The Fleming books and Connery films are still great, but unfortunately still products of their time (with Fleming novels especially revelling in sexism and racism that would be off putting to a lot of today's audience, even outside of the insipid SJWs).
Bond films changed a lot through the 70s, 80s, and 90s; most of the movies were fun, but more disposable (typical Moore/Dalton/Brosnan films).
Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.
In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.
For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.
GM, I agree with much of what you are saying, but I still think the common denominator of most of the best Bond films is Fleming’s source material. The dinner scene in Dr No is indeed excellent, but it’s even better in the book. Without being able to rely on Fleming, the sad truth is there is very little hope of Bond regaining it’s cutting edge. That doesn’t mean the films can’t be good or enjoyable, but I think our expectations need to be realistic. If we go into the theatre hoping for something akin to the glory days of Connery, we’re inevitably going to leave disappointed.
I wouldn't argue that Fleming wasn't the primary reason, though I think Maibaum proved himself an excellent screenwriter for adapting and often improving on Fleming.
The problem I have is that no one today is proving capable of either imitating Fleming or matching/exceeding his vision. That I find remarkable, as Fleming was writing pulp with a marginal literary gloss. He wasn't writing Shakespeare.
A decade ago, I won a contest to write in Hemingway's style. It wasn't that hard. Hemingway had certain habits, and though his style can change from his novels to his short stories and evolved over time, there are certain markers to the language and characterizations that are apparent from just reading a dozen of his works. I can't believe there aren't professional screenwriters who can't be even better. Obviously much better.
I think the bigger problem is that they don't try. They skim the surface of Fleming and then produce something comparatively unsophisticated, perhaps out of fear of alienating audiences believed to be driven more by explosions and shiny objects. Here, again, they're following trends rather than creating.
Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.
In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.
For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.
Hear, Hear! Spot on post!
I'd add that Skyfall was terribly derivative -- The Dark Knight, Silence of the Lambs, Straw Dogs. I caught something a few weeks ago, too, that featured a manor house remarkably like the one on Skyfall -- perhaps it was the Albert Finney version of Tom Jones? The French Connection? I can't recall as I was flipping through channels, but even the filming was similar, starting with the camera tracking to the gate.
Skyfall's plot is loopy, mostly because of the underdeveloped and contradictory villain (and some of Bond's strategy to theart him). A noteworthy reason why The Dark Knight is superior is because we saw scenes with the villain extant of those with the hero. More time was taken to develop the Joker onscreen, even though he's an eminently familiar character. Silva was a sketch by comparison and not much of one. He had none of the icy elegance of Dr. No, another villain not revealed until late in the film, nor the calculating logic.
But Skyfall is a curiously uneven film. Its opening action sequence has lots of activity but not much suspense, and even the fight with the assassin in China works more because it seems like they're dancing.
But sentimentality drives the story, and in this sense, it works.
Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.
In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.
For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.
Hear, Hear! Spot on post!
I'd add that Skyfall was terribly derivative -- The Dark Knight, Silence of the Lambs, Straw Dogs. I caught something a few weeks ago, too, that featured a manor house remarkably like the one on Skyfall -- perhaps it was the Albert Finney version of Tom Jones? The French Connection? I can't recall as I was flipping through channels, but even the filming was similar, starting with the camera tracking to the gate.
Skyfall's plot is loopy, mostly because of the underdeveloped and contradictory villain (and some of Bond's strategy to theart him). A noteworthy reason why The Dark Knight is superior is because we saw scenes with the villain extant of those with the hero. More time was taken to develop the Joker onscreen, even though he's an eminently familiar character. Silva was a sketch by comparison and not much of one. He had none of the icy elegance of Dr. No, another villain not revealed until late in the film, nor the calculating logic.
But Skyfall is a curiously uneven film. Its opening action sequence has lots of activity but not much suspense, and even the fight with the assassin in China works more because it seems like they're dancing.
But sentimentality drives the story, and in this sense, it works.
I agree with what you said about skyfall lacking suspense, I actually wrote about Dan Romer the new bond composers previous work in another forum before it was closed.
I think this sort of links to that in a sense as Dan Romer appears to be a fan of older scores by the greats such as Berrnard Herrman and Jerry Goldsmith, he also made a drum kit out of stringed instruments which can be found on youtube for Beasts of No nation, which he made with Cary Fukunaga.
In response to earlier in this thread, how it's being said bond is no longer the trend setter, now the trend follower.
Tbh I'm actually ok with that, I find bond movies to actually be a bit of a historical statement, documenting the changes between 1962 to present.
I also have real faith that Cary Fukunaga is a great Director and writer and if he gets the chance to really leave his mark on "No Time To Die" it might be a bond film unlike we have sen before.
