From what I can see, Craig's problem is not the character but the cumbersome, drawn-out productions. I'm with him on that.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
From what I can see, Craig's problem is not the character but the cumbersome, drawn-out productions. I'm with him on that.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
From what I can see, Craig's problem is not the character but the cumbersome, drawn-out productions. I'm with him on that.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
I agree great point, SF's action is pretty downscaled after the PTS compared to most modern Bond films especially Spectre and that really helped ground the film in my opinion.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
I agree great point, SF's action is pretty downscaled after the PTS compared to most modern Bond films especially Spectre and that really helped ground the film in my opinion.
Whilst Spectre has a lot of action, after the title sequence it has more of the Roger Moore-style action where Bond doesn't have to do any wild stunts. Driving cars and piloting aircraft and boats shouldn't have tired out Daniel Craig so much. It's not like what he was doing in his first two Bond films.
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
I agree great point, SF's action is pretty downscaled after the PTS compared to most modern Bond films especially Spectre and that really helped ground the film in my opinion.
Whilst Spectre has a lot of action, after the title sequence it has more of the Roger Moore-style action where Bond doesn't have to do any wild stunts. Driving cars and piloting aircraft and boats shouldn't have tired out Daniel Craig so much. It's not like what he was doing in his first two Bond films.
That's right. Although, if memory serves, he injured himself during filming of the Mexico sequence, which may have muted the action in Morocco and London.
“It could have happened to me getting out the shower. It’s one of those injuries,” Craig says now with a dismissive wave. “I hit it at the wrong angle and it just went.”
So, um, what exactly was being filmed when the knee gave way? “Dave Bautista was picking me up and throwing me!” Craig exclaims. “So I wasn’t getting out of the shower.”
Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy), a 6-foot-5, 289-pound former professional wrestler, portrays Hinx, a henchman for the shadowy terrorist syndicate SPECTRE who smashes 007 through walls. In the fistfight scene between the two, which takes place onboard a luxury train rolling through Morocco, things got very rough, very fast.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
I agree great point, SF's action is pretty downscaled after the PTS compared to most modern Bond films especially Spectre and that really helped ground the film in my opinion.
Totally agree. Piling on the action set pieces, making them more elaborate and costly is one of the main things that prolong the productions. I realize audiences expect these for the PTS now - it's part of the Bond series blueprint. However, look at the PTS for FRWL and GF. These were all filmed on the back lot of the studio and were much more slimmed down compared to what we get now yet they were still suspenseful and entertaining. Even most of GF was filmed in England which must have kept the budget down and yet it's one of the best in the series. Also, the corporations who supply the financing using the franchise as just another business deal for the attorneys to muck about with all the time doesn't help with the planning schedules either. It's such a pity that EON has to rely on all the SPECTRE like conglomerates to help pay for the series and getting it released as opposed to be able to totally fund it themselves.
That was then...this is now. Unfortunately EON believes it must keep up with those soulless MI films (which wouldn't even exist without James Bond). I would love to see things in the next Bond film tightened back up. Some real suspense, an intense shootout, maybe a car chase with Bond pushing an everyman's car to its limits using his skills and guts.
It doesn't just come down to the action sequences, any more than a nation of 1.3 billion people like China is just there to see explosions. The problem is that the productions themselves are just bloated. There's an army of people working on them, and they're in no hurry to get the product out, drawing steady salaries. Then there are the executives and lawyers at the various studios who constantly have to play games and delay the production. What the Bond films need to do is trim their production staff and become expeditious in the making of the films.
They're the equivalent of a trendy family restaurant that is successful and then bought out by some massive corporation that now has to put its stamp on things. By the time all is said and done, tons of time and money will be spent, but the results are underwhelming.
SF's action sequences are nothing to write home about -- not even equal to those in Casino Royale. The climax amounts to a fight in a big fake house built on a plain for just that purpose, with a dozen people. It's not a volcanic lair with hundreds of extras or even a commando raid on a high-altitude alpine restaurant. Certainly nothing that should have taken years to plan and film. Even with less to do, the production is topheavy and slow and methodical. It's like D.W. Griffith doing Shakespeare in the Park.
It doesn't just come down to the action sequences, any more than a nation of 1.3 billion people like China is just there to see explosions. The problem is that the productions themselves are just bloated. There's an army of people working on them, and they're in no hurry to get the product out, drawing steady salaries. Then there are the executives and lawyers at the various studios who constantly have to play games and delay the production. What the Bond films need to do is trim their production staff and become expeditious in the making of the films.
