Everyone has a last Bond movie! And while we joke, I think some of the naysaying is a subconscious bit of nihilism/egocetrism - the idea that our favorite franchise will continue after we're dead is a difficult thing to process, and it's a natural thing for one's subconscious mental defenses to kick in and believe (or even hope) we've seen the end of the series.
And if we're suggesting that Bond films SHOULD be just reliable programmers, or that the level of a TNT series is good enough for Bond, then we want very different things out of this franchise. 🤷♂️
Perhaps if you explain your definition of "programmers", I'd be happy to chat about that particular angle in more depth.
I've always seen the term used most when referring to mid-century second features or 'B' films, as I'm a big fan of (mainly) British 'B's from the '40s, '50s and early '60s.
Yes, tend to agree there. The Craig films, when firing on all cylinders, were properly good bits of cinema; where the Brosnans were clearly part of a series, if that makes sense. What I like about Bond films is they're pure hokum which have been worked on by people with way too much talent- your Connery, Ken Adam, John Barry etc. all making them much better than they really deserve to be. Which the Craigs continued, but the Brosnans perhaps felt slightly lower tier of top talent.
I'm not too surprised about that Jack Reacher series as well: I thought the trailer made it look really quite low rent. Appears to be to the Cruise movie sort of like what the Robocop TV series was to Verhoven's film.
I don't quite agree with the implication that the natural state of the genre is slapdash, low-quality bunk. It can be difficult to craft compelling entertainment. As the saying goes, "It's hard to make it look so easy."
The genre of action/adventure? It's not that so much, as that you rarely get action/adventure films which feature Oscar-winning actors standing in sets which are pure works of art from an Oscar-winning set designer, with the beautiful music of the one of the best ever film composers (Oscar-winning, natch) playing in the background etc. With the Connerys the trade-off was that perhaps the directors didn't quite match that, but then we're getting the standard of Sir Sam Mendes with the recent ones. They're overqualified for what it is, and that's the appeal of Bond. It's all top quality stuff.
Forgive me, and I don't mean this to be anything but cordial, but as it's only recently that Oscar winners have come on board, I can't say it's this which is responsible for the series' appeal down the years.
As a side-note - and, friend, this is just my personal view - I don't really rate Mendes particularly highly. It became too pretentious: in Skyfall, for example, having characters just stare at landscapes, or in Spectre's opening shot, in which Mendes was trying to draw attention to himself by having it resemble a single take - and all in a weirdly yellow tint. The best directors, I think, don't try anything too fancy. They want you to forget that they even exist.
The scripts themselves had major problems, particularly Skyfall with all its myriad of plot holes, despite its po-faced posturing as something sophisticated. Fortunately, audiences didn't seem to mind (or maybe even notice) and I'm delighted that the film was such an enormous hit as it's good for the overall health of the series.
My point here is that an Oscar-associated talent (Logan is a three-time Oscar nominee) doesn't necessarily mean that the film they make will be the best in the series. To my mind, Richard Maibaum was a much better writer of these films, perhaps because he was the most experienced in making them.
It's easy to throw shade on Terence Young or Guy Hamilton when neither of them was nominated for an Oscar (adventure epics are not exactly the Academy's favorite genre), but that doesn't mean they weren't as talented or creative or even committed as someone who does have that hunk of metal on their mantle.
It's not true that Oscar winners are new to the franchise, though. John Barry and Ted Moore won Oscar winners while working on their early films, as did Ken Adam; they simply didn't win FOR the Bond films. Not to speak for emtiem, but I think he was speaking about the consistently high craftsmanship present in the franchise since '62.
Yes thanks, that’s exactly what I mean. Ken Adam, John Barry, Sean Connery etc. all top talent and slightly overqualified, that’s what made the films so good.
I’m not very interested in ‘actually Mendes is rubbish’-type revisionism. Some people might find John Barry’s music not to their taste but that doesn’t mean that he’s not one of the most celebrated film composers ever.
Very well. Though personally, I'd rather my opinion be based purely on the work itself and not whether the person behind it has won an award. That's when things get a bit ... snobby. With Mendes, I don't think I'm being revisionist, as I felt he was too obtrusive even at the time.
It's an interesting discussion to have, and one which recurs in any conversation regarding genre. I just feel, a little bit, that to say these people are overqualified implies that they are slumming it by associating with this type of film.
In actual fact, these scripts are hard to write - particularly when there's been twenty-odd already, not to mention the thousands of films made outside the series. For an actor, trying to be convincingly ruthless and convincingly charming, sometimes in the same scene, without either appearing incongruous, must take some thought.
By contrast, in my view, an art-house film, or a more "respectable" drama, can often (but by no means always) be made quite easily. You don't need to worry about pace or clarity, for example, as any perceived flaw can be waved away with the excoriating claim that the viewer is simply unable to appreciate Good Work. Conventionally, things that are abstruse - or just difficult to enjoy - are usually given a higher value by the intelligentsia. Hence Shakespeare; opera; abstract art; foreign-language films or films about uncomfortable topics like domestic abuse. (Fortunately, there are some great films which accrue such attention too - I'm just saying that not all are equal.)
Of course, Barbara herself is very keep to pull in people who are considered prestigious, and that's her choice as she's the leader. I just don't feel it's strictly necessary, particularly when such writers or directors haven't much experience crafting suspense/adventure. It also means that those who came before get retroactively criticized for being - and, predictably, I dislike this word - "journeymen".
Very well. Though personally, I'd rather my opinion be based purely on the work itself and not whether the person behind it has won an award. That's when things get a bit ... snobby. With Mendes, I don't think I'm being revisionist, as I felt he was too obtrusive even at the time.
You don't think John Barry (for example) proves himself to be good?! I don't mention him and the other fantastic talents 'because they won awards' - it's because they're self-evidently brilliant. And proved as much in and out of Bond films over the years. I don't understand what you disagree with about that.
And with Mendes, I think you are being revisionist. In fact I'd say that's pretty snobby in itself: he's not good enough for you. I imagine Roger Deakins is some kind of hack too...
In actual fact, these scripts are hard to write - particularly when there's been twenty-odd already, not to mention the thousands of films made outside the series. For an actor, trying to be convincingly ruthless and convincingly charming, sometimes in the same scene, without either appearing incongruous, must take some thought.
By contrast, in my view, an art-house film, or a more "respectable" drama, can often (but by no means always) be made quite easily.
This is such a vague, sweeping generalisation as to be meaningless.
Your point seems to be that in general it's harder to write a stupid guns-blazing action movie than a quality drama. I find that a bit breathtaking. I'm not going to play down the work scriptwriters do to make an action film feel really satisfying and fit together well (I think for example that Chris MacQuarrie works magic on his Mission Impossible scripts, even though they're not exactly complex stories) but, no: a drama film is not 'easier' to write.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing with me about. I said that the Bond films are really well-made by people who are incredibly talented. If you don't agree with that why are you even looking at a forum for Bond fans?
It's not an argument. I mean this only to be a leisurely chat, like two friends at a pub chatting away. I'm not saying that it's "harder to write a stupid guns-blazing action movie than a quality drama." Not at all. I'm not talking about an '80s Chuck Norris vehicle or a '70s grindhouse shoot-'em-up.
All I'm saying - as politely and friendly as it's possible to be when one can't hear my voice or see my expression - is that it's hard to write a good adventure-thriller. I'm talking about Notorious, The Fugitive, North By Northwest, Charade, Raiders of the Lost Ark, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger etc, or - more modern popular ones - Goldeneye, Casino Royale or Mission Impossible: Fall Out. I'm also saying that such talent isn't automatically equated with awards. Richard Maibaum, for instance, often had it down, yet was never recognized by the Academy. It's almost impossible to get such recognition for a writer who focuses exclusively on the adventure genre.
I also said that an arthouse film "can" often be made quite easily. I'm not suggesting it's easy to make, say, Life Is Beautiful. I'm saying that it's easier, in my view, to make what can be aesthetically presented as a "serious" film because it's almost impervious to criticism. Anyone who doesn't like it can be told that they're simply not clever, patient, perceptive, or sensitive enough to appreciate what the director or writer was "trying to do". An action-adventure, by contrast, is a genre that is more homogeneous and therefore can be more easily compared to others of its ilk.
There's talent in the Bond films, yes, but I don't think an Oscar is necessarily an indicator of such.
This is a wider point, yes, and goes beyond Bond, and can also extend into literature too, but I thought it was a view that was maybe worth advancing as a side-point. I'm only writing this now to avoid any misunderstanding.
All I'm saying - as politely and friendly as it's possible to be when one can't hear my voice or see my expression - is that it's hard to write a good adventure-thriller.
