117 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

I don't understand why people do this. They demand that EON make better films, but when EON hire people who a proven track record of producing quality films, everyone accuses them of "Oscar-baiting". It's like they want a better-quality film, but they don't want a superior-quality film. I don't get that. It's like an Olympic athlete who has a string of bronze medals decides one day that "Whoa, a gold medal is good and all, but maybe it's a little too good, so I think I'll try and get a silver instead".

Amen.

I don't think there will ever be a James Bond movie that will please all the fans. For years people complained that the movies were too formulaistic and silly so they changed it. Now people complain that they deviate away from the old formula. If they return to the old formula for Bond 23 I will bet money that many people will complain that they have seen it all before and there is nothing new.

[blueman]

I don't agree with that at all. The humour was far too dry for me, as dry as the Atacama Desert. And as you say, most of it was hit and miss, unlike the Maibaum, Raven and Mankewitz screenplays, which were loaded with gags, most of which happened to work. Not only due to their intrinsic wit, but the light touch of Connery.

Yeah, I enjoy those Bond films too, but I also recognize them as being not anything like what Fleming wrote, and even working against a thriller (what Fleming wrote) grain when they stick out that much. QOS hit on a great Fleming balance IMO, hope they keep it.

'Not anything like Fleming wrote' is a largely empty black and white statement,

No, it's just how I see it.

Personally I don't want to see an ad verbatim Fleming adaptation. It would not only be anachronistic and backward-looking for the franchise, but probably heavy going to watch, too.

What works well in novel-form, doesn't necessary work on screen, without artistic license on behalf of the screenwriters.

Exactly. And why QOS worked so very well, the writers/director/cast crafted a modern take on a Fleming thriller. Contrast LTK which attempted something similar, but failed in every way IMO.

[Germanlady]

I don't understand why people do this. They demand that EON make better films, but when EON hire people who a proven track record of producing quality films, everyone accuses them of "Oscar-baiting". It's like they want a better-quality film, but they don't want a superior-quality film. I don't get that. It's like an Olympic athlete who has a string of bronze medals decides one day that "Whoa, a gold medal is good and all, but maybe it's a little too good, so I think I'll try and get a silver instead".

Amen.

I don't think there will ever be a James Bond movie that will please all the fans. For years people complained that the movies were too formulaistic and silly so they changed it. Now people complain that they deviate away from the old formula. If they return to the old formula for Bond 23 I will bet money that many people will complain that they have seen it all before and there is nothing new.

Axactly - they will never please them all, but arguing AGAINST talent, only because it went "wrong" for some with QOS is stupid IMO. These two actors will only be interested, if the script is decent to great - so if we just take that as an indication, that we are on a much saver side this time scriptwise - its all good, no?

[Matt_13]

QoS is the closest thing to a modern interpretation of an early Fleming thriller that we'll ever see.

[Jack Spang]

QoS is the closest thing to a modern interpretation of an early Fleming thriller that we'll ever see.

Possibly but excluding the non stop action! That's what reuined my enjoyment of QOS. The only thing I liked about this film was the style and amount of humour and what little character movement we had.

No, Eon can't make a Bond film to please everyone but each Bond film should have a consistent tone like what they are doing with the Craig era. The Brosnan films were too multifaceted. One minute you'd have a dark tone, the next, cheesy humour and gadgets. It didn't work. They are messy, terrible films I think. Perhaps when they get another actor then they could return to the lighter tone of the Moore films.

[JimmyBond]

QoS is the closest thing to a modern interpretation of an early Fleming thriller that we'll ever see.

Possibly but excluding the non stop action! That's what reuined my enjoyment of QOS. The only thing I liked about this film was the style and amount of humour and what little character movement we had.

Well, I can agree with that and disagree with that. It certainly didn't ruin my enjoyment of the film. But there are times in QoS when it seems the only reason the plot is progressing is to take us to the next action sequence.

[blueman]

QoS is the closest thing to a modern interpretation of an early Fleming thriller that we'll ever see.

Been saying that since it was released. And the action doesn't bother me in the least, it's all quite well done and always in service of the plot.

[Jack Spang]

QoS is the closest thing to a modern interpretation of an early Fleming thriller that we'll ever see.

Been saying that since it was released. And the action doesn't bother me in the least, it's all quite well done and always in service of the plot.

Actually, I haven't been entirely fair. What I also like about QOS is some of Forster's editing - the way he had his editor cut between the Tosca opera and the action. I also like the locations in the film, the stylish font used for the city captions and the fact that a few lines of dialogue were in another language with English subtitles. There is way too much action in this film though for my liking. The Bond films used to be part thriller. This can't be said about QOS and the Brosnan films. I don't think I would enjoy Fleming's books much if they contained as much action as QOS! I'm all for a bit more dialogue, investigative scenes and suspense that isn't created through just another action scene. I miss scenes like in DN, FRWL and GF for example, where Bond has dinner with the villain and they discuss elements of the villain's plan while Bond tries to provoke them, Bond spying from afar such as when he is observing Goldfinger's factory, Bond leisurely driving his Aston through beautiful landscapes, Bond showing appreciation for fine food or/and drink, love, hate and suspense on a train... It's these sorts of scenes that are the essence of the literary and atleast the earlier cinematic adventures of the character of James Bond! It never used to be just one chase and fight scene after another. CR is a good, contemporary Bond film. Copious action is just plain boring, regardless of whether it develops the plot! But hey, that's just me.

Edited by Jack Spang, 07 February 2011 - 10:46 PM.

[blueman]

QoS is the closest thing to a modern interpretation of an early Fleming thriller that we'll ever see.

Been saying that since it was released. And the action doesn't bother me in the least, it's all quite well done and always in service of the plot.

Actually, I haven't been entirely fair. What I also like about QOS is some of Forster's editing - the way he had his editor cut between the Tosca opera and the action. I also like the locations in the film, the stylish font used for the city captions and the fact that a few lines of dialogue were in another language with English subtitles. There is way too much action in this film though for my liking. The Bond films used to be part thriller. This can't be said about QOS and the Brosnan films. I don't think I would enjoy Fleming's books if they contained as much action as QOS!

Yeah, too much for Fleming, sure. However it's just the sign of the times: we used to get too much humor with our Bond and if I have to choose one over the other, well I guess I'll go with nail-bitey action every time.

[Jack Spang]

I would rather have a light hearted, humoured film in the vein of the Moore era but with alot less action than a dark Bond flick choc filled with action. The perfect scenario for me though is something dark with less action.

I just can't understand why they have to put in so much action though. CR was the first contemporary Bond film since LTK that wasn't choc full of action and it still did very well. It incorporated alot of these Flemingsque elements and many loved it.

Anyway, at the risk of sounding too negative, I certainly don't set my hopes too high anymore. If they were to make a film in the vein of CR again then a good lot of my faith would be restored. Since the departure of Cubby, and without a Fleming story all they seem to be capable of or interested in making are high velocity action flicks. Bond was always about a lot more than this and there is no reason why he still can't be.

Edited by Jack Spang, 07 February 2011 - 10:57 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I can't see them making another film with the amount of action of QoS. Not yet at least. While we as fans like to say the Producers don't listen to us, that's not entirely true. They are acutely aware of how QoS was recieved by the fans and non-fans alike, and they'll tailor make the next film accordingly. Just look at TWINE, while yes, I really dislike the film, it was an attempt to tell a more grounded story after the action excess of TND.

And for what it's worth, I do think QoS had a lot of action. And it doesn't entirely bother me because I felt the plot was moving forward all the time, even during the action sequences, something the Brosnan films never managed to do (with a few exceptions).

[blueman]

I can't see them making another film with the amount of action of QoS. Not yet at least. While we as fans like to say the Producers don't listen to us, that's not entirely true. They are acutely aware of how QoS was recieved by the fans and non-fans alike, and they'll tailor make the next film accordingly. Just look at TWINE, while yes, I really dislike the film, it was an attempt to tell a more grounded story after the action excess of TND.

And for what it's worth, I do think QoS had a lot of action. And it doesn't entirely bother me because I felt the plot was moving forward all the time, even during the action sequences, something the Brosnan films never managed to do (with a few exceptions).

QOS fared better at the BO, with critics, and with fans than TND, TWINE, and DAD. So as far as recent sophomore outings go EON is above the curve right now. Expect a lot of action in 23.

I would rather have a light hearted, humoured film in the vein of the Moore era but with alot less action than a dark Bond flick choc filled with action. The perfect scenario for me though is something dark with less action.

I just can't understand why they have to put in so much action though. CR was the first contemporary Bond film since LTK that wasn't choc full of action and it still did very well. It incorporated alot of these Flemingsque elements and many loved it.

Anyway, at the risk of sounding too negative, I certainly don't set my hopes too high anymore. If they were to make a film in the vein of CR again then a good lot of my faith would be restored. Since the departure of Cubby, and without a Fleming story all they seem to be capable of or interested in making are high velocity action flicks. Bond was always about a lot more than this and there is no reason why he still can't be.

I thought CR was also action-heavy, they just put most of it into 3 long set pieces whereas QOS had lots of much shorter actiony scenes. 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

[Jack Spang]

Seems to me that CR has less action than QOS. CR is a lot longer. I'm referring to the action to dialogue ratio. CR does have a lot more of those Flemingsque/Bondsque moments and for me it is a much better film than QOS despite the dialogue that is less superior to QOS’s.

"Expect a lot of action in 23."

I would be surprised if you were wrong which is why I no longer look forward to the Bond films. News regarding the new Bond movie no longer excites me like. Seems to me that Eon is now only interested in appealing to the action junkies. Seems like that’s pretty much all that Bond means to them now days. In an interview following the release of QOS, the reporter asked Wilson why QOS had so much action and Wilson replied that CR had a big poker game and as their was no game in QOS then they had to use action to fill up the time instead. One doesn’t have to be a genius to see where he stands on the matter. Blaspheme! David Arnold talked positively about CR. I remember him saying that it actually slowed down and gave you a chance to breath or words to that effect. He said no such thing about QOS or the Brosnan films. Getting another Bond film in the vein of FRWL or even OHMSS (the latter I feel would be perfectly realistic in today’s world given it’s action [there’s a fair bit of it] to dialogue ratio) is entirely unrealistic now days. The fact is that Eon go overbaord and it's like they have forgotten what the Bond films are all about. They certainly never used to be just about endless, mindless action. It’s lucky I still have the literature. Now that excites me! Can’t wait for Carte Blanche.

Edited by Jack Spang, 08 February 2011 - 10:01 PM.

[blueman]

To each their own, I haven't been excited about Bond since the 70s.

[Kreivi von Glödä]

I don't think that QoS had too much action sequences, but it had too little of anything else! I enjoyed a film a lot but do feel that it was cut too short - 10 or 15 minutes more would have easily elevated it from "good" to "very good" in my rankings.

[Zorin Industries]

Seems to me that CR has less action than QOS. CR is a lot longer. I'm referring to the action to dialogue ratio. CR does have a lot more of those Flemingsque/Bondsque moments and for me it is a much better film than QOS despite the dialogue that is less superior to QOS’s.

"Expect a lot of action in 23."

I would be surprised if you were wrong which is why I no longer look forward to the Bond films. News regarding the new Bond movie no longer excites me like. Seems to me that Eon is now only interested in appealing to the action junkies. Seems like that’s pretty much all that Bond means to them now days. In an interview following the release of QOS, the reporter asked Wilson why QOS had so much action and Wilson replied that CR had a big poker game and as their was no game in QOS then they had to use action to fill up the time instead. One doesn’t have to be a genius to see where he stands on the matter. Blaspheme! David Arnold talked positively about CR. I remember him saying that it actually slowed down and gave you a chance to breath or words to that effect. He said no such thing about QOS or the Brosnan films. Getting another Bond film in the vein of FRWL or even OHMSS (the latter I feel would be perfectly realistic in today’s world given it’s action [there’s a fair bit of it] to dialogue ratio) is entirely unrealistic now days. The fact is that Eon go overbaord and it's like they have forgotten what the Bond films are all about. They certainly never used to be just about endless, mindless action. It’s lucky I still have the literature. Now that excites me! Can’t wait for Carte Blanche.

I would suggest that for a few reasons - some internal, some external - BOND 23 may not be as action packed as SOLACE. It certainly may not push the bar ever higher.

It is not fitting in the current financial climate for one film - even a Bond - to be massively budgeted and the notion that Peter Morgan was even remotely involved suggests to me a slightly smaller, more homelands film. That is not to say it wouldn't have its bombast and globe-hopping exploits nor would it be shoestring in the grand scheme of things but less could well be more on this next one. Even if the ilk of Fiennes and Bardem are being discussed suggests a more - possibly - 'domestic' story with less hyperbole.

Just a thought (from a recent conversation I have had).

[Royal Dalton]

Well, it's about time they did a proper version of Moonraker...

[Jim]

I don't think that QoS had too much action sequences, but it had too little of anything else! I enjoyed a film a lot but do feel that it was cut too short - 10 or 15 minutes more would have easily elevated it from "good" to "very good" in my rankings.

Yes, but 10 or 15 minutes more of what, exactly? Seemed to me that it turned up, said what it had to say then mercifully buggered off rather than padding it out and becoming a bit tiresome (at least a dozen of the other films). I'm not sure there was much more that really needed to be done.

[blueman]

Seems to me that CR has less action than QOS. CR is a lot longer. I'm referring to the action to dialogue ratio. CR does have a lot more of those Flemingsque/Bondsque moments and for me it is a much better film than QOS despite the dialogue that is less superior to QOS’s.

"Expect a lot of action in 23."

I would be surprised if you were wrong which is why I no longer look forward to the Bond films. News regarding the new Bond movie no longer excites me like. Seems to me that Eon is now only interested in appealing to the action junkies. Seems like that’s pretty much all that Bond means to them now days. In an interview following the release of QOS, the reporter asked Wilson why QOS had so much action and Wilson replied that CR had a big poker game and as their was no game in QOS then they had to use action to fill up the time instead. One doesn’t have to be a genius to see where he stands on the matter. Blaspheme! David Arnold talked positively about CR. I remember him saying that it actually slowed down and gave you a chance to breath or words to that effect. He said no such thing about QOS or the Brosnan films. Getting another Bond film in the vein of FRWL or even OHMSS (the latter I feel would be perfectly realistic in today’s world given it’s action [there’s a fair bit of it] to dialogue ratio) is entirely unrealistic now days. The fact is that Eon go overbaord and it's like they have forgotten what the Bond films are all about. They certainly never used to be just about endless, mindless action. It’s lucky I still have the literature. Now that excites me! Can’t wait for Carte Blanche.

I would suggest that for a few reasons - some internal, some external - BOND 23 may not be as action packed as SOLACE. It certainly may not push the bar ever higher.

It is not fitting in the current financial climate for one film - even a Bond - to be massively budgeted and the notion that Peter Morgan was even remotely involved suggests to me a slightly smaller, more homelands film. That is not to say it wouldn't have its bombast and globe-hopping exploits nor would it be shoestring in the grand scheme of things but less could well be more on this next one. Even if the ilk of Fiennes and Bardem are being discussed suggests a more - possibly - 'domestic' story with less hyperbole.

Just a thought (from a recent conversation I have had).

Interesting. I've always thought the challenge with filming Bond is externalizing Fleming's very internal world, so much of his writing was the thoughts in Bond's head, his novels always feel short to begin with but edit out Bond's internal monologuing and they become really short. Adding action, even set piece size chunks, to his narratives seems an appropriate filler. Very curious what sort of Bond story these days would need less action, and how the general public might respond to it. Seems whenever they try to do this we get TWINEish bits of spectacle that are wholly unconnected to moving the plot forward, and that would be a shame after the two reasonably (each in their own way) constructed Craig films.

Waiting for this one is getting quite nail-bitey!

[Kreivi von Glödä]

I don't think that QoS had too much action sequences, but it had too little of anything else! I enjoyed a film a lot but do feel that it was cut too short - 10 or 15 minutes more would have easily elevated it from "good" to "very good" in my rankings.

Yes, but 10 or 15 minutes more of what, exactly? Seemed to me that it turned up, said what it had to say then mercifully buggered off rather than padding it out and becoming a bit tiresome (at least a dozen of the other films). I'm not sure there was much more that really needed to be done.

More scenes with Greene and Medrano, methinks, something to emphasise Greenes villainy (which comes off truly well in the film anyways). I'm not favouring something blatantly obvious like showing him picking up the wings off a fly but showing him to dispatch the geologist we see at the ocean floor (that could fall into fly-killer category...) or another speech like the one he gives to Medrano about the people he works with at Pier de la Lunas would have been nice. It's a tricky question really.

Edited by Kreivi von Glödä, 09 February 2011 - 10:16 PM.

[jaguar007]

While we as fans like to say the Producers don't listen to us, that's not entirely true. They are acutely aware of how QoS was recieved by the fans and non-fans alike, and they'll tailor make the next film accordingly. Just look at TWINE, while yes, I really dislike the film, it was an attempt to tell a more grounded story after the action excess of TND.

Very true. While CR was possibly the most critically praised Bond movie ever, what was the one complaint it almost always received - - it was too long. Look what they did with QoS, they made it shorter to a fault.

[blueman]

While we as fans like to say the Producers don't listen to us, that's not entirely true. They are acutely aware of how QoS was recieved by the fans and non-fans alike, and they'll tailor make the next film accordingly. Just look at TWINE, while yes, I really dislike the film, it was an attempt to tell a more grounded story after the action excess of TND.

Very true. While CR was possibly the most critically praised Bond movie ever, what was the one complaint it almost always received - - it was too long. Look what they did with QoS, they made it shorter to a fault.

I dunno, TWINE had lots of dodgy action IMO, and QOS's run time had a lot to do with Forster making his kind of Bond film, from his like a bullet shot from a gun comment, also his comments about EON giving him the freedom to do just that.

EON has their agenda, it's always been about pleasing general audiences IMO.

[Loomis]

I don't think that QoS had too much action sequences, but it had too little of anything else! I enjoyed a film a lot but do feel that it was cut too short - 10 or 15 minutes more would have easily elevated it from "good" to "very good" in my rankings.

Yes, but 10 or 15 minutes more of what, exactly? Seemed to me that it turned up, said what it had to say then mercifully buggered off rather than padding it out and becoming a bit tiresome (at least a dozen of the other films). I'm not sure there was much more that really needed to be done.

Nah, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is about ten or fifteen minutes too long. Trim that ballsaching dialogue at the dock between Greene, Elvis, Camille and General Whatsisname. Cut down on the patronising and indifferently-executed "thrills" (the dull speedboat chase and preposterous dogfight/freefall need to go entirely). Lose Camille, an extraneous and underdeveloped "character" with no significance to the film or to the wider BOND BEGINS story arc. Make Mathis the film's only - in the words of Raymond Benson - "obligatory sacrificial lamb". Chop redundant scenes like Leiter talking to Beam about peppers, a moment that serves absolutely no purpose other than to tell us what we already know, i.e. that the two Americans don't like each other. And bingo! QUANTUM OF SOLACE becomes a taut, intense 90-minute affair, the "lean, mean bullet of a film" that its supporters delight in painting it as (wrongly, though, for it still carries a fair bit of flab).

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I hope the villain this time would be strong this time. If he belongs to Quantum or any other organization, he might not be a "mastermind", but I won't like him to be just a minnow. I like him to be imponent like Red Grant. Memorable, witty and intelligent. Greene was a fine villain, with lots of charm, but he isn't precisely menacing to me.

[talos7]

I would have this Character,and orgnization, take out Quantum and establish themselves as a real force to be delt with by Bond and company,

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I could be wrong on this, but, since the topic is about the possibility of 2 villains, wasn't there a rumour regarding Rachel Weisz as the head of the Quantum organisation?

[blueman]

I could be wrong on this, but, since the topic is about the possibility of 2 villains, wasn't there a rumour regarding Rachel Weisz as the head of the Quantum organisation?

There was. But we were all told very eloquently that is was hokum. It popped up again recently, but seemingly that was a retread of last year's hoohaw tied to Craig and Weisz possibly dating recently. At this point seems unlikely but who knows. As there's been no legit rumor abut a female part in 23, could be something there, time will tell.

[Gernot]

by the way:

In an interview with German newspaper "Berliner Morgenpost" Ralph Fiennes confirmed first negotiations with the bond producers, but he won't say anything until he hasn't read the whole script...

John Logan also wrote the screenplay for Fiennes new movie "Coriolanus".

http://www.morgenpos...lin-drehen.html

Edited by Gernot, 15 February 2011 - 11:00 AM.

[Shrublands]

bye the way:

In an interview with German newspaper "Berliner Morgenpost" Ralph Fiennes confirmed first negotiations with the bond producers, but he won't say anything until he hasn't read the whole script...

John Logan also wrote the screenplay for Fiennes new movie "Coriolanus".

http://www.morgenpos...lin-drehen.html

So it seems he’s been approached, he’s interested, but isn’t going to finalise his participation until he’s seen the finished script and it lives-up to what’s been described.
Seems like the same point of view as Bardem. (and reading between the lines Roger Deakins too)
If all of this talent don’t sign-up, we’ll know that the script ended-up being quite a let down. But if they do...

[Quantumofsolace007]

very interesting. We'll see what happens. I though the fiens rumor was rubbish guess i was wrong