That's fair enough. TB is one of my favourites (possibly my favourite, though I don't do lists) while NSNA most certainly is not and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
I don't like the idea of double bills in general. It takes too much of the evening and we'll finish watching the Bonds far too early. We cn stretch this tradition well into the summer if we do this correctly. There is maybe one exception, and that's CR + QoS. The films are so closely linked in terms of plot, but very different in style. That can be interesting.
AVTAK, as Moore's last, would be good to see as a follow-on to LALD, which was Moore's first. Also, we've now had a series of viewings of movies which people, by and large, really like. The last to attract significant criticism/ fall-out was TLD. So maybe it's time for another iffy-ish John Glen entry of the same vintage - AVTAK probably fitting that bill.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
You guys have been saying "because movie" a lot in these groupwatches.
I think Gymkata started it when we were watching the big chase scene in the Spy Who Loved Me ?
That's a completely irrational scene but just so beautifully executed and iconic.
Anyway, its absolutely true a lot of things are done this way in our Bond films because that's the way we want our story to go, not because normal viewers care about plot-holes.
But I think we oughta have a discussion about the Pros & Cons of why "because movie".
the PRO's of Because Movie:
I think the appeal of our Bond films is not that we want a good spy story. If we did we'd be watching a boring old le Carre adaptation. What we do want is an uptodate variation of an archetypic story form going back to the dawn of civilization, the whole Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey experience.
We need that scene were "the Wizard", or Q in our case, gives The Hero his unique weapons, we need the hero to rescue the damsel in distress (even if the script tells us she's a rival spy equally competent to our hero), we need the big gory cathartic slaying of the dragon, we need the villains headquarters to explode in the end.
All these things must happen ritualistically for our hero to save the world, and if they're not all there, its not a proper James Bond movie. It's also not a proper Hero's Journey.
That deep ancestral collective unconscious need for an archetypic story form is not satisifed, and logic has nothing to do with it.
George Lucas was quite explicit about the Joseph Campbell influence when he made Star Wars, and he cobbled together various images from past film genres that served the requirements to synthesise his uptodate variation. The Spy Who Loved Me by coincidence came out the same year as Star Wars, and it is probably the closest of all James Bond movies to meeting the requirements of the archetypic Hero's Journey.
Have the filmmakers commented on this? I know Fleming alluded to it, he was pastiching a lot of tropes from Victorian adventure novels and children's fiction like Treasure Island, and quite specifically referenced the image of St George and the Dragon, especially in Dr No, also in You Only Live Twice.
(as did his good friend Raymond Chandler in the Big Sleep, but I think he was being ironic)
Anyway, I believe that's why things often don't make sense in terms of how a realistic spy story should work, and why no-one really wants them to. The more realistic James Bond movies are typically criticized for not being proper James Bond adventures!
I'd actually prefer to see some creative fanfic explanations of these plot holes we keep noticing.
In the Marvel Comics of the 1960s, when Stan Lee was writing and editing everything, he worked quite hard to make sure everything that happened in a dozen different ongoing serials all made consistent sense in a shared universe.
He frequently messed up, and whenever he did, readers would write in letters, not only identifying the mistake, but with Stan's encouragement, suggesting increasingly creative explanations. When Stan thought these fan explanations good enough, they actually became canon.
And Stan would reward fans with something called the No-Prize when they wrote in a good explanation around the seeming plot holes!
I have no No-Prizes to give out, but I would love to see some creative explanations patching up these seeming plot holes as we encounter them!
Sorry that I've missed a lot of these recent rewatches lads, I've been away from the forum for a bit due to some personal stuff, but I'll try and catch TND with you tomorrow!
Now the question: Should we follow TB with NSNA?
If we don‘t do it, we‘ll likely have to do it after the full run of the 24 EON Bonds and we may not thave much interest.
Or should we drop NSNa entirely?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
If it's to be OP next, this will help re-live 'the Battle of the Bonds', which was much hyped in 83. Except we'll have seen NSNA first, the other way round to the original release order...
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Comments
Tomorrow, we have LALD and I‘d like to suggest TMWTGG or AVTAK next.
The reason, why I am doing this is, because I would like to do one or 2 double-bills ( with a short break inbetween for Barbel
FYEO + OP in the next run when we have finished TB and DAF
CR + QoS maybe as a final event
What do people think about the plan with the doublebills?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Less seriously, NSNA and CR67?
My vision for the next is:
AVTAK,
TND
TWINE
SP
TB
DAF
TMWTGG
FYEO + OP
CR + QOS
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
We are starring all at the same time and everybody can pick one out of Cr67, NSNA and LTD
And we ALL comment in ONE thread.
Sounds like fun to me
Anyone guesses which one I will choose?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Just thought- TB and NSNA as a double bill? Somebody suggested that earlier.
I am not a fan because it will ruin the unique experience that TB is imo
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think Gymkata started it when we were watching the big chase scene in the Spy Who Loved Me ?
That's a completely irrational scene but just so beautifully executed and iconic.
Anyway, its absolutely true a lot of things are done this way in our Bond films because that's the way we want our story to go, not because normal viewers care about plot-holes.
But I think we oughta have a discussion about the Pros & Cons of why "because movie".
the PRO's of Because Movie:
I think the appeal of our Bond films is not that we want a good spy story. If we did we'd be watching a boring old le Carre adaptation.
What we do want is an uptodate variation of an archetypic story form going back to the dawn of civilization, the whole Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey experience.
We need that scene were "the Wizard", or Q in our case, gives The Hero his unique weapons, we need the hero to rescue the damsel in distress (even if the script tells us she's a rival spy equally competent to our hero), we need the big gory cathartic slaying of the dragon, we need the villains headquarters to explode in the end.
All these things must happen ritualistically for our hero to save the world, and if they're not all there, its not a proper James Bond movie. It's also not a proper Hero's Journey.
That deep ancestral collective unconscious need for an archetypic story form is not satisifed, and logic has nothing to do with it.
George Lucas was quite explicit about the Joseph Campbell influence when he made Star Wars, and he cobbled together various images from past film genres that served the requirements to synthesise his uptodate variation.
The Spy Who Loved Me by coincidence came out the same year as Star Wars, and it is probably the closest of all James Bond movies to meeting the requirements of the archetypic Hero's Journey.
Have the filmmakers commented on this? I know Fleming alluded to it, he was pastiching a lot of tropes from Victorian adventure novels and children's fiction like Treasure Island, and quite specifically referenced the image of St George and the Dragon, especially in Dr No, also in You Only Live Twice.
(as did his good friend Raymond Chandler in the Big Sleep, but I think he was being ironic)
Anyway, I believe that's why things often don't make sense in terms of how a realistic spy story should work, and why no-one really wants them to. The more realistic James Bond movies are typically criticized for not being proper James Bond adventures!
the CON's of Because Movie:
I'd actually prefer to see some creative fanfic explanations of these plot holes we keep noticing.
In the Marvel Comics of the 1960s, when Stan Lee was writing and editing everything, he worked quite hard to make sure everything that happened in a dozen different ongoing serials all made consistent sense in a shared universe.
He frequently messed up, and whenever he did, readers would write in letters, not only identifying the mistake, but with Stan's encouragement, suggesting increasingly creative explanations. When Stan thought these fan explanations good enough, they actually became canon.
And Stan would reward fans with something called the No-Prize when they wrote in a good explanation around the seeming plot holes!
I have no No-Prizes to give out, but I would love to see some creative explanations patching up these seeming plot holes as we encounter them!
Now the question: Should we follow TB with NSNA?
If we don‘t do it, we‘ll likely have to do it after the full run of the 24 EON Bonds and we may not thave much interest.
Or should we drop NSNa entirely?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
M: Top marks, 007.
Bond: Thank you, sir.
M: Except it's a fake. There's the real thing-
M: It's being watched at AJB on Monday evening. We could use an extra pair of eyes...