To those that have seen Maniac, True Detective
Or beasts or no nation.
I wouldn't really call his style of film making an expected formula or phoning it in to play it safe.
I'd say the complete opposite and this is why I'm excited.
Fingers crossed.
For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.
Maniac is fever dream garbage. Beasts of No Nation and True Detective were good, and the guy will know how to direct good action, something the past two Bonds were severely lacking with Mendez who never really directed any action in his life. That is what I'm most excited for. Plot should take a back seat to the action, and hopefully Bond will begin to draw inspiration from John Wick, which is extremely popular right now, as Bond drew inspiration from the Bourne series when those were popular.
For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.
So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.
For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.
So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.
Not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious.
Lol, those q's sound pretty rhetorical, but ok. )
'Craig's films are your bottom 5?' - No. I was ranking Craig's tenure by itself. On my list of all the films, CR is #3, SF #8, QoS #18, and SP #25.
'Which includes ranking a film none of us have see' - Yes, as pertaining to the thread title.
'Why am I planning to see NTTD?' - As I have collected all the films and enjoy immensely even the worst on my list.
'Why am I here if I prefer John Wick?' - Well if you followed JW, it is described as a fusion of James Bond and Breaking Bad, which are my two favorite franchises. John Wick is heavily inspired by 007 with the director begging to do a Bond film.
For Craig's tenure, it's looking to be: SP < NTTD < QoS < SF < CR, probably in the bottom 5 of total films.
So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.
Not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious.
Its true to say that it has had a decidedly difficult gestation. Good even great films have emerged from troubled productions. We just dont know enough about it as yet. While personally not thrilled by having Waltz and Seydoux in the mix its just impossible to forecast at present. I am taking comfort from the fact that DC looks in tip top shape as pre production footage caused concern.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.
I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.
You have it the other way around in your list though — CR ranked higher than QOS??
NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".
I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.
you've used Greater Than symbols where you mean Less Than!
and you call yourself a scientist!
You're right about the shoehorning of action sequences into Casino Royale.
One good thing about the Climax Mystery Theatre version, was they let the card game play out in real time after talking up how high the stakes were, and it was genuinely suspenseful. In the Craig film, they assumed the audience would be bored, so kept interrupting it with poisonings and stairwell fights, which undermined the stakes of the game.
I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.
you've used Greater Than symbols where you mean Less Than!
and you call yourself a scientist!
You're right about the shoehorning of action sequences into Casino Royale.
One good thing about the Climax Mystery Theatre version, was they let the card game play out in real time after talking up how high the stakes were, and it was genuinely suspenseful. In the Craig film, they assumed the audience would be bored, so kept interrupting it with poisonings and stairwell fights, which undermined the stakes of the game.
The Climax Mystery Theater version was broadcast live, so they didn't have a ton of options.......
I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.
I agree with what you were trying to say (removing NTTD, because I have no idea where it will rank). QoS is the best film of the Craig era. Unlike most modern action / thrillers, it was not bloated or over long. It’s stylish, brisk, has a great score, and features Crag’s Most nuanced performance.
NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".
Finally someone being optimistic about bond 25.
I'm just gonna put this out there and I might get some heat for this I think Cary Fukunaga is a better director than Martin Cambell just saying everything is an opinion and that's mine.
NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".
Finally someone being optimistic about bond 25.
I'm just gonna put this out there and I might get some heat for this I think Cary Fukunaga is a better director than Martin Cambell just saying everything is an opinion and that's mine.
)
If you can get past the very difficult pre-production and all the Tab slagging that went along with it, when you just look at the creative team EON ended up with: Fukunaga, the other writers, the DP, etc IMO, the film appears to be in very good hands. Regarding Fukunaga being a better director than Martin Campbell, it's really all relative. Campbell has a long career as a film director, primarily in the action genre and has done some good work, especially with his two Bond films, both of which are credited with breathing new life into and resurrecting the franchise. However, when judging Campbell by his entire resume, he is probably considered a very good "journeyman" director. Fukunaga, much younger and with a much smaller work sampling is considered one of the new hot outstanding young directorial talents and more of an auteur with screen writing credits and his work as a DP. IMO, I would have to say that Campbell is the better "Bond Director" as he has a proven track record with one very good to excellent Bond film (GE) and one truly classic Bond film (CR). Fukunaga, depending on how NTTD turns out has the potential to become part of the great Bond directors club, but we won't know that until April 2020. I for one, hope he can stand with Campbell, Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, and Sam Mendes as just not a good director, but a good director who made a great Bond film.
NTTD, IMO has three things going for it that give me hope / guarded optimism that it will be closer to CR and Skyfall than QOS and SPECTRE. Cary Fukunaga. He can write, he's one of the best at shooting suspenseful action and suspense in general (something Bond has been lacking since CR), and he's fresh to the series and might bring that sensibility to NTTD that was sorely missing from SPECTRE. The writers. Purvis and Wade seem to be very adept at coming up with good basic foundations for Bond films but really fall short with smart dialog and character development. Having outstanding screen writers Fukunaga, Scott Z. Burns, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge to re-write, complete and polish the script could have put things on a significantly higher level. And of course, last, but possibly the most important, having back a lean, fit, and reinvigorated Daniel Craig who appears at 51 to be determined to go out on a high note and not be the latest member of the "did one too many Bond club".
Finally someone being optimistic about bond 25.
I'm just gonna put this out there and I might get some heat for this I think Cary Fukunaga is a better director than Martin Cambell just saying everything is an opinion and that's mine.
)
If you can get past the very difficult pre-production and all the Tab slagging that went along with it, when you just look at the creative team EON ended up with: Fukunaga, the other writers, the DP, etc IMO, the film appears to be in very good hands. Regarding Fukunaga being a better director than Martin Campbell, it's really all relative. Campbell has a long career as a film director, primarily in the action genre and has done some good work, especially with his two Bond films, both of which are credited with breathing new life into and resurrecting the franchise. However, when judging Campbell by his entire resume, he is probably considered a very good "journeyman" director. Fukunaga, much younger and with a much smaller work sampling is considered one of the new hot outstanding young directorial talents and more of an auteur with screen writing credits and his work as a DP. IMO, I would have to say that Campbell is the better "Bond Director" as he has a proven track record with one very good to excellent Bond film (GE) and one truly classic Bond film (CR). Fukunaga, depending on how NTTD turns out has the potential to become part of the great Bond directors club, but we won't know that until April 2020. I for one, hope he can stand with Campbell, Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, and Sam Mendes as just not a good director, but a good director who made a great Bond film.
Interesting opinion there, yes both Goldeneye and Casino are brilliant and true he did breathe new life into bond.
How excited on a scale of 1-10 are you for "No Time To Die?
And on a scale of 1-10 how do you think it's going to fair? Giving it a rating I get it's not easy, but let's say hypertheically.
if say
Casino & Goldfinger were 8
Die Another Day Quantum of Solace are a 6.
Of course again all subjective.
Some of us might score Quantum higher just like we might score Licence or Majestys as time has been kind to them, I think more of us now appreciate them for not being the latest bond film, I feel an extra pressure goes with the latest entry.
Among other things like the rough bond of licence is present in our current bond.
Some of us have also come to realise Peter Hunt's directing of majestys is pretty spectacular also.
I think there's a chance, this might be the case with spectre when it's no long the latest and its cemented next to bond 25 nicely, and we no longer have to end it with Madeline and bond driving away.
Straight after we can pop "No Time To Die" on,
I think this might help us feel slightly less deflated at the prospect the ending was a little meh.
Don't get me wrong the John Glen ending is a nice call back
But I'm sure I'm not the only one who's quite excited at the prospect of the Db5 getting blown up it's been used alot.
I do look forward to seeing the Aston Martin v8 Vantage make an appear however.
Wonder if Tim Dalton might make a small cameo, could be cool.
Just finished up watching true detective season 1 again bearing in mind I'm more of a movie fanatic than tv.
I actually think that it's a masterpiece, story is a nice slow burner which builds and builds, some nice side plots that feel in keeping with the main story. The acting is absolutely excellent, the script is stellar. The cinematography is beautiful.
The music is moody and atmospheric. Glad I own this one on blu ray as I'll be sure to watch it again.
Also started watching beasts of no nation again is really good too starts of with some parts actually quite funny then really turns into a pretty horrific movie. Like I say I've yet to see it but what I have seen was really good.
I also brought sin nombre which is cary fukunaga first feature length movie will be sure to report back once I've given it a watch.
I've said it more than once but I'll say it again, what I've seen of cary fukunaga work so far instills me with a large amount of confidence for "No Time to die" I have no doubt the script is going to be good no doubt fukunaga is going to get a great performance out of his actors after what I've seen with true detective. I think he seems a very hands on director and comes across very confidence and sure of what he's trying to achieve in his movies in his audio commentaries.
Not to mention it's likely to look as beautiful as skyfall, as it's not being shot by roger deakins but linus singren who made la la land, first man and American hustle look pretty amazing.
Plus there using IMAX cameras so it could look pretty epic like some of nolan's pictures.
Lastly I can't wait to get my hands on Dan Romers take on bond, I wonder if there will be slight spoilers in the cue names.
This may well turn out to be a great Bond film -- I suspect it will be bigger and more exciting that either Skyfall or Spectre, but that's not a tough proposition. However, I found TD Season 1 to be a bore. I tried to binge watch it one afternoon and gave up. I came back to finish it, but it was tough. Too repetitive, too self-important. It didn't help that a lot of the dialogue spoken by the McConnaughey character was seemingly plagiarized from another writer. Though I thought Goldeneye was disappointing and nothing special in the directing department, Casino Royale was remarkably good, in part because it relied on more a more straightforward but inventive style.
This may well turn out to be a great Bond film -- I suspect it will be bigger and more exciting that either Skyfall or Spectre, but that's not a tough proposition. However, I found TD Season 1 to be a bore. I tried to binge watch it one afternoon and gave up. I came back to finish it, but it was tough. Too repetitive, too self-important. It didn't help that a lot of the dialogue spoken by the McConnaughey character was seemingly plagiarized from another writer. Though I thought Goldeneye was disappointing and nothing special in the directing department, Casino Royale was remarkably good, in part because it relied on more a more straightforward but inventive style.
Fair comment there I actually didn't binge watch true detective I
Think you lose something in that.
I also wasn't drawn to true detective right away it took time as I've gotten older though I've tended to grow more towards things that take there time.
Do you by any chance like any movies made by the coen brothers?
Also what do you mean when you say McConaugheys character took writing from another writer and past it off as there own? I'd be interested to know where you heard this from or you saw something where a character was very similar.
Did the writer steal from another writer or where they simply inspired by or paying tribute too?
It's been said before john William's stole from many composers including Korngold but I think it's more of a case that his music was on the temp tracks and Lucas wanted something similar.
Once people hear a piece of music so many times it's almost like it's hard to replace it with anything else.
I love about half the Coen brothers and am indifferent to the rest. The two brothers often switch off on directing chores, and one of them likes ponderous, character-driven tragedies and the other one makes the better movies -- Miller's Crossing, The Big Lewbowski, Fargo, True Grit, No Country for Old Men, and so forth. Of anyone making mainstream films today -- and they've crossed over into that realm -- they're easily the most talented. They seem to understand the vital elements of filmmaking, such as framing and staging, but at the same time, are able to have some thankfully limited postmodern sensibilities (their reliance on comic violence).
The thing is, a commercial industry like TV and filmmaking isn't concerned about plagiarism, which is why it uses euphemisms like "influenced by" or "inspired by." It's only concerned about copyright infringement, which is where they get sued and can lose money. So, their "artists" are free to plagiarize all they want, and they may even get awards for it, so long as it makes money.
But anyone who writes -- and I count myself among those people -- is offended when someone takes the idea or expression and claims it as their own. Unfortunately, this happens all the time with commercial art, usually because struggling artists don't have the resources to fight a battery of corporate lawyers for years.
Even when they do, it turns into a situation like Jack McClory versus Ian Fleming. And in that situation, it was patently more obvious Fleming took McClory's ideas and ran with them without any compensation.
Music is trickier. There are thousands and thousands of words but only a few notes. It's true that the combination possible is
virtually infinite, but there are also standard beats, rhythms, and structures that define, in particular, orchestral music.
There is no resolution to the plagiarism thing, by the way. The person who plagiarizes can always claim the inspiration defense or say they're paying homage. That's why copyright infringement tries to use a more concrete standard, the challenge being it's far more literal.
The more recent Star Trek movies and series are required to change around 25% or more of the aesthetic design of the starships, make up, and costumes to avoid having to pay royalties to the people who originally designed them, or so articles are claiming. This has to do with the complex way in which the Star Trek franchise has evolved and been acquired by different networks and companies. This is a copyright issue. Similarly, a plagiarist could argue they changed enough that it's now an original expression.
It appears that the plagiarism allegations were not directed at Fukunaga, but Nic Pizzolatto, who did most of the writing for True Detective Season 1........
I love about half the Coen brothers and am indifferent to the rest. The two brothers often switch off on directing chores, and one of them likes ponderous, character-driven tragedies and the other one makes the better movies -- Miller's Crossing, The Big Lewbowski, Fargo, True Grit, No Country for Old Men, and so forth. Of anyone making mainstream films today -- and they've crossed over into that realm -- they're easily the most talented. They seem to understand the vital elements of filmmaking, such as framing and staging, but at the same time, are able to have some thankfully limited postmodern sensibilities (their reliance on comic violence).
The thing is, a commercial industry like TV and filmmaking isn't concerned about plagiarism, which is why it uses euphemisms like "influenced by" or "inspired by." It's only concerned about copyright infringement, which is where they get sued and can lose money. So, their "artists" are free to plagiarize all they want, and they may even get awards for it, so long as it makes money.
But anyone who writes -- and I count myself among those people -- is offended when someone takes the idea or expression and claims it as their own. Unfortunately, this happens all the time with commercial art, usually because struggling artists don't have the resources to fight a battery of corporate lawyers for years.
Even when they do, it turns into a situation like Jack McClory versus Ian Fleming. And in that situation, it was patently more obvious Fleming took McClory's ideas and ran with them without any compensation.
Music is trickier. There are thousands and thousands of words but only a few notes. It's true that the combination possible is
virtually infinite, but there are also standard beats, rhythms, and structures that define, in particular, orchestral music.
There is no resolution to the plagiarism thing, by the way. The person who plagiarizes can always claim the inspiration defense or say they're paying homage. That's why copyright infringement tries to use a more concrete standard, the challenge being it's far more literal.
The more recent Star Trek movies and series are required to change around 25% or more of the aesthetic design of the starships, make up, and costumes to avoid having to pay royalties to the people who originally designed them, or so articles are claiming. This has to do with the complex way in which the Star Trek franchise has evolved and been acquired by different networks and companies. This is a copyright issue. Similarly, a plagiarist could argue they changed enough that it's now an original expression.
Nice lengthy bit of info there really enjoyed reading that.
You say you do abit of writing, what sort of stuff do you write?
{[] Textbooks, literary and genre short stories (horror, thriller), grants and proposals, nonfiction articles, and all sorts of business documents, including copy for Web sites and annual reports and publications. I've worked on a few movie proposals with others but nothing serious. Most publications don't have my name since they're work-for-hire; some writing is under a pseudonym. I've got a few novel drafts in the can, including a spy story, though they're not final drafts. I'm on the Web so much because I spend so much time writing. I'm an academic. The plan is to write and consult full time when I retire, which won't be for a bit. {[]
Okay so most of us are aware that a fair few of the bond movies aren't great but like most things even that statement is subjective. Yes I'm a fan of die another day.
I dunno maybe when you live with something long enough you learn to accept it has a world changing CGI tsunami surfing
Scene in it.
Any how mr gas mann you being a writer I was wondering what you consider to be one of the strongest and one of the weakest bond films in terms of script, story and anything that might be influenced by the writers.
My personal preference is for those in the Connery/Lazenby era. I'm least impressed by those in the Brosnan era, though a few Moore films compete. The rest falls in between, with the Craig films at the top but not quite as good as anything in the Connery/Lazenby era, even if Casino Royale is close.
A problem with comparisons though, beyond the Ian Fleming source materials being less available past the 60s and 70s, is that films over time aimed for a younger audience. Goldfinger, for instance, was made with adults in mind, not teenagers. So the quality of writing is affected in part by who the film sees as the primary audience.
Still, modern films tend to be rigidly constructed based on character arcs and the like. They tend to favor minimalist dialogue and character development (with much of the character development being trivia about the character's past or psychological disposition peppering the story) but to push the action, stunts, and special effects to often increasingly absurd levels. The obsession with making any story personal to the main character is a holdover from how films moved from the studio system to the "auteur" stage in the 70s and 80s. To me, it's silly. So, my tastes lean toward a film where a conversation -- such as the dinner one in Dr. No -- or a golf match -- such as the one in Goldfinger -- can be cleverly constructed to say much more than a 25-minute CGI scene.
So, overall, I'd say On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best written Bond film while A View to a Kill or The World is Not Enough are the least impressive. But even a Bond film that is closer to that end of the spectrum is pretty good compared to most action films.
OHMSS is a great film.
Does TWINE get points in the writers department for having
Elektra turn out to be the main villain and renard the henchman?
You know you say about adults movies and kids movies and I get that, growing up i cared very little for dialogue it was all about the action. Then being a musician it was all about the music. Now I'm alittle older I love a movie with a great story and script. I sometimes get annoyed if I'm watching something that's really good then out of nowhere there's loads of swearing and I'm like no it just feels so lazy.
Unless its Tarantino or something, sometimes that works.
I guess it might have something to do with the actor delivering the lines also and the range they have in using f bombs!!
Can you say mu#$a F@$ker, 1000 different ways Samuel Jackson can. )
Comments
Bond films changed a lot through the 70s, 80s, and 90s; most of the movies were fun, but more disposable (typical Moore/Dalton/Brosnan films).
Casino Royale had a Fleming novel as bedrock, but Skyfall is all the more amazing because it's based on virtually nothing (outside of vaguely following the beats of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight). And it became this still amazing smash hit.
In terms of plot, Skyfall was obviously a non-Fleming (and at times nonsensical) story that was heavily influenced by Nolan’s Batman, as you mention. In terms of the characterization of Bond, however, Skyfall derived significant inspiration from Fleming’s arc. For example, there are strong undertones in Fleming that establish Bond’s child/parent relationship with M.Think back to the resentment Bond feels in Dr No when M intimates that Bond isn’t up for a more difficult mission. Although M never shows up again physically, he looms large over the novel because Bond keeps bringing him up. And we also get to see M’s perspective when talking with Bond’s doctor, who psychoanalyzes Bond. While the relationship was explored in in TWINE AND DAD, it was very surface level and didn’t go as deep as the books. Although Mendes got very heavy handed, apparently assuming that the audience was not smart enough to pick up on it without literally calling M “mommy,” it was still pretty consistent with Fleming. Likewise, Bond’s substance abuse and the toll of the job were certainly a big part of the later Fleming books, and had never been explored so explicitly on screen.
For me, these aspects of Skyfall are its core strengths, overcoming the silliness of the plot, and they trace directly to Fleming.
The problem I have is that no one today is proving capable of either imitating Fleming or matching/exceeding his vision. That I find remarkable, as Fleming was writing pulp with a marginal literary gloss. He wasn't writing Shakespeare.
A decade ago, I won a contest to write in Hemingway's style. It wasn't that hard. Hemingway had certain habits, and though his style can change from his novels to his short stories and evolved over time, there are certain markers to the language and characterizations that are apparent from just reading a dozen of his works. I can't believe there aren't professional screenwriters who can't be even better. Obviously much better.
I think the bigger problem is that they don't try. They skim the surface of Fleming and then produce something comparatively unsophisticated, perhaps out of fear of alienating audiences believed to be driven more by explosions and shiny objects. Here, again, they're following trends rather than creating.
I'd add that Skyfall was terribly derivative -- The Dark Knight, Silence of the Lambs, Straw Dogs. I caught something a few weeks ago, too, that featured a manor house remarkably like the one on Skyfall -- perhaps it was the Albert Finney version of Tom Jones? The French Connection? I can't recall as I was flipping through channels, but even the filming was similar, starting with the camera tracking to the gate.
Skyfall's plot is loopy, mostly because of the underdeveloped and contradictory villain (and some of Bond's strategy to theart him). A noteworthy reason why The Dark Knight is superior is because we saw scenes with the villain extant of those with the hero. More time was taken to develop the Joker onscreen, even though he's an eminently familiar character. Silva was a sketch by comparison and not much of one. He had none of the icy elegance of Dr. No, another villain not revealed until late in the film, nor the calculating logic.
But Skyfall is a curiously uneven film. Its opening action sequence has lots of activity but not much suspense, and even the fight with the assassin in China works more because it seems like they're dancing.
But sentimentality drives the story, and in this sense, it works.
I agree with what you said about skyfall lacking suspense, I actually wrote about Dan Romer the new bond composers previous work in another forum before it was closed.
I think this sort of links to that in a sense as Dan Romer appears to be a fan of older scores by the greats such as Berrnard Herrman and Jerry Goldsmith, he also made a drum kit out of stringed instruments which can be found on youtube for Beasts of No nation, which he made with Cary Fukunaga.
In response to earlier in this thread, how it's being said bond is no longer the trend setter, now the trend follower.
Tbh I'm actually ok with that, I find bond movies to actually be a bit of a historical statement, documenting the changes between 1962 to present.
I also have real faith that Cary Fukunaga is a great Director and writer and if he gets the chance to really leave his mark on "No Time To Die" it might be a bond film unlike we have sen before.
To those that have seen Maniac, True Detective
Or beasts or no nation.
I wouldn't really call his style of film making an expected formula or phoning it in to play it safe.
I'd say the complete opposite and this is why I'm excited.
Fingers crossed.
Maniac is fever dream garbage. Beasts of No Nation and True Detective were good, and the guy will know how to direct good action, something the past two Bonds were severely lacking with Mendez who never really directed any action in his life. That is what I'm most excited for. Plot should take a back seat to the action, and hopefully Bond will begin to draw inspiration from John Wick, which is extremely popular right now, as Bond drew inspiration from the Bourne series when those were popular.
So Craig’s films are your bottom 5 for the series? Which, of course, includes ranking a film none of us have seen. Why are you even planning to see NTTD? Why are you on this forum if your preference is for John Wick-style actions films? Bond has never and will never be that kind of film.
Not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious.
Lol, those q's sound pretty rhetorical, but ok.
'Craig's films are your bottom 5?' - No. I was ranking Craig's tenure by itself. On my list of all the films, CR is #3, SF #8, QoS #18, and SP #25.
'Which includes ranking a film none of us have see' - Yes, as pertaining to the thread title.
'Why am I planning to see NTTD?' - As I have collected all the films and enjoy immensely even the worst on my list.
'Why am I here if I prefer John Wick?' - Well if you followed JW, it is described as a fusion of James Bond and Breaking Bad, which are my two favorite franchises. John Wick is heavily inspired by 007 with the director begging to do a Bond film.
Its true to say that it has had a decidedly difficult gestation. Good even great films have emerged from troubled productions. We just dont know enough about it as yet. While personally not thrilled by having Waltz and Seydoux in the mix its just impossible to forecast at present. I am taking comfort from the fact that DC looks in tip top shape as pre production footage caused concern.
Sp > Sf > NTTD > CR > QoS
I know... QoS ranked higher than CR. I honestly think it has aged much better and is better paced, with action that doesn't feel shoehorned in like CR.
You have it the other way around in your list though — CR ranked higher than QOS??
and you call yourself a scientist!
You're right about the shoehorning of action sequences into Casino Royale.
One good thing about the Climax Mystery Theatre version, was they let the card game play out in real time after talking up how high the stakes were, and it was genuinely suspenseful. In the Craig film, they assumed the audience would be bored, so kept interrupting it with poisonings and stairwell fights, which undermined the stakes of the game.
The Climax Mystery Theater version was broadcast live, so they didn't have a ton of options.......
I agree with what you were trying to say (removing NTTD, because I have no idea where it will rank). QoS is the best film of the Craig era. Unlike most modern action / thrillers, it was not bloated or over long. It’s stylish, brisk, has a great score, and features Crag’s Most nuanced performance.
Finally someone being optimistic about bond 25.
I'm just gonna put this out there and I might get some heat for this I think Cary Fukunaga is a better director than Martin Cambell just saying everything is an opinion and that's mine.
Interesting opinion there, yes both Goldeneye and Casino are brilliant and true he did breathe new life into bond.
How excited on a scale of 1-10 are you for "No Time To Die?
And on a scale of 1-10 how do you think it's going to fair? Giving it a rating I get it's not easy, but let's say hypertheically.
if say
Casino & Goldfinger were 8
Die Another Day Quantum of Solace are a 6.
Of course again all subjective.
Some of us might score Quantum higher just like we might score Licence or Majestys as time has been kind to them, I think more of us now appreciate them for not being the latest bond film, I feel an extra pressure goes with the latest entry.
Among other things like the rough bond of licence is present in our current bond.
Some of us have also come to realise Peter Hunt's directing of majestys is pretty spectacular also.
I think there's a chance, this might be the case with spectre when it's no long the latest and its cemented next to bond 25 nicely, and we no longer have to end it with Madeline and bond driving away.
Straight after we can pop "No Time To Die" on,
I think this might help us feel slightly less deflated at the prospect the ending was a little meh.
Don't get me wrong the John Glen ending is a nice call back
But I'm sure I'm not the only one who's quite excited at the prospect of the Db5 getting blown up it's been used alot.
I do look forward to seeing the Aston Martin v8 Vantage make an appear however.
Wonder if Tim Dalton might make a small cameo, could be cool.
I actually think that it's a masterpiece, story is a nice slow burner which builds and builds, some nice side plots that feel in keeping with the main story. The acting is absolutely excellent, the script is stellar. The cinematography is beautiful.
The music is moody and atmospheric. Glad I own this one on blu ray as I'll be sure to watch it again.
Also started watching beasts of no nation again is really good too starts of with some parts actually quite funny then really turns into a pretty horrific movie. Like I say I've yet to see it but what I have seen was really good.
I also brought sin nombre which is cary fukunaga first feature length movie will be sure to report back once I've given it a watch.
I've said it more than once but I'll say it again, what I've seen of cary fukunaga work so far instills me with a large amount of confidence for "No Time to die" I have no doubt the script is going to be good no doubt fukunaga is going to get a great performance out of his actors after what I've seen with true detective. I think he seems a very hands on director and comes across very confidence and sure of what he's trying to achieve in his movies in his audio commentaries.
Not to mention it's likely to look as beautiful as skyfall, as it's not being shot by roger deakins but linus singren who made la la land, first man and American hustle look pretty amazing.
Plus there using IMAX cameras so it could look pretty epic like some of nolan's pictures.
Lastly I can't wait to get my hands on Dan Romers take on bond, I wonder if there will be slight spoilers in the cue names.
Fair comment there I actually didn't binge watch true detective I
Think you lose something in that.
I also wasn't drawn to true detective right away it took time as I've gotten older though I've tended to grow more towards things that take there time.
Do you by any chance like any movies made by the coen brothers?
Also what do you mean when you say McConaugheys character took writing from another writer and past it off as there own? I'd be interested to know where you heard this from or you saw something where a character was very similar.
Did the writer steal from another writer or where they simply inspired by or paying tribute too?
It's been said before john William's stole from many composers including Korngold but I think it's more of a case that his music was on the temp tracks and Lucas wanted something similar.
Once people hear a piece of music so many times it's almost like it's hard to replace it with anything else.
The controversy about the plagiarism has its defenders and its detractors, but this article covers the basics: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5975769/true-detective-a-work-of-plagiarism-a-guide
The thing is, a commercial industry like TV and filmmaking isn't concerned about plagiarism, which is why it uses euphemisms like "influenced by" or "inspired by." It's only concerned about copyright infringement, which is where they get sued and can lose money. So, their "artists" are free to plagiarize all they want, and they may even get awards for it, so long as it makes money.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5975769/true-detective-a-work-of-plagiarism-a-guide
But anyone who writes -- and I count myself among those people -- is offended when someone takes the idea or expression and claims it as their own. Unfortunately, this happens all the time with commercial art, usually because struggling artists don't have the resources to fight a battery of corporate lawyers for years.
Even when they do, it turns into a situation like Jack McClory versus Ian Fleming. And in that situation, it was patently more obvious Fleming took McClory's ideas and ran with them without any compensation.
Music is trickier. There are thousands and thousands of words but only a few notes. It's true that the combination possible is
virtually infinite, but there are also standard beats, rhythms, and structures that define, in particular, orchestral music.
There is no resolution to the plagiarism thing, by the way. The person who plagiarizes can always claim the inspiration defense or say they're paying homage. That's why copyright infringement tries to use a more concrete standard, the challenge being it's far more literal.
The more recent Star Trek movies and series are required to change around 25% or more of the aesthetic design of the starships, make up, and costumes to avoid having to pay royalties to the people who originally designed them, or so articles are claiming. This has to do with the complex way in which the Star Trek franchise has evolved and been acquired by different networks and companies. This is a copyright issue. Similarly, a plagiarist could argue they changed enough that it's now an original expression.
Nice lengthy bit of info there really enjoyed reading that.
You say you do abit of writing, what sort of stuff do you write?
Okay so most of us are aware that a fair few of the bond movies aren't great but like most things even that statement is subjective. Yes I'm a fan of die another day.
I dunno maybe when you live with something long enough you learn to accept it has a world changing CGI tsunami surfing
Scene in it.
Any how mr gas mann you being a writer I was wondering what you consider to be one of the strongest and one of the weakest bond films in terms of script, story and anything that might be influenced by the writers.
A problem with comparisons though, beyond the Ian Fleming source materials being less available past the 60s and 70s, is that films over time aimed for a younger audience. Goldfinger, for instance, was made with adults in mind, not teenagers. So the quality of writing is affected in part by who the film sees as the primary audience.
Still, modern films tend to be rigidly constructed based on character arcs and the like. They tend to favor minimalist dialogue and character development (with much of the character development being trivia about the character's past or psychological disposition peppering the story) but to push the action, stunts, and special effects to often increasingly absurd levels. The obsession with making any story personal to the main character is a holdover from how films moved from the studio system to the "auteur" stage in the 70s and 80s. To me, it's silly. So, my tastes lean toward a film where a conversation -- such as the dinner one in Dr. No -- or a golf match -- such as the one in Goldfinger -- can be cleverly constructed to say much more than a 25-minute CGI scene.
So, overall, I'd say On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best written Bond film while A View to a Kill or The World is Not Enough are the least impressive. But even a Bond film that is closer to that end of the spectrum is pretty good compared to most action films.
Does TWINE get points in the writers department for having
Elektra turn out to be the main villain and renard the henchman?
You know you say about adults movies and kids movies and I get that, growing up i cared very little for dialogue it was all about the action. Then being a musician it was all about the music. Now I'm alittle older I love a movie with a great story and script. I sometimes get annoyed if I'm watching something that's really good then out of nowhere there's loads of swearing and I'm like no it just feels so lazy.
Unless its Tarantino or something, sometimes that works.
I guess it might have something to do with the actor delivering the lines also and the range they have in using f bombs!!
Can you say mu#$a F@$ker, 1000 different ways Samuel Jackson can.