They're the equivalent of a trendy family restaurant that is successful and then bought out by some massive corporation that now has to put its stamp on things. By the time all is said and done, tons of time and money will be spent, but the results are underwhelming.
SF's action sequences are nothing to write home about -- not even equal to those in Casino Royale. The climax amounts to a fight in a big fake house built on a plain for just that purpose, with a dozen people. It's not a volcanic lair with hundreds of extras or even a commando raid on a high-altitude alpine restaurant. Certainly nothing that should have taken years to plan and film. Even with less to do, the production is topheavy and slow and methodical. It's like D.W. Griffith doing Shakespeare in the Park.
Could not agree more. It's weird as they are both bloated and a 'mom and pop' outfit. The crazy production schedule means something poor choices and rushed decisions are inevitable in the dash to the release date.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Maybe Eon and MGM should hire Clint Eastwood to direct Bond 25. He's an excellent director and has a reputation for getting films done on time, on or under budget, and actors love him even with his generally limiting them to no more than 3 takes. -{
It doesn't just come down to the action sequences, any more than a nation of 1.3 billion people like China is just there to see explosions. The problem is that the productions themselves are just bloated. There's an army of people working on them, and they're in no hurry to get the product out, drawing steady salaries. Then there are the executives and lawyers at the various studios who constantly have to play games and delay the production. What the Bond films need to do is trim their production staff and become expeditious in the making of the films.
They're the equivalent of a trendy family restaurant that is successful and then bought out by some massive corporation that now has to put its stamp on things. By the time all is said and done, tons of time and money will be spent, but the results are underwhelming.
SF's action sequences are nothing to write home about -- not even equal to those in Casino Royale. The climax amounts to a fight in a big fake house built on a plain for just that purpose, with a dozen people. It's not a volcanic lair with hundreds of extras or even a commando raid on a high-altitude alpine restaurant. Certainly nothing that should have taken years to plan and film. Even with less to do, the production is topheavy and slow and methodical. It's like D.W. Griffith doing Shakespeare in the Park.
Could not agree more. It's weird as they are both bloated and a 'mom and pop' outfit. The crazy production schedule means something poor choices and rushed decisions are inevitable in the dash to the release date.
What's stunning is how much time and money they spend to produce a relatively simplistic product. I mean, Dr. No has more scope than anything produced in the past 20 years, and they did it comparatively on a shoestring. If they were responsible for trying to re-create the 60s films, it would take them four or five years at the pace they go. I mean, how long did it take them to film the visually complex and stunning sequence of a boat chasing a helicopter in Spectre? But like I said, no one's in a hurry. They're drawing good salaries, eating catered food, having meeting and meeting after meeting, and so forth. The writers can write and rewrite and still turn out a thin script. With the proper talent, and with hard deadlines, they could turn out a better product. After all, TV does this all the time. A series like Breaking Bad, for instance, managed to be thoughtful and engaging.
Maybe Eon and MGM should hire Clint Eastwood to direct Bond 25. He's an excellent director and has a reputation for getting films done on time, on or under budget, and actors love him even with his generally limiting them to no more than 3 takes. -{
Oddly enough, Eastwood's conservative politics might actually give him some insight to the character. But I don't think he would be interested.
Maybe Eon and MGM should hire Clint Eastwood to direct Bond 25. He's an excellent director and has a reputation for getting films done on time, on or under budget, and actors love him even with his generally limiting them to no more than 3 takes. -{
Oddly enough, Eastwood's conservative politics might actually give him some insight to the character. But I don't think he would be interested.
I don't think he would be interested either. I was just looking at it from the point of budget and efficiency.
I will say we can be a fickle bunch on AJB. As I recall some folks were in a bit of a tizzy during the filming of Skyfall over the use of fake locations and studio sets to keep the budget in check. Now we want them to go back to that after SPECTRE.
It's not impossible or very hard at all for a film to use a proper mix of sets and real locations to look both genuine and not to spend an excessive amount of money. Old Bond films did it rather well.
Maybe Eon and MGM should hire Clint Eastwood to direct Bond 25. He's an excellent director and has a reputation for getting films done on time, on or under budget, and actors love him even with his generally limiting them to no more than 3 takes. -{
Oddly enough, Eastwood's conservative politics might actually give him some insight to the character. But I don't think he would be interested.
I'm a huge Eastwood fan, but never thought of him directing a Bond. I'd be curious as to what kind of music he'd have in a Bond film. I picture a jazzy minimal score.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Eastwood is the John Huston of his generation. He would make a splendid Bond film...but as he only does Malpaso projects... :v
Back on topic, the lack of fresh rumours in the last couple of days is in itself a new development )
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
Eastwood is the John Huston of his generation. He would make a splendid Bond film...but as he only does Malpaso projects... :v
Back on topic, the lack of fresh rumours in the last couple of days is in itself a new development )
I always thought of Eastwood as being the Howard Hawks of his generation. Good in lots of different kinds of genres. and his core principle is competence as with Hawks.
Huston's films were about failure, which is far from the Hawks/Eastwood ethos as you can get.
Eastwood is the John Huston of his generation. He would make a splendid Bond film...but as he only does Malpaso projects... :v
Back on topic, the lack of fresh rumours in the last couple of days is in itself a new development )
Ironically, one of my favorite Eastwood films is White Hunter Black Heart in which he basically plays a role based upon John Huston.
Another interesting aspect of the film is that Eastwood appears to convey an anti-hunting, anti-violence message which goes against his right wing image. The reality is that Eastwood is more complicated and nuanced in his actual beliefs. Yes, he generally veers to the right and is a Republican, but much more centrist and typically not a supporter of the far right. Whoo!!! Are things this slow on the Bond 25 front that I keep talking about Clint Eastwood? -{
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Eastwood is the John Huston of his generation. He would make a splendid Bond film...but as he only does Malpaso projects... :v
Back on topic, the lack of fresh rumours in the last couple of days is in itself a new development )
I always thought of Eastwood as being the Howard Hawks of his generation. Good in lots of different kinds of genres. and his core principle is competence as with Hawks.
Huston's films were about failure, which is far from the Hawks/Eastwood ethos as you can get.
That's fair, and an interesting point {[] I was speaking more in general terms about overall quality and craftsmanship, rather than theme...but Hawks is a great comparison there as well -{
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
My dog Paddington scrubs up well in a tux and would do the role for bones
Paddington is a Dude! Is there Lhasa in there? Probably should pm if we are going to get all doggie. I can see my Emma (Lhasa westie) as a Bond girl. Perhaps I need therapy. I'll get my coat. ?:)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
My dog Paddington scrubs up well in a tux and would do the role for bones
Paddington is a Dude! Is there Lhasa in there? Probably should pm if we are going to get all doggie. I can see my Emma (Lhasa westie) as a Bond girl. Perhaps I need therapy. I'll get my coat. ?:)
Sorry to potentially hijack the thread . It's a subject I am passionately interested in I dread the thought of it being confirmed that Craig is leaving. This my way of dealing with it.
To confess I grew up with Moore have never seen Brosnan or Dalton but continuously rotate Craig's 4.
Quick response so don't bore everyone else Paddy a shih tzu poodle cross and our Bond girl is our 1yr old cavoodle Winnie. Must pm cheers
My dog Paddington scrubs up well in a tux and would do the role for bones
Paddington is a Dude! Is there Lhasa in there? Probably should pm if we are going to get all doggie. I can see my Emma (Lhasa westie) as a Bond girl. Perhaps I need therapy. I'll get my coat. ?:)
Sorry to potentially hijack the thread . It's a subject I am passionately interested in I dread the thought of it being confirmed that Craig is leaving. This my way of dealing with it.
To confess I grew up with Moore have never seen Brosnan or Dalton but continuously rotate Craig's 4.
Quick response so don't bore everyone else Paddy a shih tzu poodle cross and our Bond girl is our 1yr old cavoodle Winnie. Must pm cheers
Pm sounds good. Back on topic you could always give Brozzer and Tim a go, and why not throw Lazenby into the mix as well as Sean. Each has their advocates here. Brosnan is probably my leat favourite of those you mentioned, but that does not mean he is bad, not by a long shot, his Bond has much to commend it, just not my personal fave. Actors move on, but Bond remains . Personally I think it a shame that Dalton did not do a third, and that Lazenby only did one. These potential Bonds keep us all discussing and debating the what ifs...until the next actor or the next movie which diverts us for a while.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
The big explosions and outrageous set pieces sure helps the films to do well in China. I would love for the films to go back to being character-driven thrillers, and that would certainly help for Craig to come back. But that's really what SF was for the most part, and we know it was a huge success. The only big set piece is really the PTS. If they scaled that back, how much would the film have suffered? Not at all for me.
That's a great point.
Whilst Spectre has a lot of action, after the title sequence it has more of the Roger Moore-style action where Bond doesn't have to do any wild stunts. Driving cars and piloting aircraft and boats shouldn't have tired out Daniel Craig so much. It's not like what he was doing in his first two Bond films.
That's right. Although, if memory serves, he injured himself during filming of the Mexico sequence, which may have muted the action in Morocco and London.
Running scenes ?
So, um, what exactly was being filmed when the knee gave way? “Dave Bautista was picking me up and throwing me!” Craig exclaims. “So I wasn’t getting out of the shower.”
Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy), a 6-foot-5, 289-pound former professional wrestler, portrays Hinx, a henchman for the shadowy terrorist syndicate SPECTRE who smashes 007 through walls. In the fistfight scene between the two, which takes place onboard a luxury train rolling through Morocco, things got very rough, very fast.
There's a time and a place for horseplay !
Totally agree. Piling on the action set pieces, making them more elaborate and costly is one of the main things that prolong the productions. I realize audiences expect these for the PTS now - it's part of the Bond series blueprint. However, look at the PTS for FRWL and GF. These were all filmed on the back lot of the studio and were much more slimmed down compared to what we get now yet they were still suspenseful and entertaining. Even most of GF was filmed in England which must have kept the budget down and yet it's one of the best in the series. Also, the corporations who supply the financing using the franchise as just another business deal for the attorneys to muck about with all the time doesn't help with the planning schedules either. It's such a pity that EON has to rely on all the SPECTRE like conglomerates to help pay for the series and getting it released as opposed to be able to totally fund it themselves.
They're the equivalent of a trendy family restaurant that is successful and then bought out by some massive corporation that now has to put its stamp on things. By the time all is said and done, tons of time and money will be spent, but the results are underwhelming.
SF's action sequences are nothing to write home about -- not even equal to those in Casino Royale. The climax amounts to a fight in a big fake house built on a plain for just that purpose, with a dozen people. It's not a volcanic lair with hundreds of extras or even a commando raid on a high-altitude alpine restaurant. Certainly nothing that should have taken years to plan and film. Even with less to do, the production is topheavy and slow and methodical. It's like D.W. Griffith doing Shakespeare in the Park.
Could not agree more. It's weird as they are both bloated and a 'mom and pop' outfit. The crazy production schedule means something poor choices and rushed decisions are inevitable in the dash to the release date.
I don't think he would be interested either. I was just looking at it from the point of budget and efficiency.
I will say we can be a fickle bunch on AJB. As I recall some folks were in a bit of a tizzy during the filming of Skyfall over the use of fake locations and studio sets to keep the budget in check. Now we want them to go back to that after SPECTRE.
I'm a huge Eastwood fan, but never thought of him directing a Bond. I'd be curious as to what kind of music he'd have in a Bond film. I picture a jazzy minimal score.
Back on topic, the lack of fresh rumours in the last couple of days is in itself a new development
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I always thought of Eastwood as being the Howard Hawks of his generation. Good in lots of different kinds of genres. and his core principle is competence as with Hawks.
Huston's films were about failure, which is far from the Hawks/Eastwood ethos as you can get.
Ironically, one of my favorite Eastwood films is White Hunter Black Heart in which he basically plays a role based upon John Huston.
Another interesting aspect of the film is that Eastwood appears to convey an anti-hunting, anti-violence message which goes against his right wing image. The reality is that Eastwood is more complicated and nuanced in his actual beliefs. Yes, he generally veers to the right and is a Republican, but much more centrist and typically not a supporter of the far right. Whoo!!! Are things this slow on the Bond 25 front that I keep talking about Clint Eastwood?
That's fair, and an interesting point {[] I was speaking more in general terms about overall quality and craftsmanship, rather than theme...but Hawks is a great comparison there as well -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My dog Paddington scrubs up well in a tux and would do the role for bones
Paddington is a Dude! Is there Lhasa in there? Probably should pm if we are going to get all doggie. I can see my Emma (Lhasa westie) as a Bond girl. Perhaps I need therapy. I'll get my coat. ?:)
To confess I grew up with Moore have never seen Brosnan or Dalton but continuously rotate Craig's 4.
Quick response so don't bore everyone else Paddy a shih tzu poodle cross and our Bond girl is our 1yr old cavoodle Winnie. Must pm cheers
Pm sounds good. Back on topic you could always give Brozzer and Tim a go, and why not throw Lazenby into the mix as well as Sean. Each has their advocates here. Brosnan is probably my leat favourite of those you mentioned, but that does not mean he is bad, not by a long shot, his Bond has much to commend it, just not my personal fave. Actors move on, but Bond remains . Personally I think it a shame that Dalton did not do a third, and that Lazenby only did one. These potential Bonds keep us all discussing and debating the what ifs...until the next actor or the next movie which diverts us for a while.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby