CRBond movie's not longer Action movie's
#1
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:55 AM
The story's of the last two movie's ar a litle bad.
The action in The world is not enough is too much.
#2
Posted 03 March 2002 - 12:48 AM
On the other hand, I always find it ironic that Bond (in the novels) tells someone (usually the girl) that 'Oh, he'll probably go to gaol.' And then he throws them into a nuclear reactor or off an antenna cradle...
#3
Posted 03 March 2002 - 12:13 PM
Tanger (03 Mar, 2002 01:08 a.m.):
.
When you start adding action scenes that have no relation to the story whatsoever - you've lost almost 2/3 of your audience.
Sadly, Tanger, I'm not sure that this is true. Not all audiences are as discriminating as we are, and a large proportion are quite happy to gawp at meaningless but spectacular action scenes.
The challenge is to furnish enough excitement to keep this sector happy, while still providing the other elements of drama, suspense, intrigue and character interest for the portion of the audience that doesn't leave its brains in the foyer.
#4
Posted 05 March 2002 - 03:26 AM
This may be the only way that they can cut down/out the action scenes.
This would get the film critical praise, as well as an extended run in the theatre. Up the quality of the plot instead of the action.
#5
Posted 03 March 2002 - 01:08 AM
General Koskov (03 Mar, 2002 12:48 a.m.):
Yes! Definitely something FRWL-type. Not many explosions like TND.
I agree. I want more of the 'Cold War' type thrillers that we had in the 60s. None of this action scene, after action scene, after action scene that we've been having recently.
When you start adding action scenes that have no relation to the story whatsoever - you've lost almost 2/3 of your audience. People want a film that has a clear, yet compelling storyline, with twists and turns and enough plot and character development to keep them enthralled. Add three or four action scenes and you've got the perfect movie. If you detract from this, those who go in looking for development in the story will lose attention and all that are left are the action craving few.
#6
Posted 03 March 2002 - 01:48 AM
"It's a new world...
...with new enemies...
...but you can always count...
...on one man."
(Gotta love that trailer! My favourite!!! Quote me be a lil incorrect tho...)
It's true, the world has changed and now there is a little less scope for plot now that everyone is our friend and we no longer point dirty great big Polaris missiles at each other, so the script writers have to come up with new plots, villains etc...and after a while you run out of ideas.
Also, cinema audiences have changed - they want blood, gore, explosions and so do the film companies as this makes them more money. Such a shame - the rest of us, the intelligencia (Word?), have to deal with this ineptitude. Maybe one day all this will change?
But I liked TWINE, in fact I liked it a lot. PB was the Bond generation I was born into - tho I have been a fan since before he was around - and I think they're doing quite a good job. I hope they will do an even better job with this next one tho...
So in this changing world, with its stupid stupid people, what are we to do?
At least we can always rely on one man...
#7
Posted 24 February 2002 - 09:36 PM
But I totally agree with you! The stories are not very good compared the the Bond era before Brosnan. GoldenEye has got the best story if you ask me. I desperately hope the action will be WITHIN the storyline! All the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies have got a certain weakness in their scripts. Is it caused by the screenplay's of Bruce Feirstein, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade??? I must say Christopher Wood and Richard Maibaum did a far better job! We need an 'easy to follow' Bond movie, like 'Moonraker' or 'Goldfinger' combined with the good written stories of 'OHMSS' and 'FYEO'.
#8
Posted 04 March 2002 - 03:45 AM
Double-Oh Gaz (03 Mar, 2002 01:48 a.m.):
Also, cinema audiences have changed - they want blood, gore, explosions and so do the film companies as this makes them more money. Such a shame - the rest of us, the intelligencia (Word?), have to deal with this ineptitude. Maybe one day all this will change?
I dont think thats true anymore. Sure in the 90's we were bombarded with mindless action films, but audiences are changing again. Now they are demanding films that have plots. Just look at the latest crop of films, not one is a mindless action film, except for maybe Collateral Damage.
#9
Posted 04 March 2002 - 04:03 AM
Tanger (03 Mar, 2002 01:08 a.m.):
General Koskov (03 Mar, 2002 12:48 a.m.):
Yes! Definitely something FRWL-type. Not many explosions like TND.
I agree. I want more of the 'Cold War' type thrillers that we had in the 60s. None of this action scene, after action scene, after action scene that we've been having recently.
When you start adding action scenes that have no relation to the story whatsoever - you've lost almost 2/3 of your audience. People want a film that has a clear, yet compelling storyline, with twists and turns and enough plot and character development to keep them enthralled. Add three or four action scenes and you've got the perfect movie. If you detract from this, those who go in looking for development in the story will lose attention and all that are left are the action craving few.
i agree. i think many filmmakers today misunderstand quality for quantity. they think more is better which is wrong. three big action scenes to grace the story will be ideal.
action scene should be new, imaginative and memorable, both conceptwise and techniquewise, we get desensitized when things are blown up every 5 mins, or a ski chase, or car chase...
i also tend to think bond should not be just an action hero, he should be a more brainy type of hero...
#10
Posted 04 March 2002 - 04:19 AM
The first was uncalled for and I can only think that Bond read the name of the moth on a picture M had hung and then used the information to pull M's leg, so to speak. 8-)
With the orchid thing, I would assume that Bond had payed attention in organic chemistry class. rm2