Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
Sometimes it's better not to have too much time to over analyze and second guess.
It would not surprise me if Bond 25 is a bit more streamlined a production than SPECTRE.
A well written script will hopefully result in a less "meandering" film than SPECTRE. I am also hoping that Hodges and Boyle
play to Craig's strengths as Bond rather than trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. The humor needs to be dark and judging by Trainspotting and A Shallow Grave, Boyle and Hodge are very adept at that.
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
I think Bond 25 having a smaller budget with a less bloated runtime and a leaner plot is something a lot of us have been saying we would like for a few years now. I would also like to add less unnecessary CGI. The more CGI a film uses, even if its trying to be subtle, the more artificial the film looks and feels. I expect that sort of artificiality in a Marvel film but Bond should be as real as possible.
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
There is one long missing irreplaceable factor that would explain why those first four movies came out on an annual basis and featured tighter plots and better dialog.
But still, four years between films and they still end up making it up as the cameras are already rolling? That's just dysfunctional.
I say get rid of all the committees and corporate interventionists, pick one writer (lets say its Boyle's friend), send him to Jamaica for a month with a gold-plated typewriter, plenty of beverages and some bored married women up the road to dally with, and that is how you write a tightly plotted good dialog James Bond story in one month!
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
There is one long missing irreplaceable factor that would explain why those first four movies came out on an annual basis and featured tighter plots and better dialog.
But still, four years between films and they still end up making it up as the cameras are already rolling? That's just dysfunctional.
I say get rid of all the committees and corporate interventionists, pick one writer (lets say its Boyle's friend), send him to Jamaica for a month with a gold-plated typewriter, plenty of beverages and some bored married women up the road to dally with, and that is how you write a tightly plotted good dialog James Bond story in one month!
It does appear that Hodges and Boyle came up with a concept and framework for a script on their own and approached EON, which breaks the pattern of EON going to Purvis and Wade, etc and commissioning them to write a script. I don't know how accurate that is, but it appears that way. Certainly Boyle has a close connection to EON with the Olympic Bond short and I would venture to guess it is not a stretch to believe Boyle has been on EON's shortlist of directors for some time.
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
There is one long missing irreplaceable factor that would explain why those first four movies came out on an annual basis and featured tighter plots and better dialog.
I agree that Fleming is the missing ingredient. But his guiding principle is the one that has been lost: Bond is an uninteresting man to whom interesting things happen. While the swagger invented by Connery was a necessary and welcome addition to the cinematic Bond, the error of the past few films has been the obsessive need to make Bond’s character, rather than his actions, compelling. Shedding Purvis and Wade might go a long way to correcting this misdirection.
Let’s not forget that the earliest Bond films came out yearly, and featured tighter plots and better dialogue than the series has consistently seen in a long time. Modern productions of Bond and other films tend to be bloated and overlong. Spectre certainly didn’t benefit from its long, expensive production.
There is one long missing irreplaceable factor that would explain why those first four movies came out on an annual basis and featured tighter plots and better dialog.
I agree that Fleming is the missing ingredient. But his guiding principle is the one that has been lost: Bond is an uninteresting man to whom interesting things happen. While the swagger invented by Connery was a necessary and welcome addition to the cinematic Bond, the error of the past few films has been the obsessive need to make Bond’s character, rather than his actions, compelling. Shedding Purvis and Wade might go a long way to correcting this misdirection.
That's right. Before Craig it was never about Bond, even with Connery's swagger. The film character needed personality to guide along the films, which isn't as necessary in books. But the stories were never about the character, and that's what needs to come back. Many people have it in their heads that a plot-based story is inferior to a character-based story. Trying to make Bond films based on the character is what has weakened the stories in the Craig films. Fleming did develop Bond's character through the events of Casino Royale, but in the film they added additional layers to the character development to make the story make less sense.
It was part of the effort to change things up...let's watch Bond become Bond. It worked well in CS and wasn't the real problem with QOS. They jumped forward in time with SF and made it a very personal story about Bond but it was so well done that it worked. Where it all became a huge unnecessary ball and chain was SPECTRE, which is not a bad Bond film IMO but more of a missed opportunity. Mendes should have stuck to his initial response of feeling he had nothing more to say and moved on. What we ended up with is Mendes doing a Bond film by rote, falling back on homage and then concocting a clumsy retcon to make it his. With Boyle and Hodge, I'm not sure what we will get, but I can't wait to find out. -{
There is one long missing irreplaceable factor that would explain why those first four movies came out on an annual basis and featured tighter plots and better dialog.
I agree that Fleming is the missing ingredient. But his guiding principle is the one that has been lost: Bond is an uninteresting man to whom interesting things happen. While the swagger invented by Connery was a necessary and welcome addition to the cinematic Bond, the error of the past few films has been the obsessive need to make Bond’s character, rather than his actions, compelling. Shedding Purvis and Wade might go a long way to correcting this misdirection.
That's right. Before Craig it was never about Bond, even with Connery's swagger. The film character needed personality to guide along the films, which isn't as necessary in books. But the stories were never about the character, and that's what needs to come back. Many people have it in their heads that a plot-based story is inferior to a character-based story. Trying to make Bond films based on the character is what has weakened the stories in the Craig films. Fleming did develop Bond's character through the events of Casino Royale, but in the film they added additional layers to the character development to make the story make less sense.
Excellent post! :007) :007) :007)
While I have enjoyed Craig's movies, this is vere SF and particularely SPECTRE went too far.
Bond movies should be plot based movies with the strong character James Bond as the hero.
Despite being of average height and not classically handsome, Craig has great screen presence. Focus needs to be on a compelling story, something threatening and dangerous, and to sell that you need a great villain with great henchmen who just don't appear to be cannon fodder for the always dangerous looking Craig. It was one of the things they got right in SPECTRE with Mr. Hinx who really epitomized the classic indestructible Bond villain/henchman (basically Odd Job with more speed and brains). The assassin, Patrice, in SF was another legit threat to Bond. If you just look at the casting in Boyle's filmography there are plenty of actors who could fill those shoes very well.
There is one long missing irreplaceable factor that would explain why those first four movies came out on an annual basis and featured tighter plots and better dialog.
I agree that Fleming is the missing ingredient. But his guiding principle is the one that has been lost: Bond is an uninteresting man to whom interesting things happen. While the swagger invented by Connery was a necessary and welcome addition to the cinematic Bond, the error of the past few films has been the obsessive need to make Bond’s character, rather than his actions, compelling. Shedding Purvis and Wade might go a long way to correcting this misdirection.
That's right. Before Craig it was never about Bond, even with Connery's swagger. The film character needed personality to guide along the films, which isn't as necessary in books. But the stories were never about the character, and that's what needs to come back. Many people have it in their heads that a plot-based story is inferior to a character-based story. Trying to make Bond films based on the character is what has weakened the stories in the Craig films. Fleming did develop Bond's character through the events of Casino Royale, but in the film they added additional layers to the character development to make the story make less sense.
Nailed it, enough already with trying to dissect Bond's character and his backstory because I think they've exhausted every avenue now.
That's right. Before Craig it was never about Bond, even with Connery's swagger. The film character needed personality to guide along the films, which isn't as necessary in books. But the stories were never about the character, and that's what needs to come back. Many people have it in their heads that a plot-based story is inferior to a character-based story. Trying to make Bond films based on the character is what has weakened the stories in the Craig films. Fleming did develop Bond's character through the events of Casino Royale, but in the film they added additional layers to the character development to make the story make less sense.
You won't get that with Boyle. His films are totally about character. DC's films are about character because that's what he wants too.
If Boyle/Hodges idea was exciting for DC, it's because it's about character.
Will we get a $90 million (Still double the Taken movies' budgets) Bond movie? Maybe. The biggest budget Boyle has overseen is $50 million. The production budgets below are from Boxofficemojo.com
The Beach $50m
Steve Jobs $30 million
T2: Trainspotting $18 million
127 Hours $18 million
Slumdog $15m
28 Days Later $8 million
His biggest US grossing film was Slumdog at $141 million. You could argue that maybe Boyle can have a billion dollar Bond with a $90 million budget, but then again Slumdog featured a guy on Who wants to be a millionaire, so there's your answer - it featured a hit TV show everyone had heard of and liked.
While I'm sceptical it will actually be Boyle, I think the idea will have nothing to do with DC's past films. How do you make a $90 million Bond film? Set it entirely in the UK and have Bond go up against Russian mafia/SMERSH linked, fake news, Brexit era, British govt corruption that is destroying the institutions Bond believes in and he'll kill anyone to save them.
Has Boyle got a "go to " composer for his film music ? As I do hope we get a change
from T Newman
A blurb from indiewire.com: Danny Boyle never really worked with a composer properly to score any of his films until “28 Days Later” when his mainstay John Murphy (who also scored “Sunshine” with Underworld) entered the picture (although, it should be noted, Bond composer David Arnold did contribute some pieces to “A Life Less Ordinary”).
Has Boyle got a "go to " composer for his film music ? As I do hope we get a change
from T Newman
A blurb from indiewire.com: Danny Boyle never really worked with a composer properly to score any of his films until “28 Days Later” when his mainstay John Murphy (who also scored “Sunshine” with Underworld) entered the picture (although, it should be noted, Bond composer David Arnold did contribute some pieces to “A Life Less Ordinary”).
Underworld involved in some capacity would be great.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
After briefly checking IMDB it seems like Boyle doesn't have a standard crew that he assembles for every movie he makes (like directors like Mendes often do). Perhaps Hodges is the one he has used most often. It may be a plus or not, it's too early to tell now IMO.
Has Boyle got a "go to " composer for his film music ? As I do hope we get a change
from T Newman
A blurb from indiewire.com: Danny Boyle never really worked with a composer properly to score any of his films until “28 Days Later” when his mainstay John Murphy (who also scored “Sunshine” with Underworld) entered the picture (although, it should be noted, Bond composer David Arnold did contribute some pieces to “A Life Less Ordinary”).
A blurb from indiewire.com: Danny Boyle never really worked with a composer properly to score any of his films until “28 Days Later” when his mainstay John Murphy (who also scored “Sunshine” with Underworld) entered the picture (although, it should be noted, Bond composer David Arnold did contribute some pieces to “A Life Less Ordinary”).
Contribute some pieces? David Arnold was the composer for A Life Less Ordinary.
Boyle has worked multiple times with Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle. But I kind of get the feeling that Boyle will go with whoever makes sense for the job at hand, which probably means that he will be fine collaborating with EON with choosing a crew.
Bond films always attract outstanding DP's so I would feel pretty assured that Bond 25 would be no different. Boyle's lack of a history with any particular film score composer is probably a good thing. Hopefully, Boyle and EON will both agree that David Arnold is the best person for the job. I have also been a proponent of EON bringing back an updated arrangement of the classic John Barry action theme "007" and a bit more use of musical cues from the Bond theme blended in with the score. IMO, there is no one better than Arnold to do that.
I very much hope that if Boyle gets the job (and I think I hope he does: feels like he'd be capable of doing something interesting with it) then he'd be willing to get Thomas Newman back. He's given us the classiest Bond scores in many, many years.
A while back, I posted a thread asking who the most famous bond director was, and most people said Sam Mendes without hesitation.
Debatable I guess. They've both won Oscars but somehow I feel like Mendes is better-known for winning one... without looking at IMDB I feel like Boyle has made more films but they're perhaps so diverse in style that I'm not sure everyone knows he made them. So I guess I'd go for Mendes on the fame count, but I don't know if it'd be actually justified.
A while back, I posted a thread asking who the most famous bond director was, and most people said Sam Mendes without hesitation.
Debatable I guess. They've both won Oscars but somehow I feel like Mendes is better-known for winning one... without looking at IMDB I feel like Boyle has made more films but they're perhaps so diverse in style that I'm not sure everyone knows he made them. So I guess I'd go for Mendes on the fame count, but I don't know if it'd be actually justified.
I would wager Danny Boyle is more famous because his filmography has more movies that people actually seem to recognize like 28 days later and Slumdog millionaire. Besides Skyfall and Spectre of course most people don't appear to be too familiar with Mendes filmography.
Comments
Well said.
Sometimes it's better not to have too much time to over analyze and second guess.
It would not surprise me if Bond 25 is a bit more streamlined a production than SPECTRE.
A well written script will hopefully result in a less "meandering" film than SPECTRE. I am also hoping that Hodges and Boyle
play to Craig's strengths as Bond rather than trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. The humor needs to be dark and judging by Trainspotting and A Shallow Grave, Boyle and Hodge are very adept at that.
But still, four years between films and they still end up making it up as the cameras are already rolling? That's just dysfunctional.
I say get rid of all the committees and corporate interventionists, pick one writer (lets say its Boyle's friend), send him to Jamaica for a month with a gold-plated typewriter, plenty of beverages and some bored married women up the road to dally with, and that is how you write a tightly plotted good dialog James Bond story in one month!
It does appear that Hodges and Boyle came up with a concept and framework for a script on their own and approached EON, which breaks the pattern of EON going to Purvis and Wade, etc and commissioning them to write a script. I don't know how accurate that is, but it appears that way. Certainly Boyle has a close connection to EON with the Olympic Bond short and I would venture to guess it is not a stretch to believe Boyle has been on EON's shortlist of directors for some time.
I agree that Fleming is the missing ingredient. But his guiding principle is the one that has been lost: Bond is an uninteresting man to whom interesting things happen. While the swagger invented by Connery was a necessary and welcome addition to the cinematic Bond, the error of the past few films has been the obsessive need to make Bond’s character, rather than his actions, compelling. Shedding Purvis and Wade might go a long way to correcting this misdirection.
That's right. Before Craig it was never about Bond, even with Connery's swagger. The film character needed personality to guide along the films, which isn't as necessary in books. But the stories were never about the character, and that's what needs to come back. Many people have it in their heads that a plot-based story is inferior to a character-based story. Trying to make Bond films based on the character is what has weakened the stories in the Craig films. Fleming did develop Bond's character through the events of Casino Royale, but in the film they added additional layers to the character development to make the story make less sense.
I dreaded the thought of a Trainspotting sequel and he managed to pull it off!
Excellent post! :007) :007) :007)
While I have enjoyed Craig's movies, this is vere SF and particularely SPECTRE went too far.
Bond movies should be plot based movies with the strong character James Bond as the hero.
You won't get that with Boyle. His films are totally about character. DC's films are about character because that's what he wants too.
If Boyle/Hodges idea was exciting for DC, it's because it's about character.
Will we get a $90 million (Still double the Taken movies' budgets) Bond movie? Maybe. The biggest budget Boyle has overseen is $50 million. The production budgets below are from Boxofficemojo.com
The Beach $50m
Steve Jobs $30 million
T2: Trainspotting $18 million
127 Hours $18 million
Slumdog $15m
28 Days Later $8 million
His biggest US grossing film was Slumdog at $141 million. You could argue that maybe Boyle can have a billion dollar Bond with a $90 million budget, but then again Slumdog featured a guy on Who wants to be a millionaire, so there's your answer - it featured a hit TV show everyone had heard of and liked.
While I'm sceptical it will actually be Boyle, I think the idea will have nothing to do with DC's past films. How do you make a $90 million Bond film? Set it entirely in the UK and have Bond go up against Russian mafia/SMERSH linked, fake news, Brexit era, British govt corruption that is destroying the institutions Bond believes in and he'll kill anyone to save them.
from T Newman
A blurb from indiewire.com: Danny Boyle never really worked with a composer properly to score any of his films until “28 Days Later” when his mainstay John Murphy (who also scored “Sunshine” with Underworld) entered the picture (although, it should be noted, Bond composer David Arnold did contribute some pieces to “A Life Less Ordinary”).
Underworld involved in some capacity would be great.
Contribute some pieces? David Arnold was the composer for A Life Less Ordinary.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119535/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dvd-life-less-ordinary-ewan-mcgregor/3631544;jsessionid=B6A046E47E529399F15C8E503C6FFF1C.prodny_store02-atgap11
http://commanderbond.net/8836/movie-music-master-class-with-james-bond-composer-david-arnold.html
Bond films always attract outstanding DP's so I would feel pretty assured that Bond 25 would be no different. Boyle's lack of a history with any particular film score composer is probably a good thing. Hopefully, Boyle and EON will both agree that David Arnold is the best person for the job. I have also been a proponent of EON bringing back an updated arrangement of the classic John Barry action theme "007" and a bit more use of musical cues from the Bond theme blended in with the score. IMO, there is no one better than Arnold to do that.
A while back, I posted a thread asking who the most famous bond director was, and most people said Sam Mendes without hesitation.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/765267/Danny-Boyle-Brexit-EU-Scotland-leave-UK
DC voted Remain.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/1322341/james-bond-actor-daniel-craig-backs-remain-in-battle-of-celebs-over-eu-refrendum/
And Babs Broccoli was/is anti-Brexit.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/uk-producers-oppose-brexit-905409
So, for shits and giggles I'm calling it, the Hodges script will be a Brexit-like, SMERSH storyline.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/russian-influence-brexit-vote-detailed-us-senate-report
What the hell US studio MGM and the mystery international distributor *cough*Sony*cough* will think is another thing.
Debatable I guess. They've both won Oscars but somehow I feel like Mendes is better-known for winning one... without looking at IMDB I feel like Boyle has made more films but they're perhaps so diverse in style that I'm not sure everyone knows he made them. So I guess I'd go for Mendes on the fame count, but I don't know if it'd be actually justified.
A key figure in the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook scandal changed his name to "Dr. Spectre."
Life imitates art.