Okay... yes, I said that too. I'm not really sure why you're saying that..? Again, my point is that Bond films were historically made by very talented people. Something like Notorious or North By Northwest is also of very high quality.
I also said that an arthouse film "can" often be made quite easily. I'm not suggesting it's easy to make, say, Life Is Beautiful. I'm saying that it's easier, in my view, to make what can be aesthetically presented as a "serious" film because it's almost impervious to criticism.
And I would disagree with that assertion entirely. Dramatic films are criticised all the time.
There's talent in the Bond films, yes, but I don't think an Oscar is necessarily an indicator of such.
At no point did I claim it's the only indicator. But the specific people I was talking about clearly were brilliant in their fields. You're talking about hypotheticals when I'm talking about specifics. They won Oscars because they were brilliant. They're not brilliant because they won Oscars.
I feel like you're arguing with every sentence in turn in a variety of ways which miss the point rather than stepping back and looking at what's actually being said.
Without wishing to throw water n a very interesting debate, I don't think the Academy is a very good bench mark of achievement. They often hand out awards based on an actors / directors / composers longevity. If you hang around long enough they give you one. There's always an alternative option and while it's a handy point of recognition, chiefly because the winners are voted for by their peers, sentiment or politics tends to come into too often. As Humphrey Bogart famously said: "The only way to decide who the best actor is would be to make them all play Hamlet."
No one is claiming they're a benchmark on their own though: I was specifically saying that Sean Connery, Ken Adam and John Barry were really good and talented at their jobs, and amongst the best who have ever done those jobs anywhere, on any film. If folks are going to argue with that I'm going to send back my 007 fan badge and gun! 🤣
Well, you did mention Barry, Adam and Connery were Oscar winners, which you seem to think "overqualified" them for James Bond. My point is, being an Oscar winner doesn't necessarily qualify a composer, designer or actor for anything, see my Bogart quote.
Well, you did mention Barry, Adam and Connery were Oscar winners, which you seem to think "overqualified" them for James Bond.
No, it's just an illustration of how overqualified they were. Their actual overqualification came purely from the fact they were Connery, Adam and Barry, and it should be obvious to any Bond fan how amazing they all were! 😁
I can't believe folks want to argue that Bond films weren't made by very talented people...
My point is, being an Oscar winner doesn't necessarily qualify a composer, designer or actor for anything, see my Bogart quote.
It doesn't exactly hurt. Bogart won an Oscar too, I suppose he was actually rubbish? 😉
I only mentioned the Oscars in response to the assertion that "it's only recently that Oscar winners have come on board." It simply isn't true.
Overall, though we're colliding into each other a bit, I think I agree that a bit of journeyman workmanship is essential to the franchise. The whole Craig era stands on the shoulders of Martin Campbell directing the hell out of Casino Royale.
But then the Craig era became this extended experiment with A-list respectability, which in my hunch will be as fascinating and as valid a period as "James Bond does blaxploitation" or "James Bond in space" (though, admittedly, those sidetrips didn't take 15 years).
As a fan of the franchise, the whole messy tapestry is part of the appeal to me. It can be disappointing in the moment, but the ride is the ride.
Overall, though we're colliding into each other a bit, I think I agree that a bit of journeyman workmanship is essential to the franchise. The whole Craig era stands on the shoulders of Martin Campbell directing the hell out of Casino Royale.
There's certainly a bit of that, and nothing wrong it at all. But I think also the aspect of getting these people who led in their field also fitted in nicely with Fleming himself: he was writing stories which the likes of Sapper or Buchan had been to before, but he was doing it with such fantastic prose and wonderfully gripping arcs that rivalled the very best, and that made them classics.
I don't think the Academy is a very good bench mark of achievement. They often hand out awards based on an actors / directors / composers longevity. If you hang around long enough they give you one.
which could be one reason No Time to Die gets nominated, Whatever the fine print says about "James Bond will Return", this is being widely perceived as the grand finale and this very thread is speculation the main creative team shall retire and Amazon and its minions start anew. So the Academy may give this silly action movie all the big awards this year, not for the film's own inherent qualities no matter how artyfarty it is, but in recognition of EON's cumulative achievements over the last 60 years.
but that still wont make this new film better than Goldfinger
"the Academy may give this silly action movie all the big awards this year, not for the film's own inherent qualities no matter how artyfarty it is, but in recognition of EON's cumulative achievements over the last 60 years."
Let's put some perspective to at least one thing; Connery was not seen as "over qualified" when he was cast as Bond. He was a B lister in the UK and considered by some (including Fleming) as being unsuitable for the role. Now as far as pure talent, charisma and screen presence, Connery was a star and great actor in the making just waiting for the right opportunity and Bond was perfect. And sometimes you need the "right" director as opposed to the "best", most talented or critically lauded and Terence Young was a perfect choice for those first two Bond films. Young was able to mold the talented, charismatic but raw Connery into one of the most iconic, if not the most iconic cinematic characters of all time. The producers, Cubby and Harry, while being old time showmen and far from "artsy fartsy" types had great instincts when it came to casting Connery in the first place.
I don't think any of that is very likely to be honest.
Let's put some perspective to at least one thing; Connery was not seen as "over qualified" when he was cast as Bond.
Just because he wasn't seen as that doesn't mean that he wasn't. Barry had barely composed a film before and yet grew into one of the best ever film composers. It doesn't matter whether these things were intentional or accidental: the result is the same.
Absolutely, not well know or a big star does not mean an actor is not supremely talented but Bond would not have been the same Bond without Connery and his great and unique talents. With another actor, even a big name of the time, Bond despite the great production talent involved could have been just another good action thriller, albeit with very posh production values.
I don't think any of that is very likely to be honest
I see the Bafta's long-list has 12 nods for NTTD, but I suspect it'll be cut down to size and mostly end up with technical nominations. It'll be interesting to see what the Academy makes of it.
I think as long as Broccoli and Wilson are involved, Bond will be palatable, and maybe even enjoyable, for the vast majority of us. If they go, all bets are off . My heart doesn’t want Bond to come to an end, but my head is telling me that if EON is gone, we’d be better off with Bond coming to an end in NTTD.
The comparison isn’t really valid because the IPs—and the audiences—are so different. And we’re not even talking about Disney w/r/t Bond. And if you look beyond Marvel to Star Wars, Disney doesn’t look so great.
Comments
Everyone has a last Bond movie! And while we joke, I think some of the naysaying is a subconscious bit of nihilism/egocetrism - the idea that our favorite franchise will continue after we're dead is a difficult thing to process, and it's a natural thing for one's subconscious mental defenses to kick in and believe (or even hope) we've seen the end of the series.
And if we're suggesting that Bond films SHOULD be just reliable programmers, or that the level of a TNT series is good enough for Bond, then we want very different things out of this franchise. 🤷♂️
Perhaps if you explain your definition of "programmers", I'd be happy to chat about that particular angle in more depth.
I've always seen the term used most when referring to mid-century second features or 'B' films, as I'm a big fan of (mainly) British 'B's from the '40s, '50s and early '60s.
Yes, tend to agree there. The Craig films, when firing on all cylinders, were properly good bits of cinema; where the Brosnans were clearly part of a series, if that makes sense. What I like about Bond films is they're pure hokum which have been worked on by people with way too much talent- your Connery, Ken Adam, John Barry etc. all making them much better than they really deserve to be. Which the Craigs continued, but the Brosnans perhaps felt slightly lower tier of top talent.
I'm not too surprised about that Jack Reacher series as well: I thought the trailer made it look really quite low rent. Appears to be to the Cruise movie sort of like what the Robocop TV series was to Verhoven's film.
I don't quite agree with the implication that the natural state of the genre is slapdash, low-quality bunk. It can be difficult to craft compelling entertainment. As the saying goes, "It's hard to make it look so easy."
The genre of action/adventure? It's not that so much, as that you rarely get action/adventure films which feature Oscar-winning actors standing in sets which are pure works of art from an Oscar-winning set designer, with the beautiful music of the one of the best ever film composers (Oscar-winning, natch) playing in the background etc. With the Connerys the trade-off was that perhaps the directors didn't quite match that, but then we're getting the standard of Sir Sam Mendes with the recent ones. They're overqualified for what it is, and that's the appeal of Bond. It's all top quality stuff.
Forgive me, and I don't mean this to be anything but cordial, but as it's only recently that Oscar winners have come on board, I can't say it's this which is responsible for the series' appeal down the years.
As a side-note - and, friend, this is just my personal view - I don't really rate Mendes particularly highly. It became too pretentious: in Skyfall, for example, having characters just stare at landscapes, or in Spectre's opening shot, in which Mendes was trying to draw attention to himself by having it resemble a single take - and all in a weirdly yellow tint. The best directors, I think, don't try anything too fancy. They want you to forget that they even exist.
The scripts themselves had major problems, particularly Skyfall with all its myriad of plot holes, despite its po-faced posturing as something sophisticated. Fortunately, audiences didn't seem to mind (or maybe even notice) and I'm delighted that the film was such an enormous hit as it's good for the overall health of the series.
My point here is that an Oscar-associated talent (Logan is a three-time Oscar nominee) doesn't necessarily mean that the film they make will be the best in the series. To my mind, Richard Maibaum was a much better writer of these films, perhaps because he was the most experienced in making them.
It's easy to throw shade on Terence Young or Guy Hamilton when neither of them was nominated for an Oscar (adventure epics are not exactly the Academy's favorite genre), but that doesn't mean they weren't as talented or creative or even committed as someone who does have that hunk of metal on their mantle.
It's not true that Oscar winners are new to the franchise, though. John Barry and Ted Moore won Oscar winners while working on their early films, as did Ken Adam; they simply didn't win FOR the Bond films. Not to speak for emtiem, but I think he was speaking about the consistently high craftsmanship present in the franchise since '62.
Yes thanks, that’s exactly what I mean. Ken Adam, John Barry, Sean Connery etc. all top talent and slightly overqualified, that’s what made the films so good.
I’m not very interested in ‘actually Mendes is rubbish’-type revisionism. Some people might find John Barry’s music not to their taste but that doesn’t mean that he’s not one of the most celebrated film composers ever.
Very well. Though personally, I'd rather my opinion be based purely on the work itself and not whether the person behind it has won an award. That's when things get a bit ... snobby. With Mendes, I don't think I'm being revisionist, as I felt he was too obtrusive even at the time.
It's an interesting discussion to have, and one which recurs in any conversation regarding genre. I just feel, a little bit, that to say these people are overqualified implies that they are slumming it by associating with this type of film.
In actual fact, these scripts are hard to write - particularly when there's been twenty-odd already, not to mention the thousands of films made outside the series. For an actor, trying to be convincingly ruthless and convincingly charming, sometimes in the same scene, without either appearing incongruous, must take some thought.
By contrast, in my view, an art-house film, or a more "respectable" drama, can often (but by no means always) be made quite easily. You don't need to worry about pace or clarity, for example, as any perceived flaw can be waved away with the excoriating claim that the viewer is simply unable to appreciate Good Work. Conventionally, things that are abstruse - or just difficult to enjoy - are usually given a higher value by the intelligentsia. Hence Shakespeare; opera; abstract art; foreign-language films or films about uncomfortable topics like domestic abuse. (Fortunately, there are some great films which accrue such attention too - I'm just saying that not all are equal.)
Of course, Barbara herself is very keep to pull in people who are considered prestigious, and that's her choice as she's the leader. I just don't feel it's strictly necessary, particularly when such writers or directors haven't much experience crafting suspense/adventure. It also means that those who came before get retroactively criticized for being - and, predictably, I dislike this word - "journeymen".
Very well. Though personally, I'd rather my opinion be based purely on the work itself and not whether the person behind it has won an award. That's when things get a bit ... snobby. With Mendes, I don't think I'm being revisionist, as I felt he was too obtrusive even at the time.
You don't think John Barry (for example) proves himself to be good?! I don't mention him and the other fantastic talents 'because they won awards' - it's because they're self-evidently brilliant. And proved as much in and out of Bond films over the years. I don't understand what you disagree with about that.
And with Mendes, I think you are being revisionist. In fact I'd say that's pretty snobby in itself: he's not good enough for you. I imagine Roger Deakins is some kind of hack too...
In actual fact, these scripts are hard to write - particularly when there's been twenty-odd already, not to mention the thousands of films made outside the series. For an actor, trying to be convincingly ruthless and convincingly charming, sometimes in the same scene, without either appearing incongruous, must take some thought.
By contrast, in my view, an art-house film, or a more "respectable" drama, can often (but by no means always) be made quite easily.
This is such a vague, sweeping generalisation as to be meaningless.
Your point seems to be that in general it's harder to write a stupid guns-blazing action movie than a quality drama. I find that a bit breathtaking. I'm not going to play down the work scriptwriters do to make an action film feel really satisfying and fit together well (I think for example that Chris MacQuarrie works magic on his Mission Impossible scripts, even though they're not exactly complex stories) but, no: a drama film is not 'easier' to write.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing with me about. I said that the Bond films are really well-made by people who are incredibly talented. If you don't agree with that why are you even looking at a forum for Bond fans?
It's not an argument. I mean this only to be a leisurely chat, like two friends at a pub chatting away. I'm not saying that it's "harder to write a stupid guns-blazing action movie than a quality drama." Not at all. I'm not talking about an '80s Chuck Norris vehicle or a '70s grindhouse shoot-'em-up.
All I'm saying - as politely and friendly as it's possible to be when one can't hear my voice or see my expression - is that it's hard to write a good adventure-thriller. I'm talking about Notorious, The Fugitive, North By Northwest, Charade, Raiders of the Lost Ark, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger etc, or - more modern popular ones - Goldeneye, Casino Royale or Mission Impossible: Fall Out. I'm also saying that such talent isn't automatically equated with awards. Richard Maibaum, for instance, often had it down, yet was never recognized by the Academy. It's almost impossible to get such recognition for a writer who focuses exclusively on the adventure genre.
I also said that an arthouse film "can" often be made quite easily. I'm not suggesting it's easy to make, say, Life Is Beautiful. I'm saying that it's easier, in my view, to make what can be aesthetically presented as a "serious" film because it's almost impervious to criticism. Anyone who doesn't like it can be told that they're simply not clever, patient, perceptive, or sensitive enough to appreciate what the director or writer was "trying to do". An action-adventure, by contrast, is a genre that is more homogeneous and therefore can be more easily compared to others of its ilk.
There's talent in the Bond films, yes, but I don't think an Oscar is necessarily an indicator of such.
This is a wider point, yes, and goes beyond Bond, and can also extend into literature too, but I thought it was a view that was maybe worth advancing as a side-point. I'm only writing this now to avoid any misunderstanding.
Have a great day.
All I'm saying - as politely and friendly as it's possible to be when one can't hear my voice or see my expression - is that it's hard to write a good adventure-thriller.
Okay... yes, I said that too. I'm not really sure why you're saying that..? Again, my point is that Bond films were historically made by very talented people. Something like Notorious or North By Northwest is also of very high quality.
I also said that an arthouse film "can" often be made quite easily. I'm not suggesting it's easy to make, say, Life Is Beautiful. I'm saying that it's easier, in my view, to make what can be aesthetically presented as a "serious" film because it's almost impervious to criticism.
And I would disagree with that assertion entirely. Dramatic films are criticised all the time.
There's talent in the Bond films, yes, but I don't think an Oscar is necessarily an indicator of such.
At no point did I claim it's the only indicator. But the specific people I was talking about clearly were brilliant in their fields. You're talking about hypotheticals when I'm talking about specifics. They won Oscars because they were brilliant. They're not brilliant because they won Oscars.
I feel like you're arguing with every sentence in turn in a variety of ways which miss the point rather than stepping back and looking at what's actually being said.
Have a great day.
You too.
Without wishing to throw water n a very interesting debate, I don't think the Academy is a very good bench mark of achievement. They often hand out awards based on an actors / directors / composers longevity. If you hang around long enough they give you one. There's always an alternative option and while it's a handy point of recognition, chiefly because the winners are voted for by their peers, sentiment or politics tends to come into too often. As Humphrey Bogart famously said: "The only way to decide who the best actor is would be to make them all play Hamlet."
No one is claiming they're a benchmark on their own though: I was specifically saying that Sean Connery, Ken Adam and John Barry were really good and talented at their jobs, and amongst the best who have ever done those jobs anywhere, on any film. If folks are going to argue with that I'm going to send back my 007 fan badge and gun! 🤣
Well, you did mention Barry, Adam and Connery were Oscar winners, which you seem to think "overqualified" them for James Bond. My point is, being an Oscar winner doesn't necessarily qualify a composer, designer or actor for anything, see my Bogart quote.
Well, you did mention Barry, Adam and Connery were Oscar winners, which you seem to think "overqualified" them for James Bond.
No, it's just an illustration of how overqualified they were. Their actual overqualification came purely from the fact they were Connery, Adam and Barry, and it should be obvious to any Bond fan how amazing they all were! 😁
I can't believe folks want to argue that Bond films weren't made by very talented people...
My point is, being an Oscar winner doesn't necessarily qualify a composer, designer or actor for anything, see my Bogart quote.
It doesn't exactly hurt. Bogart won an Oscar too, I suppose he was actually rubbish? 😉
I only mentioned the Oscars in response to the assertion that "it's only recently that Oscar winners have come on board." It simply isn't true.
Overall, though we're colliding into each other a bit, I think I agree that a bit of journeyman workmanship is essential to the franchise. The whole Craig era stands on the shoulders of Martin Campbell directing the hell out of Casino Royale.
But then the Craig era became this extended experiment with A-list respectability, which in my hunch will be as fascinating and as valid a period as "James Bond does blaxploitation" or "James Bond in space" (though, admittedly, those sidetrips didn't take 15 years).
As a fan of the franchise, the whole messy tapestry is part of the appeal to me. It can be disappointing in the moment, but the ride is the ride.
Overall, though we're colliding into each other a bit, I think I agree that a bit of journeyman workmanship is essential to the franchise. The whole Craig era stands on the shoulders of Martin Campbell directing the hell out of Casino Royale.
There's certainly a bit of that, and nothing wrong it at all. But I think also the aspect of getting these people who led in their field also fitted in nicely with Fleming himself: he was writing stories which the likes of Sapper or Buchan had been to before, but he was doing it with such fantastic prose and wonderfully gripping arcs that rivalled the very best, and that made them classics.
chrisno1 said:
I don't think the Academy is a very good bench mark of achievement. They often hand out awards based on an actors / directors / composers longevity. If you hang around long enough they give you one.
which could be one reason No Time to Die gets nominated, Whatever the fine print says about "James Bond will Return", this is being widely perceived as the grand finale and this very thread is speculation the main creative team shall retire and Amazon and its minions start anew. So the Academy may give this silly action movie all the big awards this year, not for the film's own inherent qualities no matter how artyfarty it is, but in recognition of EON's cumulative achievements over the last 60 years.
but that still wont make this new film better than Goldfinger
"the Academy may give this silly action movie all the big awards this year, not for the film's own inherent qualities no matter how artyfarty it is, but in recognition of EON's cumulative achievements over the last 60 years."
The "Scent of a Woman" effect.
Let's put some perspective to at least one thing; Connery was not seen as "over qualified" when he was cast as Bond. He was a B lister in the UK and considered by some (including Fleming) as being unsuitable for the role. Now as far as pure talent, charisma and screen presence, Connery was a star and great actor in the making just waiting for the right opportunity and Bond was perfect. And sometimes you need the "right" director as opposed to the "best", most talented or critically lauded and Terence Young was a perfect choice for those first two Bond films. Young was able to mold the talented, charismatic but raw Connery into one of the most iconic, if not the most iconic cinematic characters of all time. The producers, Cubby and Harry, while being old time showmen and far from "artsy fartsy" types had great instincts when it came to casting Connery in the first place.
I don't think any of that is very likely to be honest.
Let's put some perspective to at least one thing; Connery was not seen as "over qualified" when he was cast as Bond.
Just because he wasn't seen as that doesn't mean that he wasn't. Barry had barely composed a film before and yet grew into one of the best ever film composers. It doesn't matter whether these things were intentional or accidental: the result is the same.
Absolutely, not well know or a big star does not mean an actor is not supremely talented but Bond would not have been the same Bond without Connery and his great and unique talents. With another actor, even a big name of the time, Bond despite the great production talent involved could have been just another good action thriller, albeit with very posh production values.
entiem says:
I don't think any of that is very likely to be honest
I see the Bafta's long-list has 12 nods for NTTD, but I suspect it'll be cut down to size and mostly end up with technical nominations. It'll be interesting to see what the Academy makes of it.
I think as long as Broccoli and Wilson are involved, Bond will be palatable, and maybe even enjoyable, for the vast majority of us. If they go, all bets are off . My heart doesn’t want Bond to come to an end, but my head is telling me that if EON is gone, we’d be better off with Bond coming to an end in NTTD.
5 in the end, plus a Rising Star nom for Lashana Lynch.
I don't see any reason to be so pessimistic if that were to happen.
Disney buying Marvel didn't make things go off the rails, for example.
The comparison isn’t really valid because the IPs—and the audiences—are so different. And we’re not even talking about Disney w/r/t Bond. And if you look beyond Marvel to Star Wars, Disney doesn’t look so great.
I still think Star Wars seems fine, I don't get the issue. I enjoy the SW shows much more than the Marvel ones.