I think for Bond 25, EON would be wise to finally ditch Purvis and Wade and bring new screenwriting blood on board (I've never been a fan of their work and believe the other Craig films worked because someone revised their scripts). Also, they shouldn't be afraid to edit the next movie down to 2 hours.
Purvis & Wade were not originally on writing duties for SPECTRE...they were only brought back as the script was deemed 'not up to scratch'...looks like they are Eon's 'default setting' when they want the script 'polished'...
Exactly . . . they drastically reworked the script from whatever it was John Logan submitted. It's interesting to note that John Logan significantly reworked Purvis and Wade's original Skyfall script. Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for the atrocity that is Die Another Day, so why EON would have them rework anything is beyond me. I agree they seem to be EON's "default setting," but that needs to change. There's got to be someone better out there.
I think for Bond 25, EON would be wise to finally ditch Purvis and Wade and bring new screenwriting blood on board (I've never been a fan of their work and believe the other Craig films worked because someone revised their scripts). Also, they shouldn't be afraid to edit the next movie down to 2 hours.
Purvis & Wade were not originally on writing duties for SPECTRE...they were only brought back as the script was deemed 'not up to scratch'...looks like they are Eon's 'default setting' when they want the script 'polished'...
Exactly . . . they drastically reworked the script from whatever it was John Logan submitted. It's interesting to note that John Logan significantly reworked Purvis and Wade's original Skyfall script. Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for the atrocity that is Die Another Day, so why EON would have them rework anything is beyond me. I agree they seem to be EON's "default setting," but that needs to change. There's got to be someone better out there.
Money ! Pure and simple...all these movies have made bucketfuls of cash !
YNWA 97
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Purvis & Wade were not originally on writing duties for SPECTRE...they were only brought back as the script was deemed 'not up to scratch'...looks like they are Eon's 'default setting' when they want the script 'polished'...
That's distressing Who has killed all the good screenwriters in the UK?...Hey, wait a second. Do P&W have that many solid alibis?? :v
(Sorry; I have my mystery novelist hat on)
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
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
Purvis & Wade were not originally on writing duties for SPECTRE...they were only brought back as the script was deemed 'not up to scratch'...looks like they are Eon's 'default setting' when they want the script 'polished'...
That's distressing Who has killed all the good screenwriters in the UK...hey, wait a second. Do P&W have that many solid alibis?? :v
They are currently working on a series based on Len Deighton's SSGB - and I'm really looking forward to that -{
I agree that the movie was unfocused ; They wanted to have so many locations that some of them were under-utilized. I'd say that it was divided into 5 half-hour segments. Perhaps they should have kept the desert base as the final major location in the film and fully flesh it out (like the lairs in Moonraker, OHMSS and Dr. No) rather than blowing it up so quickly and then trying to "dig into Bond's past" with the old MI6 building.
This is what I do (as life is too short). When I sit down in the theater to see a Bond film I try to see it through the eyes of the 8 year old who saw TB at the Beach Theater in 1965. I know this sounds a bit overly simple or even silly.....but I really want to escape for those 2-2 1/2 hrs and just allow myself to feel and be part of the magic and not over analyze everything up on the screen (that's for when I get the Blu Ray). Where SPECTRE stands in the canon of Bond films or cinema at this time I do not care. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and there wasn't anything about it that particularly disappointed or bothered me (I have plenty of that in real life). ) -{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
This is what I do (as life is too short). When I sit down in the theater to see a Bond film I try to see it through the eyes of the 8 year old who saw TB at the Beach Theater in 1965. I know this sounds a bit overly simple or even silly.....but I really want to escape for those 2-2 1/2 hrs and just allow myself to feel and be part of the magic and not over analyze everything up on the screen (that's for when I get the Blu Ray). Where SPECTRE stands in the canon of Bond films or cinema at this time I do not care. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and there wasn't anything about it that particularly disappointed or bothered me (I have plenty of that in real life). ) -{
Yes. Absolutely. It's all about escape---hence 'escapism.'
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
I agree that the movie was unfocused ; They wanted to have so many locations that some of them were under-utilized. I'd say that it was divided into 5 half-hour segments. Perhaps they should have kept the desert base as the final major location in the film and fully flesh it out (like the lairs in Moonraker, OHMSS and Dr. No) rather than blowing it up so quickly and then trying to "dig into Bond's past" with the old MI6 building.
Not just locations. They underused the whole cast basically. Bautista is dramatically underused, and he's the best henchman in the Craig years. Monica Bellucci also. And the worst, underusing Waltz. We briefly see him at the beginning, then nothing until the end. In SF they used the cast reasonably well. The moment Javier Bardem appears, you can feel his menace for the rest of the film. Not so in SP.
Not just locations. They underused the whole cast basically. Bautista is dramatically underused, and he's the best henchman in the Craig years. Monica Bellucci also. And the worst, underusing Waltz. We briefly see him at the beginning, then nothing until the end. In SF they used the cast reasonably well. The moment Javier Bardem appears, you can feel his menace for the rest of the film. Not so in SP.
Just a guess, but I think we will see much more of Mr. Hinx in Bond 25 along with Waltz as Blofeld.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Not just locations. They underused the whole cast basically. Bautista is dramatically underused, and he's the best henchman in the Craig years. Monica Bellucci also. And the worst, underusing Waltz. We briefly see him at the beginning, then nothing until the end. In SF they used the cast reasonably well. The moment Javier Bardem appears, you can feel his menace for the rest of the film. Not so in SP.
Just a guess, but I think we will see much more of Mr. Hinx in Bond 25 along with Waltz as Blofeld.
And because Waltz underplayed him, there's room to grow B-)
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
And because Waltz underplayed him, there's room to grow B-)
I'm getting the feeling he will deal with the next Bond actor... ?:)
Have I missed a new rumour?
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 doesn't seem we need those stellar American reviews. China's been a massive hit.
Those people want/need an escape... :007)
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
Of course Bond movies are not Documentaries about a British intelligence Operative, they are not realist narratives in any meaningful sense. However....' Hey ho, it's only a Bond movie' does not cut it for me (perhaps I need to chill out, have some therapy and go with the flow) I see no reason why we should not expect a reasonable amount of internal consistency ( the odd plot hole I can live with) and at least a convincing premise and logical consequences that flow from it. The best Bond movies have this, and function as great escapist entertainment because of it and not despite it. I am not specifically concerned only with SP here ( which I did enjoy it's many fine qualities) in recent times the Bond movies has asked us to take them more seriously and we do them a disservice if we let them off the hook to readily. My concern is that way lies the dark days of cheesy puns, slide whistles and winking at the audience. Eon are supremely lazy filmmakers and will try to get away with it if that can and still make shed loads of cash. We should not let them get away with it. We have fine actors, loads of time and tons of cash to play with so should expect more.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Not just locations. They underused the whole cast basically.
I agree with all of your comments. Spectre should have just picked 2 or 3 things, focus on them and completely DOMINATE them (like Skyfall did with Silva and Bond's childhood home) instead of trying to do 6 different things and adding in a bunch of set pieces.
Of course Bond movies are not Documentaries about a British intelligence Operative, they are not realist narratives in any meaningful sense. However....' Hey ho, it's only a Bond movie' does not cut it for me (perhaps I need to chill out, have some therapy and go with the flow) I see no reason why we should not expect a reasonable amount of internal consistency ( the odd plot hole I can live with) and at least a convincing premise and logical consequences that flow from it.
I completely agree. I remember Timothy Dalton in an interview saying something to the effect of: It's good to have a fantasy, but the characters and their motives within that fantasy need to be believable. He was right. It's okay to bend the rules of reality, but once you've decided on a set of principles, stay consistent with them.
in recent times the Bond movies has asked us to take them more seriously and we do them a disservice if we let them off the hook to readily.
I wouldn't call the plots in movies like Live and Let Die extremely well written, but I have an easier time accepting LALD as a comedic fantasy than I do of being told that Spectre is a story of dark secrets and then getting a Dr. Evil story.
We should not let them get away with it. We have fine actors, loads of time and tons of cash to play with so should expect more.
I completely agree. Spectre was a good film but it well could have been a very good (or even great) film. EON had so much resources. 50+ years of experience, a household name IP, $250 million budget, a guarantee to profit, creative control and almost any writers/actors/directors they wanted.
I don't know whether "lazy" is the right description of EON as film makers. "Complacent" or "creatures of habit" might be more fitting for SPECTRE. First of all, with all its flaws (subjective, objective and otherwise) I think SPECTRE is a pretty darn good Bond film and action film. Writing does seem to be the bugaboo here and when you look at the circumstances it's not surprising. John Logan (Mendes' guy and a critically acclaimed writer) produces a script that either EON, Sony, MGM, or all the above are not happy with. Now script re-writes and script doctoring are common practice in the film industry so on the surface this shouldn't have been much of a problem...and some great critically acclaimed films have had extensive re-writes. So EON brings in Purvis and Wade to "Bond things up"and therein lies the problem.
There are script doctors and there are script doctors. Purvis and Wade are not exactly the second coming of John Milius or Shane Black, they are probably considered "competent hacks" but they are EON's competent hacks so therein lies the "creatures of habit". In fairness to EON's current generation, they appear much more willing to learn from mistakes, even despite financial success (the re-boot w/ DC being a prime example) so maybe for Bond 25 some new blood will be brought in to develope a script...especially if Mendes is no longer directing.
' Hey ho, it's only a Bond movie' does not cut it for me (perhaps I need to chill out, have some therapy and go with the flow) I see no reason why we should not expect a reasonable amount of internal consistency ( the odd plot hole I can live with) and at least a convincing premise and logical consequences that flow from it. The best Bond movies have this, and function as great escapist entertainment because of it and not despite it.
Well, obviously we want these films to be as good as they can be, with linear logic and things lining up and making sense...but they are James Bond films, after all, and at some point in every single film, the immovable object meets the irresistible force, and compromises are made. The worst reviews tend to come from those who don't subscribe to the premise of James Bond's world of heightened reality.
Setting that aside, Eon does have a history of sticking with its talent, particularly if they work cheap. How else to explain John Glen directing five consecutive films?
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
...but the thing, IMO, is this: action films are very much like magic tricks, and one needs to approach them with a willingness to let go of certain things, such as rigid logic or strict adherence to the laws of physics. It happens in every action film. We as filmgoers will decide individually on what we forgive or don't forgive.
I'm all for suspension of disbelief: I'm a fan too, and an action flicks nut, but I don't really think Sp's flaws come from this. As I and others have said before, the main problem seems to come from the forced impression that the attempt to integrate the darkness and grittiness of the Craig era with the classic campiness of the saga leaves.
I'm still trying to find an afternoon for an encore viewing, undoubtedly I will enjoy the film more the second time around.
Long Live James Bond :007) ...and long may his detractors continue to stew in their own juices.
Couldn't agree more! {[]
Now... to the rewriting/editing thread!!
"Enjoy it while it lasts."
"The very words I live by."
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I don't wish to denigrate Bond but I don't watch these films for depth or meaning. I watch them almost like a cosy security blanket. It's the warmth & snugness of largely knowing what to expect. When a CASINO ROYALE or SKYFALL comes along with their leftfield ideas, I don't particularly mind though. It breaks things up a bit & I understand EON may wish to flex their creative muscles. They're still Bond. Do I want these changes of pace all the time? Simple answer: No. I love ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but do I want all Bonds to be like that? Again, no. I actually like that it's followed by DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER with all its campy elements. It's the diversity of a series that offers little twists & turns here & there but retains a nice samey quality throughout. In this instance familiarity most certainly doesn't breed contempt!
I'm a huge fan of cinema in all its forms. I love subtleties, context, analysis of the human condition & narrative confusion where I as a viewer have to do some the work. Bond films are not those films. Neither are INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, LORD OF THE RINGS or any number of superhero films - all of which I also love. They're entertainments - to my mind as valid as serious cinema. I don't particularly want them to cross. If I want a serious expose of espionage I'll watch THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE DEADLY AFFAIR or TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. I don't seek that from Bond or indeed want it. I want the wit & panache of Connery, Moore & co to engulf me for a couple of hours. Daniel Craig simply carries on this tradition with his nonchalant cuff-straightening. Long may it continue.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
-{
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
I don't know whether "lazy" is the right description of EON as film makers. "Complacent" or "creatures of habit" might be more fitting for SPECTRE. First of all, with all its flaws (subjective, objective and otherwise) I think SPECTRE is a pretty darn good Bond film and action film. Writing does seem to be the bugaboo here and when you look at the circumstances it's not surprising. John Logan (Mendes' guy and a critically acclaimed writer) produces a script that either EON, Sony, MGM, or all the above are not happy with. Now script re-writes and script doctoring are common practice in the film industry so on the surface this shouldn't have been much of a problem...and some great critically acclaimed films have had extensive re-writes. So EON brings in Purvis and Wade to "Bond things up"and therein lies the problem.
There are script doctors and there are script doctors. Purvis and Wade are not exactly the second coming of John Milius or Shane Black, they are probably considered "competent hacks" but they are EON's competent hacks so therein lies the "creatures of habit". In fairness to EON's current generation, they appear much more willing to learn from mistakes, even despite financial success (the re-boot w/ DC being a prime example) so maybe for Bond 25 some new blood will be brought in to develope a script...especially if Mendes is no longer directing.
Fair point. Lazy was overstating it.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I don't know whether "lazy" is the right description of EON as film makers. "Complacent" or "creatures of habit" might be more fitting for SPECTRE. First of all, with all its flaws (subjective, objective and otherwise) I think SPECTRE is a pretty darn good Bond film and action film. Writing does seem to be the bugaboo here and when you look at the circumstances it's not surprising. John Logan (Mendes' guy and a critically acclaimed writer) produces a script that either EON, Sony, MGM, or all the above are not happy with. Now script re-writes and script doctoring are common practice in the film industry so on the surface this shouldn't have been much of a problem...and some great critically acclaimed films have had extensive re-writes. So EON brings in Purvis and Wade to "Bond things up"and therein lies the problem.
There are script doctors and there are script doctors. Purvis and Wade are not exactly the second coming of John Milius or Shane Black, they are probably considered "competent hacks" but they are EON's competent hacks so therein lies the "creatures of habit". In fairness to EON's current generation, they appear much more willing to learn from mistakes, even despite financial success (the re-boot w/ DC being a prime example) so maybe for Bond 25 some new blood will be brought in to develope a script...especially if Mendes is no longer directing.
These are very good observations, though I might add that Eon is a fairly conservative operation. They aren't interested much in pushing the envelope, which is why they've over-relied on the formula for years.
What's happened now is at least two-fold: They perceive another generation, having different expectations, as their primary audience, so they've tailored the films to be more like hits for them -- Batman, Bourne, Star Wars (prequels), Harry Potter, and so forth. Essentially, Gen-Xers are making the films for Millennials. If it hadn't been for reboot-, serial- and prequel-mania in other franchises, I doubt we would have gotten Casino Royale or that the films would seem so episodic. In addition, there is more recognition today of the importance of international marketers, including the exporting of western culture to them to make profit.
Second, long-gone are the days of the great screenwriters -- the Dalton Trumbos, the I.A.L. Diamonds, the William Goldmans, the Rod Serlings, and so forth. These were writers who understood how to weave in social messages while also crafting good drama. The important issue is they never let the message get ahead of the entertainment. Today, we basically have one of two choices: The grand, vapid entertainment with a lot of money spent to make it, and the pedantic "issue" film that works too hard to make its point. There's not a lot in between, and when there is, it's usually an adaptation of something else. Purvis and Wade are the former. The writing remains the weakest component of contemporary films, which, to me, succeed based more on currency than on content.
I don't wish to denigrate Bond but I don't watch these films for depth or meaning. I watch them almost like a cosy security blanket. It's the warmth & snugness of largely knowing what to expect. When a CASINO ROYALE or SKYFALL comes along with their leftfield ideas, I don't particularly mind though. It breaks things up a bit & I understand EON may wish to flex their creative muscles. They're still Bond. Do I want these changes of pace all the time? Simple answer: No. I love ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but do I want all Bonds to be like that? Again, no. I actually like that it's followed by DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER with all its campy elements. It's the diversity of a series that offers little twists & turns here & there but retains a nice samey quality throughout. In this instance familiarity most certainly doesn't breed contempt!
