bond's emotions are confined to two or three, almost entirely negative, and so close to one another, it's as though the writers just took out a thesaurus and looked up different versions of the same negative ones. Enough already. Give Bond a break. We've had three films like this. And now a fourth that promises a lot of the same, though I'm hoping for at least some glimmer of more from Bond. It's crap writing, beating a dead horse, let alone a one-trick pony. If Bond were a TV series, maybe it might make sense because there'd be many episodes, and they have to fill up time and drag things out serial style. But they make a Bond movie at best once every two years. Let Bond be a full-blooded human being again and not just a type stuck in the same rut.
I disagree with everything you say. Connery displaying more emotional range than Craig is particularly funny, and Bond "being a full-blooded human being again" by "swallowing his trauma and growing up". Hopefully scriptwriters will continue exploring the dark side of the heroes for years to come and not fall in the trap of giving audiences the same old, same old. I'm pretty sure the Bond franchise would be dead by now (and Batman, Superman, Spiderman,...).
anger, self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required
Ummm... you just described TND...
It's okay, really. Don't feel badly.
Take "love" out and put "hate" in, and you have pretty much the emotions I felt when I first saw TND, yes
I told someone I knew about Spectre, and they said they don't really care about James Bond anymore because it's the same old plot almost every time, Bond stopping a villain with a mega-weapon. I can't really disagree.
With films like DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, TND, and DAD, for all the leaps and bounds they make in terms of action, they really hurt the quality of the IP in terms of storytelling.
I told someone I knew about Spectre, and they said they don't really care about James Bond anymore because it's the same old plot almost every time, Bond stopping a villain with a mega-weapon. I can't really disagree.
Eon's disregard for those people is life-affirming -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
If I was asked now why I loved my wife, I couldn't tell
I just do.
It's hard to get a film produced now it it doesn't follow this template.
https://timstout.wordpress.com/story-structure/blake-snyders-beat-sheet/
It's more like asking someone to rate the 23 most important persons in their life. Some have been great, some have been average, some have been absolute disappointments. You don't need to be a professional filmmaker or have special analytical skills to be able to tell than some are better than others, be it the script, the performances, special effects, story...
To take all 23 movies as a whole and say they are all magnificent and if you don't love them all that means you don't love the James Bond franchise is not realistic in my opinion. It's 23 movies over more than 50 years. They can't all be amazing. They did manage to mantain a very respectable quality level, but there have been troughs now and then.
Placing them in order ? As I say some of you are more Clinical than
I.
I guess Sophie's Choice wouldn't be a problem for some !
Me and all the others will be pushing AVTAK back into the burning house.
A Sophie's Choice would be between two. "We are going to burn all copies of CR or FRWL. Choose one". Now, that would be hard. But 23? Some of them I couldn't care less if I don't ever see them again. Really.
Honestly I have a top three or four, the rest are then all clumped
together. -{
By the way, I'm not " calling anyone out" just making an observation
for a chat. I know I'm lucky, I'm easily pleased.
Unlike the rest of you Fussy Fiona's
The ones I love
The one I have been known to love
The ones I'd still occasionally sleep with for fun
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
find that magic button, then get her to open up, and slide in my .....
.......... bluray into the player !
I might not be able to write movies but I can write Porn !
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
His parents were murdered in front of him when he was a kid. If that doesn't leave emotional scars for life , I don't know what does. Also, I don't think "single emotion" is the best way to describe his psyche...But I digress. I think scriptwriters' willingness to explore their characters' psyches has saved many franchises that would otherwise be frankly boring by now. The other route was explored in the 90s (riding tsunamis, invisible cars, helicopters defying the laws of physics...). Now, that was not normal or believable.
The thing is, it's not really an exploration of the person's psyche if that psyche is defined by only one or two emotions. Humans are much, much more complex than that. What it really is is allowing the writer to limit the discussion in a way that allows them to not have to deal with the complexity. So, the writer creates a series of scenes that basically show the same thing but in different form. That's what makes a lot of modern films so limiting to me.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
No, they are one-trick ponies defined by nothing in their lives, because it's not there in the movie to begin with. You just see them acting and reacting to what's in front of them, not inside them, which is not bad per se. Actions do define characters. But don't tell me that the way to show real complex human emotion is showing no emotion at all when something very traumatic happens to a character. The scars will always be there, and will reappear now and again. That's totally believable.
Plus, it's not "one or two emotions". You get a full range: anger,self-pity, need for revenge, love, denial, insecurity...That contrast between their inner demons and the ability to be at the top of their game when required is what's interesting to me in modern movies as opposed to just being at the top of their game.
If you don't like that approach, fair enough. I do, and I'd say it's here to stay, so I'm lucky.
It's okay, really. Don't feel badly.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If real people obsessed about it the way contemporary movie characters do, it would no longer be an emotional scar. It would be a mental illness. With Bruce Wayne, the character is already ridiculous -- a guy who dresses up in a rubber bat suit to chase criminals. Okay, I can accept on some level that there's little reason to take him seriously as a flesh-and-blood human being. And he is more or less mentally ill. But not only is Bond in the books shown with more dimension, but he's been shown with more in the previous films. In fact, Connery displays more of an emotional range in one scene than Craig does typically in an entire film.
It is the current approach, though, and I don't suspect it will change soon until a younger generation comes up and finds it bizarre or laughable, kind of like an older generation might.
Right now, we've had Bond's orphan status -- like Bruce Wayne's -- brought up over and over again, in Casino Royale and Skyfall, where it becomes a central defining quality. In Quantum of Solace, Bond is described by Green as being "damaged," as suggested by Vesper in the train scene, too, with his chip on his shoulder and so forth, as well as being reckless, and Skyfall all but confirms this, to the degree that Bond's psychological and physical record evidence it as well as his loony plan to battle Silva's helicopter-born crack commando team with a shotgun, old man, and boss who can't shoot straight.
Bond's emotions are confined to two or three, almost entirely negative, and so close to one another, it's as though the writers just took out a thesaurus and looked up different versions of the same negative ones. Enough already. Give Bond a break. We've had three films like this. And now a fourth that promises a lot of the same, though I'm hoping for at least some glimmer of more from Bond. It's crap writing, beating a dead horse, let alone a one-trick pony. If Bond were a TV series, maybe it might make sense because there'd be many episodes, and they have to fill up time and drag things out serial style. But they make a Bond movie at best once every two years. Let Bond be a full-blooded human being again and not just a type stuck in the same rut.
I agree with everything you say. This really helps me better understand why I don't care for the Craig films. I always just thought Craig's Bond lacked personality, but I see that it's more that his Bond just has a very limited range of emotion.
I disagree with everything you say. Connery displaying more emotional range than Craig is particularly funny, and Bond "being a full-blooded human being again" by "swallowing his trauma and growing up". Hopefully scriptwriters will continue exploring the dark side of the heroes for years to come and not fall in the trap of giving audiences the same old, same old. I'm pretty sure the Bond franchise would be dead by now (and Batman, Superman, Spiderman,...).
Take "love" out and put "hate" in, and you have pretty much the emotions I felt when I first saw TND, yes
With films like DAF, TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK, TND, and DAD, for all the leaps and bounds they make in terms of action, they really hurt the quality of the IP in terms of storytelling.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Eon's disregard for those people is life-affirming -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM