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.
EON keeps creating the big stunt scenes in order to compete with the other big action franchises and it's a shame. Bond is the oldest one and one of the most successful and is unique in the history of cinema. This is what happens when you have this amount of money invested - the investors want to turn a big profit and if they feel the big explosions and stunts are what will produce that then they are not going away. It's why by the time TB came into production they just went all out with it and never looked back. Larger sets, stunts, explosions - more profits. Hang the script - just set the bar low enough to tie the stunts together. EON did it's best from time to time to maintain a certain level of quality with the scripts, but they were still anchored by the big bangs. For example..look at CR's PTS. One vicious fighting scene and the intimate assassination scene and that's that - and it was great and creative. Then look at the highly technical production behind the large construction site chase scene. It must have taken an enormous amount of time and money to get that in the can and yes, it was creative and thrilling, but necessary? They could have easily have just started with Craig formally entering the embassy where the bomber had already entered for some reason - or shown him sneak in somehow - THEN grabbed he bomber and finish with the explosion/escape. It would have still been thrilling and EON could have knocked off a huge chuck of money from having to do the crane scene.
I really do believe the series could cut down on the expensive stunts and still manage to have smaller, less expensive and less numerous ones if they put enough creativity in the scripts. The problem, again, is convincing the big pocket investors that they could do this and still make the same type of profits. As long as they are influencing how the films are made, I doubt if we will ever get to see this happen.
I think most of us here would be happy with that type of Bond film - if well done - and critics would probably also love it. But is EON correct that the majority of its audience expects/demands the big action pieces from Bond? They might be. And there's a lot of money involved, so EON's hesitance to roll the dice on that makes sense to me from a business perspective. I want them to change course for my own enjoyment, but I also live in a country that might elect a vulgar cartoon character as president, so I have to acknowledge that some people are, ahem, less refined. :007)
Don't like to discuss politics...but "vulgar cartoon character" is not harsh enough. Anyway back to Bond. With respect to big action set pieces, I'm all for less is more. Personally I think the crane sequence leading up to the explosion and escape in CR might be a bad example just because it's so good and it establishes alot about the character of Bond as interpreted in the re-boot and where Bond is in his approach as a neophyte "OO" as the personification of a "blunt instrument". I think where things start going a bit out of wack is when things are a bit forced and generic and included at the exclusion of more well written and executed scenes of suspense such as the aforementioned pre-title sequence in CR. I think a balance can be struck and there are writers and directors out there who can get it done. EON just needs to regroup a bit, focus and get it done just as they did with the reboot.
I have to agree with HowardB. For me, the 'crane sequence' is a great example of what I want to see in a Bond film - it added to the character and the drama (and I think many of us here enjoy big action sequences). By contrast, I didn't enjoy the Skyfleet sequence so much - it felt show-horned into the plot.
I am quite convinced large action sequences can be done far more economicaly. Do we need the huge building explosions? Other films do these on a massive scale using cgi, the Blofeld lair explosion might have been well done and actually filmed but for me it was underwhelming. thing is marvel and DC do the huge destruction thing, mission impossible is now doing thrilling action scenes very simply eg the hanging on to plane sequence, the running down skyscraper etc, I like CR 's action sequences and I love the hotel de Las lunas sequence but when I think of my favourite DC scenes it's the Opera scene, the hinx fight, the Austria Mr white scene many more but sadly not the Rome car chase, (qos's was better) or any other huge sequence that cost 25million.
I am quite convinced large action sequences can be done far more economicaly. Do we need the huge building explosions? Other films do these on a massive scale using cgi, the Blofeld lair explosion might have been well done and actually filmed but for me it was underwhelming. thing is marvel and DC do the huge destruction thing, mission impossible is now doing thrilling action scenes very simply eg the hanging on to plane sequence, the running down skyscraper etc, I like CR 's action sequences and I love the hotel de Las lunas sequence but when I think of my favourite DC scenes it's the Opera scene, the hinx fight, the Austria Mr white scene many more but sadly not the Rome car chase, (qos's was better) or any other huge sequence that cost 25million.
The explosion of Blofeld's lair could have been a lot better. But it was horribly shot and too brief. Like in DN and TMWTGG, it should have been at the very end of the film to finish everything off. The biggest problem with the explosion is that it didn't have any meaning in the film.