I'm a huge fan of cinema in all its forms. I love subtleties, context, analysis of the human condition & narrative confusion where I as a viewer have to do some the work. Bond films are not those films. Neither are INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, LORD OF THE RINGS or any number of superhero films - all of which I also love. They're entertainments - to my mind as valid as serious cinema. I don't particularly want them to cross. If I want a serious expose of espionage I'll watch THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE DEADLY AFFAIR or TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. I don't seek that from Bond or indeed want it. I want the wit & panache of Connery, Moore & co to engulf me for a couple of hours. Daniel Craig simply carries on this tradition with his nonchalant cuff-straightening. Long may it continue.
I think this is a fair point, too. Bond was never intended to be drama. At best, it's melodramatic escapism. The problem, of course, is once past the 1960s, things get very postmodern, and films like Bond start to become too jokey and self-referential. Nods to the audience become too frequent, and what's get lost in many cases is the attempt at plausibility. They play the formula not to its strengths -- which is adventure with a tinge of comedy and suspense, like the Indiana Jone films -- but to its weaknesses -- predictability and silliness, like the Pink Panther films. The Dalton era tried to recover, and marginally so did the Brosnan era, but they, too, couldn't get the aim right. Dalton's films mostly threw out the fun, and Brosnan's were mostly workmanlike. Craig's films are the closest in years we've seen to the glory days of the 1960s.
Second, long-gone are the days of the great screenwriters -- the Dalton Trumbos, the I.A.L. Diamonds, the William Goldmans, the Rod Serlings, and so forth. These were writers who understood how to weave in social messages while also crafting good drama. The important issue is they never let the message get ahead of the entertainment. Today, we basically have one of two choices: The grand, vapid entertainment with a lot of money spent to make it, and the pedantic "issue" film that works too hard to make its point. There's not a lot in between, and when there is, it's usually an adaptation of something else. Purvis and Wade are the former. The writing remains the weakest component of contemporary films, which, to me, succeed based more on currency than on content.
This must be why I prefer older films to recent films. I'll always choose a film or television show from the 1970s or earlier over something from the 1990s or later. The 80s was when things started changing in film, but Bond still had Maibaum.
Comments
Exactly . . . they drastically reworked the script from whatever it was John Logan submitted. It's interesting to note that John Logan significantly reworked Purvis and Wade's original Skyfall script. Purvis and Wade are solely responsible for the atrocity that is Die Another Day, so why EON would have them rework anything is beyond me. I agree they seem to be EON's "default setting," but that needs to change. There's got to be someone better out there.
Money ! Pure and simple...all these movies have made bucketfuls of cash !
That's distressing
(Sorry; I have my mystery novelist hat on)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
They are currently working on a series based on Len Deighton's SSGB - and I'm really looking forward to that -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes. Absolutely. It's all about escape---hence 'escapism.'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not just locations. They underused the whole cast basically. Bautista is dramatically underused, and he's the best henchman in the Craig years. Monica Bellucci also. And the worst, underusing Waltz. We briefly see him at the beginning, then nothing until the end. In SF they used the cast reasonably well. The moment Javier Bardem appears, you can feel his menace for the rest of the film. Not so in SP.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Just a guess, but I think we will see much more of Mr. Hinx in Bond 25 along with Waltz as Blofeld.
And because Waltz underplayed him, there's room to grow B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Have I missed a new rumour?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It doesn't seem we need those stellar American reviews. China's been a massive hit.
Those people want/need an escape... :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hmmm... has anyone seen Purvis & Wade and Mr. Wint & Mr. Kidd in the same place?
I agree with all of your comments. Spectre should have just picked 2 or 3 things, focus on them and completely DOMINATE them (like Skyfall did with Silva and Bond's childhood home) instead of trying to do 6 different things and adding in a bunch of set pieces.
I completely agree. I remember Timothy Dalton in an interview saying something to the effect of: It's good to have a fantasy, but the characters and their motives within that fantasy need to be believable. He was right. It's okay to bend the rules of reality, but once you've decided on a set of principles, stay consistent with them.
I wouldn't call the plots in movies like Live and Let Die extremely well written, but I have an easier time accepting LALD as a comedic fantasy than I do of being told that Spectre is a story of dark secrets and then getting a Dr. Evil story.
I completely agree. Spectre was a good film but it well could have been a very good (or even great) film. EON had so much resources. 50+ years of experience, a household name IP, $250 million budget, a guarantee to profit, creative control and almost any writers/actors/directors they wanted.
There are script doctors and there are script doctors. Purvis and Wade are not exactly the second coming of John Milius or Shane Black, they are probably considered "competent hacks" but they are EON's competent hacks so therein lies the "creatures of habit". In fairness to EON's current generation, they appear much more willing to learn from mistakes, even despite financial success (the re-boot w/ DC being a prime example) so maybe for Bond 25 some new blood will be brought in to develope a script...especially if Mendes is no longer directing.
Actually, that isn't exactly accurate in SPECTRE, as Silva does indeed appear a couple of times.
Well, obviously we want these films to be as good as they can be, with linear logic and things lining up and making sense...but they are James Bond films, after all, and at some point in every single film, the immovable object meets the irresistible force, and compromises are made. The worst reviews tend to come from those who don't subscribe to the premise of James Bond's world of heightened reality.
Setting that aside, Eon does have a history of sticking with its talent, particularly if they work cheap. How else to explain John Glen directing five consecutive films?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm all for suspension of disbelief: I'm a fan too, and an action flicks nut, but I don't really think Sp's flaws come from this. As I and others have said before, the main problem seems to come from the forced impression that the attempt to integrate the darkness and grittiness of the Craig era with the classic campiness of the saga leaves.
I'm still trying to find an afternoon for an encore viewing, undoubtedly I will enjoy the film more the second time around.
Couldn't agree more! {[]
Now... to the rewriting/editing thread!!
"The very words I live by."
I'm a huge fan of cinema in all its forms. I love subtleties, context, analysis of the human condition & narrative confusion where I as a viewer have to do some the work. Bond films are not those films. Neither are INDIANA JONES, STAR WARS, LORD OF THE RINGS or any number of superhero films - all of which I also love. They're entertainments - to my mind as valid as serious cinema. I don't particularly want them to cross. If I want a serious expose of espionage I'll watch THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE DEADLY AFFAIR or TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. I don't seek that from Bond or indeed want it. I want the wit & panache of Connery, Moore & co to engulf me for a couple of hours. Daniel Craig simply carries on this tradition with his nonchalant cuff-straightening. Long may it continue.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Fair point. Lazy was overstating it.
What's happened now is at least two-fold: They perceive another generation, having different expectations, as their primary audience, so they've tailored the films to be more like hits for them -- Batman, Bourne, Star Wars (prequels), Harry Potter, and so forth. Essentially, Gen-Xers are making the films for Millennials. If it hadn't been for reboot-, serial- and prequel-mania in other franchises, I doubt we would have gotten Casino Royale or that the films would seem so episodic. In addition, there is more recognition today of the importance of international marketers, including the exporting of western culture to them to make profit.
Second, long-gone are the days of the great screenwriters -- the Dalton Trumbos, the I.A.L. Diamonds, the William Goldmans, the Rod Serlings, and so forth. These were writers who understood how to weave in social messages while also crafting good drama. The important issue is they never let the message get ahead of the entertainment. Today, we basically have one of two choices: The grand, vapid entertainment with a lot of money spent to make it, and the pedantic "issue" film that works too hard to make its point. There's not a lot in between, and when there is, it's usually an adaptation of something else. Purvis and Wade are the former. The writing remains the weakest component of contemporary films, which, to me, succeed based more on currency than on content.
This must be why I prefer older films to recent films. I'll always choose a film or television show from the 1970s or earlier over something from the 1990s or later. The 80s was when things started changing in film, but Bond still had Maibaum.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS