I can't understand that at all. The idea of Fleming having no sort of individual style when writing the books is very similar and similarily awful. In fact- that's Benson; and is pretty much the definition of diminishing returns. I want to see art, not some faceless production line.
Personally I think Raiders is the best Bond film never made (in fact I think it's a very strong candidate for Best Film Ever Made full stop- it's pretty much flawless); I'd love to have seen young Speilberg's take on Bond; the wit and originality stands far above anything Bond was doing at the time. Would I prefer to watch FYEO or Raiders? Not ahard question, and they were trying to do the same thing.
I don't know why you brought up Fleming and Benson. ?:)
For me, it is simple. There are certain things which I want and expect in a Bond film, and a 'name' director might not deliver on them. Call it the formula if you like, but I'm not interested in what Spielberg has to offer, since what he might have to offer, might violate the formula. As for Raiders, it is indeed a great film. Was it the best Bond film never made? Probably, although North By Northwest would also be a contender. In terms of what is a better film, yes, Raiders is superior to FYEO, but as a Bond film, give me FYEO any time.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I wasn't around during the Bondmania of the 60's, but I doubt we will ever see fanmania reaching that height again, regardless of who is playing Bond.
I don't either. People don't seem to have the kind of crazy manias they used to have once upon a time, and Bond then was as much a cultural phenomenon (anything British was cool; showcase for new gadgets; loosening sexual mores, etc ...) as he was just a popular fictional character. But I think that if Craig and CR are as I expect them to be, they could well become the defining Bond and Bond film for a new generation and spawn a whole new series of Bond films with a CR-type vibe. It may well lose some old fans of the series, but I think it could easily gain new ones and perhaps even have a cultural resurgence. Of course, this is assuming it's as good as I hope it is.
I don't know why you brought up Fleming and Benson. ?:)
Because, as I say, it's a similar idea to taking the Bond novels and ensuring that none of them ever have any sort of style which an artist brings to his work; just a sort of bland McDonalds version of art. Fleming's greatest strength was arguably his personal prose style as a thriller writer- take that artistic style, which only he was able to bring, away from the books and you're left with a lot less. Benson's books are pretty much this- Fleming-ish plots but with no sort of individual skill or artististry. Fleming's books are still in print, Benson's aren't.
I brought this up as an example of what you're talking about. You want all the Bond films to taste exactly the same, but there's no sort of desire to see anything challenging in that which twenty films down the line is a bit confusing. And anyway, Spielberg proved at the time he could do 'the formula' very easily and much, much better than any Bond directors could. A great big shame, but he also gave us another fantastic icon in Indiana Jones as a result, which is no bad thing.
I don't know why you brought up Fleming and Benson. ?:)
Because, as I say, it's a similar idea to taking the Bond novels and ensuring that none of them ever have any sort of style which an artist brings to his work; just a sort of bland McDonalds version of art. Fleming's greatest strength was arguably his personal prose style as a thriller writer- take that artistic style, which only he was able to bring, away from the books and you're left with a lot less. Benson's books are pretty much this- Fleming-ish plots but with no sort of individual skill or artististry. Fleming's books are still in print, Benson's aren't.
I brought this up as an example of what you're talking about. You want all the Bond films to taste exactly the same, but there's no sort of desire to see anything challenging in that which twenty films down the line is a bit confusing. And anyway, Spielberg proved at the time he could do 'the formula' very easily and much, much better than any Bond directors could. A great big shame, but he also gave us another fantastic icon in Indiana Jones as a result, which is no bad thing.
I agree, Em. Fleming was terrific at description, character, and plot. He was awful at dialogue, especially for his American characters. I actually use the opening pages of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and compare them to the opening pages of "Rising Sun" in class to show the vast differences in style between two writers of thrillers. The students invariably prefer Fleming.
Spielberg is different. That's too juicy to turn down, that I would have liked to have seen. Not only is he a genius, but at that time he was the PERFECT director for Bond - a young movie freak who loved to choreograph a Rube Goldberg-like action sequence. I think he would gladly have respected all the conventions of a Bond movie.
He probably would have respected the conventions but maybe stretched them somehow. Exactly how, I don't know. As you say, the guy is a genius so there's no way I could predict. And no one does action quite the way he does. There is a wit and sort of logic to his action sequences that is missing from everyone else's. Your Rube Goldberg description is apt: something goes wrong, which causes something else to go wrong, which leads to this, then to that ... It's not just a series of visually spectacular spectacular explosions or actions by the characters. The action has an organic quality to it. It's like watching the fuse burn on a piece of dynamite.
Dan, I understand what you're saying about the formula, and as anyone can tell from my posts, I feel the same way about that. I don't want someone putting their auteur stamp on Bond.
The idea of Tarantino getting his grubby hands on a Bond film was terrifying to me. I think he is incredibly overrated and certainly not an action director. I disagree with his whole sensibility on violence, which I think is just short of psychopath, and he thinks the height of witty banter is what Burger King cheeseburgers are called in France. (Imagine all the "Casino Royale With Cheese" jokes)
I actually like Tarantino, including and especially his take on violence. However I am glad that he has never directed a Bond film.
HOWEVER, Spielberg is different. That's too juicy to turn down, that I would have liked to have seen. Not only is he a genius, but at that time he was the PERFECT director for Bond - a young movie freak who loved to choreograph a Rube Goldberg-like action sequence. I think he would gladly have respected all the conventions of a Bond movie. HH makes a good point though that his entry in the series would stand out like a sore thumb and probably make subsequent films pale in comparison. Hell, it might have even caused the series to END instead of continue. So probably yeah, this is one fantasy better left that way. Still...Cubby must have felt pretty stupid when he saw the Indy films.
Putting advectives in capital letters isn't going to convince me that Spielberg might have made a good choice. Personally, I don't think that Spielberg is such a genius. Martin Scorsese on the other hand... I don't know. For me, the formula is everything. I don't think that the Bond series has ever had a truly great director (who had directed great films outside of Bond) but it has never been a concern for me. I would accept Spielberg or Scorsese or anyone else directing Bond as long as they kept to the formula and understood that this was a Bond film, not a 'Spielberg''Scorsese' etc... film. But directors like that are too individual and might not be prepared to bury or limit their artistic impulses. I'm not unhappy at all that Spielberg (who I think is quite overrated actually) has never directed a Bond film. Based on some of the recent Bond films, I think the bigger concern should be hiring a proper screenwriter.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
You want all the Bond films to taste exactly the same, but there's no sort of desire to see anything challenging in that which twenty films down the line is a bit confusing.
Not at all. I never said that I wanted that. If you look at my ten favourite Bond films, you will see that they include entirely different titles like GF, FRWL, TSWLM and OHMSS. I don't want a Bond film to taste exactly the same. I just want it to follow the formula. The formula does not hae to be limiting; a good script and a fine director can make a great film which follows the formula yet is terrific. TSWLM is such an example. As I noted in my previous post, I would accept someone like Spielberg (who I also think is overrated) as long as he sticks to the formula. My problem with DAD, for example, was not that it stuck to the formula but that it had a terrible script.
Em, I know you don't understand my fixation on the formula, which is fine, but understand that I don't actually think that the 20 films were exactly the same, with many of them vastly different. Anyway, it's purely academic as Spielberg will almost certainly never get the chance to direct a Bond film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think if you include OHMSS in your favourites, despite its inclusion of a controversial lead actor and some obvious deviations from the established Precious Classic Formula, you might be pleasantly surprised by CR, which I actually see as OHMSS' sister film, in more ways than one. B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think if you include OHMSS in your favourites, despite its inclusion of a controversial lead actor and some obvious deviations from the established Precious Classic Formula, you might be pleasantly surprised by CR, which I actually see as OHMSS' sister film, in more ways than one. B-)
Actually no. Nice try though. Without entering yet another 'reboot' debate, suffice to say that my problems with CR, which not only involve the lead actor (whom I dislike more than Lazenby) but also the reboot, are so serious that while I might enjoy CR (I hope to), I won't be using OHMSS as a precedent. That did not violate the formula in the same way as CR is set to; a formula which, love it or hate it, has arguably been followed by every Bond film including FRWL, GF and TB.
So, as I said, I might enjoy and perhaps even love CR, but I think it's an entirely different situation to OHMSS.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2006
Bond and Blofeld not knowing each other. 'Nuff said.
Arguably, indeed
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Bond and Blofeld not knowing each other. 'Nuff said.
I'm having memories of a discussion we had long ago. That was rather interesting them not knowing each other, but as a fan of continuity (that dreaded 'c' word ) I still think that OHMSS, unlike CR, fits into the Bondian continuity nicely.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Sorry, I accidentally pressed the 'quote' button rather than the 'edit' button. ;%
Please refer to page 3 for my latest post of any quality.
(For you conspiracy buffs, this is not a way to increase my post count. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Bond and Blofeld not knowing each other. 'Nuff said.
I'm having memories of a discussion we had long ago. That was rather interesting them not knowing each other, but as a fan of continuity (that dreaded 'c' word ) I still think that OHMSS, unlike CR, fits into the Bondian continuity nicely.
"Rather interesting" ) Love that )
Actually, I really think the two films have many things in common---other than nearly identical running times :v and
the tragic ending. CR and OHMSS were the only two such novels Fleming ever wrote...
...not to mention a general faithfulness to large portions of the author's original work.
I know you're not predisposed to like CR, Dan, but the fact that you find at least a measure of enjoyment in OHMSS (the movie) shows that nothing is impossible {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I know you're not predisposed to like CR, Dan, but the fact that you find at least a measure of enjoyment in OHMSS (the movie) shows that nothing is impossible {[]
Oh, I truly hope that I will enjoy it. (It is a Bond film after all. :007)) I'm just not using OHMSS as a precedent.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
For me, it is simple. There are certain things which I want and expect in a Bond film, and a 'name' director might not deliver on them. Call it the formula if you like, but I'm not interested in what Spielberg has to offer, since what he might have to offer, might violate the formula. As for Raiders, it is indeed a great film. Was it the best Bond film never made? Probably, although North By Northwest would also be a contender. In terms of what is a better film, yes, Raiders is superior to FYEO, but as a Bond film, give me FYEO any time.
I don't either. People don't seem to have the kind of crazy manias they used to have once upon a time, and Bond then was as much a cultural phenomenon (anything British was cool; showcase for new gadgets; loosening sexual mores, etc ...) as he was just a popular fictional character. But I think that if Craig and CR are as I expect them to be, they could well become the defining Bond and Bond film for a new generation and spawn a whole new series of Bond films with a CR-type vibe. It may well lose some old fans of the series, but I think it could easily gain new ones and perhaps even have a cultural resurgence. Of course, this is assuming it's as good as I hope it is.
Because, as I say, it's a similar idea to taking the Bond novels and ensuring that none of them ever have any sort of style which an artist brings to his work; just a sort of bland McDonalds version of art. Fleming's greatest strength was arguably his personal prose style as a thriller writer- take that artistic style, which only he was able to bring, away from the books and you're left with a lot less. Benson's books are pretty much this- Fleming-ish plots but with no sort of individual skill or artististry. Fleming's books are still in print, Benson's aren't.
I brought this up as an example of what you're talking about. You want all the Bond films to taste exactly the same, but there's no sort of desire to see anything challenging in that which twenty films down the line is a bit confusing. And anyway, Spielberg proved at the time he could do 'the formula' very easily and much, much better than any Bond directors could. A great big shame, but he also gave us another fantastic icon in Indiana Jones as a result, which is no bad thing.
He probably would have respected the conventions but maybe stretched them somehow. Exactly how, I don't know. As you say, the guy is a genius so there's no way I could predict. And no one does action quite the way he does. There is a wit and sort of logic to his action sequences that is missing from everyone else's. Your Rube Goldberg description is apt: something goes wrong, which causes something else to go wrong, which leads to this, then to that ... It's not just a series of visually spectacular spectacular explosions or actions by the characters. The action has an organic quality to it. It's like watching the fuse burn on a piece of dynamite.
Putting advectives in capital letters isn't going to convince me that Spielberg might have made a good choice.
Em, I know you don't understand my fixation on the formula, which is fine, but understand that I don't actually think that the 20 films were exactly the same, with many of them vastly different. Anyway, it's purely academic as Spielberg will almost certainly never get the chance to direct a Bond film.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
So, as I said, I might enjoy and perhaps even love CR, but I think it's an entirely different situation to OHMSS.
Arguably, indeed
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Please refer to page 3 for my latest post of any quality.
(For you conspiracy buffs, this is not a way to increase my post count.
"Rather interesting"
Actually, I really think the two films have many things in common---other than nearly identical running times :v and
...not to mention a general faithfulness to large portions of the author's original work.
I know you're not predisposed to like CR, Dan, but the fact that you find at least a measure of enjoyment in OHMSS (the movie) shows that nothing is impossible {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM