49 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

And besides, does any of that resumè I just made sound like our beloved Indy?

Does a description of MOONRAKER sound like it belongs in the same franchise as FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? No, but I'm glad we have them both.

KINGDOM is a deeply, even cripplingly, flawed film, but that fridge sequence is a marvelously witty gag. Not a thing wrong with it. If anything, the problem is that the remainder of the film fails to match it in terms of energy or imagination. KINGDOM is a curiously lethargic, stagnant film, and the reason its later absurd flourishes fail to inspire is that they are boring and dumb. But the fridge? That's intelligently, wonderfully absurd.

Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time and probably will become, if he isn´t allready, the most iconic image of a director in film history.

I don't know about that. Spielberg holds a certain place in the pantheon of filmmakers, but he--perhaps to his credit--has never developed a significant persona that has given the man himself iconic status. He's known because of his work and track record, but not because of who he is. It's the difference between Spielberg and, say, Hitchcock.

[univex]

KINGDOM is a deeply, even cripplingly, flawed film, but that fridge sequence is a marvelously witty gag. Not a thing wrong with it. If anything, the problem is that the remainder of the film fails to match it in terms of energy or imagination. KINGDOM is a curiously lethargic, stagnant film, and the reason its later absurd flourishes fail to inspire is that they are boring and dumb. But the fridge? That's intelligently, wonderfully absurd.

Wonderfully absurd as, say, surfing a glacier tsunami, sure. It´s just not my kind of "wonderful"

And what I meant about Spielberg being iconic was related to the "director with the baseball hat and beard" kind of pre-concieved image. But I sure agree with what you said, he´s not the persona Hitch was.

Edited by univex, 12 June 2011 - 07:21 PM.

[Harmsway]

Wonderfully absurd as, say, surfing a glacier tsunami, sure.

No, 'cause there's not much wit behind the idea of surfing a glacier tsunami, and it's not a very pleasing idea, either. Like the gags in the later part of KINGDOM, it's just daft.

But in a film about Indiana Jones finding himself lost and alienated in the 1950s, finding himself actually trapped in the very eerie, idealized 1950s (where the threat of the nuclear weapon literally hangs overhead), only to survive as the indestructible, iconic movie hero that he is? That is a pretty witty joke. It's a microcosm of the whole film. Nevermind that it just has wonderful atmosphere: all those plastic faces, those 1950s pastel colors, Howdy Doody playing on the television to an unresponsive audience. I very much wish DIE ANOTHER DAY had been as clever.

[univex]

Wonderfully absurd as, say, surfing a glacier tsunami, sure.

No, 'cause there's not much wit behind the idea of surfing a glacier tsunami, and it's not a very pleasing idea, either. Like the gags in the later part of KINGDOM, it's just daft.

But in a film about Indiana Jones finding himself lost and alienated in the 1950s, finding himself actually trapped in the very eerie, idealized 1950s (where the threat of the nuclear weapon literally hangs overhead), only to survive as the indestructible, iconic movie hero that he is? That is a pretty witty joke. It's a microcosm of the whole film. Nevermind that it just has wonderful atmosphere: all those plastic faces, those 1950s pastel colors, Howdy Doody playing on the television to an unresponsive audience. I very much wish DIE ANOTHER DAY had been as clever.

I ear you Harms, and I get it. I too, strangely, like that scene, and at that point, I was enjoying the film. It´s just that every time a character gets deemed "indestructible", I start to stop caring and worrying, and that ruins the story. Cmon, we were afraid for Indy every step of the way, when he jumped on to a horse or was about to get his heart ripped of his chest. If he survives a nuclear blast in a fridge, then I´m just not gonna worry or care for him. But hey, many folks agree with me, many more agree with you, so I guess we must be both right

PS: Besides, I´m just trying to pull you into the forums again. Cmon mate, you know you were made for debate

Edited by univex, 12 June 2011 - 08:45 PM.

[Harmsway]

If he survives a nuclear blast in a fridge, then I´m just not gonna worry or care for him.

Well, I'd suggest you could care for him without worrying about him. But the right approach for KINGDOM following that scene would have been to build an immensely entertaining extravaganza, with ever-mounting colorful situations. Allow the scenarios, rather than the danger level, to up the ante, ala TEMPLE OF DOOM (or MOONRAKER, for that matter). Just make sure what follows is genuinely fun. The problem with KINGDOM is that it offers us that moment, and pretty much everything following it is a snooze.

But I do think TEMPLE makes a good case that you can have some super-outrageous events early in a film and still maintain a sense of danger in later scenarios (the life raft scene in TEMPLE is super-ludicrous, but it doesn't undermine the very tense, suspenseful spike chamber sequence later in the film, perhaps because there's enough distance between the two scenes for the film to reconfigure). For this reason, I tend to think the lack of suspense/interest in the remainder of KINGDOM has little to do with the fact that he survives a nuclear explosion, but rather, that KINGDOM is a plodding, talky affair, and never once after that does it try to invest the story with any real sense of stakes or importance.

PS: Besides, I´m just trying to pull you into the forums again. Cmon mate, you know you were made for debate

Maybe so.

[The Shark]

Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time and probably will become, if he isn´t allready, the most iconic image of a director in film history.

I don't know about that. Spielberg holds a certain place in the pantheon of filmmakers, but he--perhaps to his credit--has never developed a significant persona that has given the man himself iconic status. He's known because of his work and track record, but not because of who he is. It's the difference between Spielberg and, say, Hitchcock.

I wouldn't say Spielberg's persona is as iconoclastic or individual as Hitch's, since he bares many similarities with John Ford. But I think it's a mistake to throw him in the category of 'faceless' directors. Whereas Hitchcock was the sexually repressed East End eccentric raised from a strict Catholic upbringing, Spielberg's largely moved beyond his cultural background to a sort of theistic humanism, despite SCHINDLER'S LIST, THE TERMINAL and MUNICH. Many detractors in the academe have called him an 'infantilising' director, and Terry Gilliam snarkily implying in an interview. I don't buy that, but I think there is a kind of childlike purity to A.I., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, E.T. and THE COLOUR PURPLE (despite the horrors and ambiguities some of these films may be have) - even SUGARLAND EXPRESS - that's unique in the history of cinema.

Though I think the difference between Kubrick, Welles and Hitchcock's persona, compared to Spielberg's is a generational thing. None of the baby boomer New Hollywood gang were as larger than life as those three.

[MkB]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me — and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

It's interesting that Spielberg wants to direct a Bond film, but wouldn't cut his rate to do something he's dreamt about. I mean, it's not like he needs the money.

My understanding is that he's simply cracking a joke - or indeed it would be nonsensical of him.

[Miles Miservy]

I would love for Spielberg to direct a Bond film. It'd be nice to see how an American directs Bond, plus it's Spielberg, which automatically guarantees a blockbuster film.

An American director could not direct a 007 film any more than an American actor could play 007.

[The Shark]

I would love for Spielberg to direct a Bond film. It'd be nice to see how an American directs Bond, plus it's Spielberg, which automatically guarantees a blockbuster film.

An American director could not direct a 007 film any more than an American actor could play 007.

Nonsense. This isn't an auteur's franchise. If they can have an American screenwriter, producer, composer, editor, second unit director, or first assistant director - why not a director?

[Messervy]

But I could never get Cubby Broccoli to hire me—and now, sadly, they can’t afford me.

It's interesting that Spielberg wants to direct a Bond film, but wouldn't cut his rate to do something he's dreamt about. I mean, it's not like he needs the money.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that Spielberg meant the comment to be literal. EON *could* afford Spielberg if they wanted to afford him, and I believe Spielberg would cut his rate for a chance to direct his dream job. I have not a single doubt he'd be all over Bond in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

However, by "afford" I think he probably meant creative control. It's unlikely Barbara and Michael would cede that much creative authority over to Spielberg, even though he's earned it. And, lastly, Americans can write the Bond films, they can produce the Bond films, they can finance the Bond films, and they can co-star in the Bond films.......they just can't direct Bond films

This is most likely the reason he's beyond the Bond range now, no single director in the series can have the creative freedom that one would rightfully expect from a Spielberg-Bond. And Spielberg just as director-for-hire is equally unlikely. Frankly, I wouldn't want just an ordinary entry by him.

Well, then again, when a director tries to have even a minimum of creative input, the basic Bond geeks scream that it's an outright scandal! Just look at the way many on these Forums reacted to the fact that there's no Gun Barrel in the opening shots in CR & QoS: they're positively shocked! The James Bond theme is only heard when the movie ends? Positively shocking! Bond is not dark-haired? Positively shocking!

So, I don't blame EON, and I don't blame Spielberg-like directors who know they couldn't bring what they deem would enhance the series.
Mentionning "creative freedom" is impossible with core Bond nerds around...

[Napoleon Solo]

I would love for Spielberg to direct a Bond film. It'd be nice to see how an American directs Bond, plus it's Spielberg, which automatically guarantees a blockbuster film.

An American director could not direct a 007 film any more than an American actor could play 007.

Nonsense. This isn't an auteur's franchise. If they can have an American screenwriter, producer, composer, editor, second unit director, or first assistant director - why not a director?

They could have had an American director as early as Dr. No. Some executives at United Artists were keen on Phil Karlson, according to Adrian Turner's 1998 book on Goldfinger. Kalrson had a $75,000 asking price. Terence Young worked for $40,000.

[SecretAgentFan]

I love Spielberg´s work. And nationality does not have anything to do with directing Bond.

But if he at some point actually did direct Bond I would prefer him to do one set in the early 60´s, evoking a Bond film like he experienced them when he was a kid.

[Mickeba]

For me, Bond has just been ruined already. Barbara and Michael managed that all on their own. Daniel is an alright Bond, not as much charisma as I'd ike, but ok. The problem is that if you take "M" out of the picture, a Bond movie is no different now, than any other action movie. And when I read that product placements are going to be such a huge part of funding the film, it's over as compeling or extraordinary. I'll go see them still, but I don't see the Bond movies anymore, as I did when Sean and the others were on the job.

[univex]

For me, Bond has just been ruined already. Barbara and Michael managed that all on their own. Daniel is an alright Bond, not as much charisma as I'd ike, but ok. The problem is that if you take "M" out of the picture, a Bond movie is no different now, than any other action movie.

I am one of the guys who think they could be doing a better job. Actually, I allways thought that. But even I don´t see it that way. Their attitude regarding getting new and wonderfull talent attached to the films has been very commendable. CR was fantastic in so many ways that I really can´t see how you can put it in the same shelf with other action films, it stands on its own. Bond is back! They just need do give him space to be more...well...Bond, and start to create the mythology of his universe. But as I see it, Bond is definatly still here, more then ever.

And you don´t think Craig as charisma? The guy oozes coolness. Best thing that happened to the franchise since Dalton (and I liked Pierce, up until DUD that is. By then, I could only see him as a William Shatner kind of figure. A fat Ryan O´Neal with a cigar and Springsteens voice [not that there´s anything wrong with The Boss´s voice of course]).

Oh well, to each his own I guess.
Bring on Bond23!

Edited by univex, 16 June 2011 - 06:01 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

What EON doesn't want to afford is a director whose name will compete for top billing:

Albert R. Broccoli's EON Productions presents
a Steven Spielberg film
starring Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in
"The Property of a Risico Rarity in New York"

They didn't do it for Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, John Glen or any of their successors, even when those talents were already being billed that way in other productions. I can't see Spielberg or his agent agreeing to burying his name at the end of the titles like he's a mere mortal.

[Miles Miservy]

And, lastly, Americans can write the Bond films, they can produce the Bond films, they can finance the Bond films, and they can co-star in the Bond films.......they just can't direct Bond films

I´m going out on a limb here and agree with you Grav, It´s a british icon from the british film industry, keep it as such. And as much as i like steven, his recent efforts have been horse manure, I can´t even buy e.t on dvd cause the guy implanted lame cgi effects on the dvd 20th anniversary release, just lucas-lame

Univex is right. FYEO was the film Speilberg wanted to direct. I too am glad it didn't work out that way. Sans Bibi Dahl, it's one of my favorite Moore films. In fact, I think the closest they'd (Steven & Cubby) came to working together can be seen in the films Moonraker & The Goonies, respectively.

MR> Producers got permission to use the 5 communication notes from "CLOSE ENCOUNTERS of the 3RD KIND" for the lock on the door of Drax's lab.

Goonies> Speilberg was given permission to use like 4 bars of the 007 theme song.

[Miles Miservy]

For me, Bond has just been ruined already. Barbara and Michael managed that all on their own. Daniel is an alright Bond, not as much charisma as I'd ike, but ok. The problem is that if you take "M" out of the picture, a Bond movie is no different now, than any other action movie. And when I read that product placements are going to be such a huge part of funding the film, it's over as compeling or extraordinary. I'll go see them still, but I don't see the Bond movies anymore, as I did when Sean and the others were on the job.

Speaking of product placements, I recently saw a network television broadcast of Moonraker. I remember, vividly the scene where Jaws crashed the cable car into the bottom terminal (just before that short, hot blond chick rescued him). Amongst the debris, was this large, obvious, 7-Up billboard that was obnoxiously blocked out in red. I found that odd because the sign was neither offensive nor inappropriate.

I later learned that the reason it was covered was because the company that owned the network that MR was broadcast on, was also the owner of Coke, not 7-Up (or that Coke owned the company that owned the network.

Either way, it made me think to myself, "Really??? Seriously???"

Edited by Miles Miservy, 12 August 2011 - 02:24 PM.

[Major Tallon]

For me, Bond has just been ruined already. Barbara and Michael managed that all on their own. Daniel is an alright Bond, not as much charisma as I'd ike, but ok. The problem is that if you take "M" out of the picture, a Bond movie is no different now, than any other action movie. And when I read that product placements are going to be such a huge part of funding the film, it's over as compeling or extraordinary. I'll go see them still, but I don't see the Bond movies anymore, as I did when Sean and the others were on the job.

Speaking of product placements, I recently saw a network television broadcast of Moonraker. I remember, vividly the scene where Jaws crashed the cable car into the bottom terminal (just before that short, hot blond chick rescued him). Amongst the debris, was this large, obvious, 7-Up billboard that was obnoxiously blocked out in red. I found that odd because the sign was neither offensive nor inappropriate.

I later learned that the reason it was covered was because the company that owned the network that MR was broadcast on, was also the owner of Coke, not 7-Up (or that Coke owned the company that owned the network.

Either way, it made me think to myself, "Really??? Seriously???"

During the first American network broadcast of "Goldfinger," they deleted the line "American motorists kill that many every two years." The broadcast was sponsored in part by a car company.

[marktmurphy]

During the first American network broadcast of "Goldfinger," they deleted the line "American motorists kill that many every two years." The broadcast was sponsored in part by a car company.

Oh, that's my newest favourite Bondfact.

[Peckinpah1976]

Spielberg lost his mojo years ago (around the time he started making "serious" films with The Colour Purple); in 1981 he might have given the series the kick up the it needed (providing they'd gone with a younger lead and a better script writer too) but in the 21st century I don't see what he's possibly got to contribute to the series.