I am quite convinced large action sequences can be done far more economicaly. Do we need the huge building explosions? Other films do these on a massive scale using cgi, the Blofeld lair explosion might have been well done and actually filmed but for me it was underwhelming. thing is marvel and DC do the huge destruction thing, mission impossible is now doing thrilling action scenes very simply eg the hanging on to plane sequence, the running down skyscraper etc, I like CR 's action sequences and I love the hotel de Las lunas sequence but when I think of my favourite DC scenes it's the Opera scene, the hinx fight, the Austria Mr white scene many more but sadly not the Rome car chase, (qos's was better) or any other huge sequence that cost 25million.
The explosion of Blofeld's lair could have been a lot better. But it was horribly shot and too brief. Like in DN and TMWTGG, it should have been at the very end of the film to finish everything off. The biggest problem with the explosion is that it didn't have any meaning in the film.
I choose to believe that Bond died from Blofeld's drill and everything after that is some sort of a dream of a dying man, so it doesn't have to make any sense.
This is the only logical explanation for the last 25% of Spectre.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain the inexplicably horrible idea to make Blofeld and Bond brothers because that comes before the bit with the drill, but it's the best I can do.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain the inexplicably horrible idea to make Blofeld and Bond brothers because that comes before the bit with the drill, but it's the best I can do.
Well, they really weren't brothers. Blofeld's father became Bond's guardian after his parents died. And yes, it was a bad idea for one very simple reason: EON, et al should have known better than to touch anything that even remotely smelled of Austin Powers; that put them in a no win situation from jump no matter how well they handled that story line.
On a superficially technical level that crane sequence is fantastic, but the fact it adds (or reduces) to Bond's character as a less refined, rookie agent only contributes to the reason why I don't enjoy CR as much as everyone else does.
It's interesting that we're discussing the stunts and explosions as a means of generating revenue. QOS is probably the most action packed of Bond films, and yet it didn't generate as much revenue as it's predecessor. Further, Skyfall's action sequences are quite fleeting comparatively, and it's become the highest grossing Bond film yet. I read an article that I believe Michael G Wilson participated in, and he mentioned the process of writing a Bond film starts with the hope to create another From Russia With Love, but it eventually turns into a Thunderball. While both of those films are excellent in my opinion (#2 and #4 respectively), Thunderball also has fleeting action sequences, but is held together by a tight script. If the producers want to generate high returns, they need think about the script. and not resort to action. After all, before Skyfall, Thunderball - when adjusted to inflation - was the highest grossing Bond film for decades.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Unfortunately it doesn't explain the inexplicably horrible idea to make Blofeld and Bond brothers because that comes before the bit with the drill, but it's the best I can do.
Well, they really weren't brothers. Blofeld's father became Bond's guardian after his parents died. And yes, it was a bad idea for one very simple reason: EON, et al should have known better than to touch anything that even remotely smelled of Austin Powers; that put them in a no win situation from jump no matter how well they handled that story line.
It was a horrible idea for several reasons. First, it means that Blofeld's big ambition in life has been to get revenge on the little boy who took daddy from him. That's just pathetic and Blofeld shouldn't be pathetic! Second, it moves the dramatic core of the movie from a character we care about (Bond) to a character we don't care about (Blofeld). Third, it led to the idea of all Craig's Bond movies being related to Blofeld's quest for revenge, which was also an enormously stupid idea.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain the inexplicably horrible idea to make Blofeld and Bond brothers because that comes before the bit with the drill, but it's the best I can do.
Well, they really weren't brothers. Blofeld's father became Bond's guardian after his parents died. And yes, it was a bad idea for one very simple reason: EON, et al should have known better than to touch anything that even remotely smelled of Austin Powers; that put them in a no win situation from jump no matter how well they handled that story line.
It was a horrible idea for several reasons. First, it means that Blofeld's big ambition in life has been to get revenge on the little boy who took daddy from him. That's just pathetic and Blofeld shouldn't be pathetic! Second, it moves the dramatic core of the movie from a character we care about (Bond) to a character we don't care about (Blofeld). Third, it led to the idea of all Craig's Bond movies being related to Blofeld's quest for revenge, which was also an enormously stupid idea.
Yep! Also to add to your first point - Blofeld is supposed to be the biggest threat to the world. That's the reason Bond pursues him. It should not be that Blofeld creates global terrorism in order to get back at Bond. If I were M I'd feed Bond to Blofeld so that he can get his revenge and hopefully put a stop to him killing others.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Speaking to BBC radio to celebrate the 80th birthday of Pinewood Studios, the spy's legendary production home, Callum McDougall, who has worked on every Bond since Die Another Day, said Craig was "absolutely the first choice" for chief producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson.
"I know they're hoping for him to come back," he added, although he admitted he had no idea who would eventually be named.
...it moves the dramatic core of the movie from a character we care about (Bond) to a character we don't care about (Blofeld)....
that shouldn't be an problem in and of itself, the villain is always more interesting than Bond, the villain should be this weird fascinating grotesque with a wellwritten if fantastic backstory to explain why he exists. Bond himself was always, prior to Craig, a blank slate, a vaguely defined point of view through which the audience experiences this weird world in which such grotesques can exist.
Fleming always included elaborate backstories explaining where his villains came from and what their motivations were, usually a full chapter of each book would be just for the villains backstory. There actually is a full chapter on the real Blofeld's secret origin in Thunderball that these Brocolli kids just ignored.
in the case of this new Blofeld they just handled that really really bad, basically making his backstory the most predictable overused movie series cliché since I first saw it in Empire Strikes Back ... that's why Austin Powers did it in the first place, not because Mike Myers was trying to be original, but because the third Austin Powers film itself was consciously repeating the exact same jokes from earlier films and making meta-commentary about the expectations of a popular film series that had sold out to its own success
I take the whole author of your pain gambit as Blofeld trying to mess with Bond's mind. The whole idea of that is ridiculous unless Blofeld can control the future. Vesper committed suicide! And m was hit by a stray bullet. And did le chiffre act on Blofeld's orders and lose the game of poker so he could leather bonds balls?
...it moves the dramatic core of the movie from a character we care about (Bond) to a character we don't care about (Blofeld)....
that shouldn't be an problem in and of itself, the villain is always more interesting than Bond, the villain should be this weird fascinating grotesque with a wellwritten if fantastic backstory to explain why he exists. Bond himself was always, prior to Craig, a blank slate, a vaguely defined point of view through which the audience experiences this weird world in which such grotesques can exist.
Fleming always included elaborate backstories explaining where his villains came from and what their motivations were, usually a full chapter of each book would be just for the villains backstory. There actually is a full chapter on the real Blofeld's secret origin in Thunderball that these Brocolli kids just ignored.
in the case of this new Blofeld they just handled that really really bad, basically making his backstory the most predictable overused movie series cliché since I first saw it in Empire Strikes Back ... that's why Austin Powers did it in the first place, not because Mike Myers was trying to be original, but because the third Austin Powers film itself was consciously repeating the exact same jokes from earlier films and making meta-commentary about the expectations of a popular film series that had sold out to its own success
Yes, of course, we're always personally invested in the challenges faced by the villain. That's why we hope that Red Grant will get the Lektor and that Goldfinger will knock over Fort Knox and that Blofeld will set off WWIII.
That poor Dr. No! He tries to kill Bond so many times and each time he fails and each time we feel his disappointment!!
On a superficially technical level that crane sequence is fantastic, but the fact it adds (or reduces) to Bond's character as a less refined, rookie agent only contributes to the reason why I don't enjoy CR as much as everyone else does.
It's interesting that we're discussing the stunts and explosions as a means of generating revenue. QOS is probably the most action packed of Bond films, and yet it didn't generate as much revenue as it's predecessor. Further, Skyfall's action sequences are quite fleeting comparatively, and it's become the highest grossing Bond film yet. I read an article that I believe Michael G Wilson participated in, and he mentioned the process of writing a Bond film starts with the hope to create another From Russia With Love, but it eventually turns into a Thunderball. While both of those films are excellent in my opinion (#2 and #4 respectively), Thunderball also has fleeting action sequences, but is held together by a tight script. If the producers want to generate high returns, they need think about the script. and not resort to action. After all, before Skyfall, Thunderball - when adjusted to inflation - was the highest grossing Bond film for decades.
I'm not sure I understand your definition of "fleeting". Yes, QOS did generate less revenue, but IMO it had to do with the script outside the stunts and also the editing (most I discussed it with didn't enjoy the quick cutting). There's no guarantee the stunts will bring in the audiences - just saying it's what the investors always bank on because it usually works. I don't consider the action sequences like the SF PTS or the storming and destruction of Bond's home fleeting by any means. Those were obviously lengthy and costly shoots - as were scenes in TB, such as the battle in the third act. Anything shot on the water usually drives up costs (just ask Spielberg). However, I agree with you on the last part - more thought on the script and creative action instead of more numerous and larger action scenes.
Apparently my first choice Tom Hughes has caught Babs eye, hope this is true as IMO he would make a brilliant Bond and at only 30 maybe get 7 movies out of him!!
With regards to the best replacement for DC if it comes to that: I watched the Hank Williams bio "I Saw the Light" the other night. I must say, even a rail thin Tom Hiddleston (he lost 20lbs for the role) and speaking in a very convincing Alabama drawl exuded the charm, wit, screen presense and intensity to make a potentially excellent Bond. My first choice remains for Craig to return, and I like Aidan Turner very much also but I think Hiddleston just may have the "it" factor to pull it off.
With regards to the best replacement for DC if it comes to that: I watched the Hank Williams bio "I Saw the Light" the other night. I must say, even a rail thin Tom Hiddleston (he lost 20lbs for the role) and speaking in a very convincing Alabama drawl exuded the charm, wit, screen presense and intensity to make a potentially excellent Bond. My first choice remains for Craig to return, and I like Aidan Turner very much also but I think Hiddleston just may have the "it" factor to pull it off.
Hiddleston does nothing for me from what I have seen so far. Would not completely judge him until I have seen the film though, but I would far prefer Aidan Turner although I want Craig to come back for at least one more.
I'd be good with Aidan Turner also. He reminds me of Timothy Dalton, albeit a more rugged, shorter more muscular version. Hiddleston and Turner are definately the top of the "real candidates" list for me. If it was up to me and Craig wasn't coming back, Michael Fassbender would be the next Bond.
I'd probably be okay with Fassbender, Tom Hardy, Hiddleston or Turner in that order. One thing I'd hope about casting a new Bond would be the motivation to get 3 films out at a more reliable pace. I'd love to go back to 2 years- or at least a reliable three. These days it's so up in the air, it could be 2022 by the time another film comes out.
I'd probably be okay with Fassbender, Tom Hardy, Hiddleston or Turner in that order. One thing I'd hope about casting a new Bond would be the motivation to get 3 films out at a more reliable pace. I'd love to go back to 2 years- or at least a reliable three. These days it's so up in the air, it could be 2022 by the time another film comes out.
I don't think we will ever see Bond films every two years again. The productions are just too big. I think EON Has settled into every three years because of this. I'd prefer every two years. Because of the typical three year gap it really reduces the number of films for a Bond actor.
Comments
EON keeps creating the big stunt scenes in order to compete with the other big action franchises and it's a shame. Bond is the oldest one and one of the most successful and is unique in the history of cinema. This is what happens when you have this amount of money invested - the investors want to turn a big profit and if they feel the big explosions and stunts are what will produce that then they are not going away. It's why by the time TB came into production they just went all out with it and never looked back. Larger sets, stunts, explosions - more profits. Hang the script - just set the bar low enough to tie the stunts together. EON did it's best from time to time to maintain a certain level of quality with the scripts, but they were still anchored by the big bangs. For example..look at CR's PTS. One vicious fighting scene and the intimate assassination scene and that's that - and it was great and creative. Then look at the highly technical production behind the large construction site chase scene. It must have taken an enormous amount of time and money to get that in the can and yes, it was creative and thrilling, but necessary? They could have easily have just started with Craig formally entering the embassy where the bomber had already entered for some reason - or shown him sneak in somehow - THEN grabbed he bomber and finish with the explosion/escape. It would have still been thrilling and EON could have knocked off a huge chuck of money from having to do the crane scene.
I really do believe the series could cut down on the expensive stunts and still manage to have smaller, less expensive and less numerous ones if they put enough creativity in the scripts. The problem, again, is convincing the big pocket investors that they could do this and still make the same type of profits. As long as they are influencing how the films are made, I doubt if we will ever get to see this happen.
The explosion of Blofeld's lair could have been a lot better. But it was horribly shot and too brief. Like in DN and TMWTGG, it should have been at the very end of the film to finish everything off. The biggest problem with the explosion is that it didn't have any meaning in the film.
I choose to believe that Bond died from Blofeld's drill and everything after that is some sort of a dream of a dying man, so it doesn't have to make any sense.
This is the only logical explanation for the last 25% of Spectre.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain the inexplicably horrible idea to make Blofeld and Bond brothers because that comes before the bit with the drill, but it's the best I can do.
Well, they really weren't brothers. Blofeld's father became Bond's guardian after his parents died. And yes, it was a bad idea for one very simple reason: EON, et al should have known better than to touch anything that even remotely smelled of Austin Powers; that put them in a no win situation from jump no matter how well they handled that story line.
It's interesting that we're discussing the stunts and explosions as a means of generating revenue. QOS is probably the most action packed of Bond films, and yet it didn't generate as much revenue as it's predecessor. Further, Skyfall's action sequences are quite fleeting comparatively, and it's become the highest grossing Bond film yet. I read an article that I believe Michael G Wilson participated in, and he mentioned the process of writing a Bond film starts with the hope to create another From Russia With Love, but it eventually turns into a Thunderball. While both of those films are excellent in my opinion (#2 and #4 respectively), Thunderball also has fleeting action sequences, but is held together by a tight script. If the producers want to generate high returns, they need think about the script. and not resort to action. After all, before Skyfall, Thunderball - when adjusted to inflation - was the highest grossing Bond film for decades.
Yep! Also to add to your first point - Blofeld is supposed to be the biggest threat to the world. That's the reason Bond pursues him. It should not be that Blofeld creates global terrorism in order to get back at Bond. If I were M I'd feed Bond to Blofeld so that he can get his revenge and hopefully put a stop to him killing others.
Speaking to BBC radio to celebrate the 80th birthday of Pinewood Studios, the spy's legendary production home, Callum McDougall, who has worked on every Bond since Die Another Day, said Craig was "absolutely the first choice" for chief producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson.
"I know they're hoping for him to come back," he added, although he admitted he had no idea who would eventually be named.
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
Fleming always included elaborate backstories explaining where his villains came from and what their motivations were, usually a full chapter of each book would be just for the villains backstory. There actually is a full chapter on the real Blofeld's secret origin in Thunderball that these Brocolli kids just ignored.
in the case of this new Blofeld they just handled that really really bad, basically making his backstory the most predictable overused movie series cliché since I first saw it in Empire Strikes Back ... that's why Austin Powers did it in the first place, not because Mike Myers was trying to be original, but because the third Austin Powers film itself was consciously repeating the exact same jokes from earlier films and making meta-commentary about the expectations of a popular film series that had sold out to its own success
Yes, of course, we're always personally invested in the challenges faced by the villain. That's why we hope that Red Grant will get the Lektor and that Goldfinger will knock over Fort Knox and that Blofeld will set off WWIII.
That poor Dr. No! He tries to kill Bond so many times and each time he fails and each time we feel his disappointment!!
I'm not sure I understand your definition of "fleeting". Yes, QOS did generate less revenue, but IMO it had to do with the script outside the stunts and also the editing (most I discussed it with didn't enjoy the quick cutting). There's no guarantee the stunts will bring in the audiences - just saying it's what the investors always bank on because it usually works. I don't consider the action sequences like the SF PTS or the storming and destruction of Bond's home fleeting by any means. Those were obviously lengthy and costly shoots - as were scenes in TB, such as the battle in the third act. Anything shot on the water usually drives up costs (just ask Spielberg). However, I agree with you on the last part - more thought on the script and creative action instead of more numerous and larger action scenes.
James bondage maybe?
have much better stuff than that !
Tom does seem to have fallen out of favour with the press ! Will this affect his chances ?
Or has the deal already been done long ago ?
He was offered the role and accepted it...nothing in this life is ever 100% guaranteed, especially Bond - just ask Brosnan
Hiddleston does nothing for me from what I have seen so far. Would not completely judge him until I have seen the film though, but I would far prefer Aidan Turner although I want Craig to come back for at least one more.
I don't think we will ever see Bond films every two years again. The productions are just too big. I think EON Has settled into every three years because of this. I'd prefer every two years. Because of the typical three year gap it really reduces the number of films for a Bond actor.