599 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

That's only an opinion. That doesn't mean the film is doomed and the marketing is flawed.

Of course. And the film is far from doomed. Most blockbusters these days have forgettable advertising campaigns. Look at IRON MAN... some of the most generic posters around. QUANTUM OF SOLACE will do well whether there's a good poster or not.

But it is nice to have a good poster.

[Jim]

As a real fan of the films (and not the bull paranoia that surrounds the films when the fan / fanatics don't get the information they WANT to hear) I think the creative and artistic longevity of the films is only secured when the paraphernalia of the films (the posters, the music, the marketing) move out of the fans comfort zone and into the realm of surprising the public and its cinematic consciousness. CASINO ROYALE was not a noted film because the fans said so. CASINO ROYALE was a noted film because the public thought so.

Quite. The most dangerous thing they could do is satisfy the fans. Fan"dom" appears inherently conservative, small c anyway, in that it simply wants more of what attracted it to the series in the first place. Accordingly, it stifles or seeks to stifle creativity by insisting on the same thing over again otherwise it may not approve. Sometimes this takes on a vicious bent - craignotbond - or sometimes it's more hidden, but pervasive, such as some disappointment that the poster is not quite as lively as the one for the previous film, or the chosen singers aren't Tom Jones or whoever did it before.

The problem with the Bond series is that it became too successful too quickly and therefore why upset the apple-cart too much? Routine was presumably perceived to keep the fans happy and the dollars rolling in, and to an extent that worked - look at the lack of anything new to say in The Spy who Loved Me and GoldenEye - but the danger was spiralling into doom so that when something that should have been radical hoved into view - Licence to Kill - so riddled with the canker of trying to satisfy a select few had the series become that it satisfied...who, in all honesty? It was neither sufficiently different to other Bond films to stand out as anything interesting to the casual observer - it has Q, it has a routine structure, it has silly gadgets, it has a big chase and exploding things at the end, it has Bond getting the girl and saving the world - and too radical for those stuck with how it had always been. A foot in both camps; a mess.

Let them try something different, please. What they are now doing may all prove to be mistakes, but if you don't make mistakes you don't make anything. If you fail, try again, and fail better. At least they're trying. They could have just churned out Die Another Die until we were all so sick of it everyone went home.

The healthiest thing that can happen is that the people who make the films never come anywhere near places like this. Not that they're being abused - this always appears to be a courteous environment - but they'd get very depressed at the lack of imagination. Shake it up every bloody film; not that they'll ever read that, either. The alternative leads to Star Trek.

The Bond series has had to deal with a reputation - a well-deserved reputation - for churning out the same old rubbish every couple of years or so. Now, trying new things, those who profess to like it don't want that to happen. It's all a bit eccentric. Can't insist that everyone likes every new development - that's silly, and it's not my point. However, don't they at least deserve some admiration for trying, even if it turns out to be dreadful? It must be terribly difficult to come up with new things; I'm not sure we're helping.

[Santa]

this always appears to be a courteous environment

Really?

[Jim]

this always appears to be a courteous environment

Really?

OK, I lied.

Now sod off.

(followed by a winky thing - how does one do that?)

[JimmyBond]

this always appears to be a courteous environment

Really?

OK, I lied.

Now sod off.

(followed by a winky thing - how does one do that?)

Shame on you Jim, they're supposed to teach that when you become a moderator.

[Jim]

this always appears to be a courteous environment

Really?

OK, I lied.

Now sod off.

(followed by a winky thing - how does one do that?)

Shame on you Jim, they're supposed to teach that when you become a moderator.

[Publius]

Shake it up every bloody film;

Amen. Not quite sure how this thread wound up on this topic, but hey, whatever it takes to see a glimmer of the non-comical side of Jim.

[Zorin Industries]

As a real fan of the films (and not the bull paranoia that surrounds the films when the fan / fanatics don't get the information they WANT to hear) I think the creative and artistic longevity of the films is only secured when the paraphernalia of the films (the posters, the music, the marketing) move out of the fans comfort zone and into the realm of surprising the public and its cinematic consciousness. CASINO ROYALE was not a noted film because the fans said so. CASINO ROYALE was a noted film because the public thought so.

Quite. The most dangerous thing they could do is satisfy the fans. Fan"dom" appears inherently conservative, small c anyway, in that it simply wants more of what attracted it to the series in the first place. Accordingly, it stifles or seeks to stifle creativity by insisting on the same thing over again otherwise it may not approve. Sometimes this takes on a vicious bent - craignotbond - or sometimes it's more hidden, but pervasive, such as some disappointment that the poster is not quite as lively as the one for the previous film, or the chosen singers aren't Tom Jones or whoever did it before.

The problem with the Bond series is that it became too successful too quickly and therefore why upset the apple-cart too much? Routine was presumably perceived to keep the fans happy and the dollars rolling in, and to an extent that worked - look at the lack of anything new to say in The Spy who Loved Me and GoldenEye - but the danger was spiralling into doom so that when something that should have been radical hoved into view - Licence to Kill - so riddled with the canker of trying to satisfy a select few had the series become that it satisfied...who, in all honesty? It was neither sufficiently different to other Bond films to stand out as anything interesting to the casual observer - it has Q, it has a routine structure, it has silly gadgets, it has a big chase and exploding things at the end, it has Bond getting the girl and saving the world - and too radical for those stuck with how it had always been. A foot in both camps; a mess.

Let them try something different, please. What they are now doing may all prove to be mistakes, but if you don't make mistakes you don't make anything. If you fail, try again, and fail better. At least they're trying. They could have just churned out Die Another Die until we were all so sick of it everyone went home.

The healthiest thing that can happen is that the people who make the films never come anywhere near places like this. Not that they're being abused - this always appears to be a courteous environment - but they'd get very depressed at the lack of imagination. Shake it up every bloody film; not that they'll ever read that, either. The alternative leads to Star Trek.

The Bond series has had to deal with a reputation - a well-deserved reputation - for churning out the same old rubbish every couple of years or so. Now, trying new things, those who profess to like it don't want that to happen. It's all a bit eccentric. Can't insist that everyone likes every new development - that's silly, and it's not my point. However, don't they at least deserve some admiration for trying, even if it turns out to be dreadful? It must be terribly difficult to come up with new things; I'm not sure we're helping.

Zorin will kiss your feet and take you for a spin in his airship, young Jim! (without having MAYDAY take you for a private drink).

THAT'S the sort of discussion I want to read round here. Not all the time, but at least some of the time. And the small "c" comment is spot on.

What's the phrase..."An educated man doesn't just know what he knows... he knows what he doesn't know"....?

Now - I must get back to my rewrite of BOND 23.... any ideas folks?

[Publius]

What's the phrase..."An educated man doesn't just know what he knows... he knows what he doesn't know"....?

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." --Anonymous

Now - I must get back to my rewrite of BOND 23.... any ideas folks?

Titled BEYOND THE ICE, it follows 007 as it's revealed James Bond is just a codename and the incumbent, played by Daniel Craig, is the son of the original, played by Sean Connery. With George Lazenby as M, who was also a James Bond, and Timothy Dalton as the space laser-armed villain, who was once Bond as well. Directed by Roger Moore, who has a cameo as Q. All instances of "Bond, James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" feature Pierce Brosnan doubling for Craig.

[[dark]]

Now - I must get back to my rewrite of BOND 23.... any ideas folks?

Titled BEYOND THE ICE, it follows 007 as it's revealed James Bond is just a codename and the incumbent, played by Daniel Craig, is the son of the original, played by Sean Connery. With George Lazenby as M, who was also a James Bond, and Timothy Dalton as the space laser-armed villain, who was once Bond as well. Directed by Roger Moore, who has a cameo as Q. All instances of "Bond, James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" feature Pierce Brosnan doubling for Craig.

Bet the teaser poster'll be crap.

[Harmsway]

Now, trying new things, those who profess to like it don't want that to happen.

I haven't seen much of that, Jim.

However, don't they at least deserve some admiration for trying, even if it turns out to be dreadful?

To an extent, but I don't believe in giving A's for effort.

[Publius]

Bet the teaser poster'll be crap.

Yeah, but the taglines will be awesome:

"Only James Bond does it better... than James Bond."
"6 times 007... you do the math."
"Look up! Look down! Look left! Look right! Look front! Look back! James Bond is in all of those spots!"
"His bad side is one of six possibilities. You don't want to know the others."
"My name is Bond. His name is Bond. So is his, his, his, and his."

[Loomis]

Now - I must get back to my rewrite of BOND 23.... any ideas folks?

Well, it's not exactly hard to make a Bond film. You just follow the following steps:

- Get a good actor for Bond. My pick would be Brosnan, as MAMMIA MIA! shows that he's still the original and best 007. If not Brosnan, Craig will do, but, please, dye your hair, Dan. It's not difficult to get it right - it's all laid down in Flemming if you bother to look. Clue: James Bond does not have blond hair. Thanks.

- Pick a decent title. What is A QUANTUM OF SOLACE supposed to mean to average cinemagoer's. How about SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED as the title of BOND 23. If it's good enough to use in all of Flemming's books then it's good enough for a film title.

- Get a popular actress as the Bond girl. Catherine Zeta Jones or Angelina Jolie. Spend some money. You gotta spend it to make it and one of the reasons that the Craig era has failed is that the producers have skimped on acting talent.

- Get a big star for the theme song. Hint: people like Chris Cornwell are NOT big stars. Stump up for the likes of Michael Bublé and Leona Lewis. Anyone who thinks the former drummer from Nirvana singing a song called You Knew My Name (HELLO! The film is called CASINO ROYALE, you dolts!) makes for a good Bond song must be on crack, oh that's right they also hired Amy Winehouse, nuff said.

- Don't mess with the formula. It's called a formula because it works. Many people I've spoken to about CASIO ROYALE complained that not only did it not have Q and Moneypenny but it also had very few gadgets. The Bond girl is NOT supposed to die at the end (from now on every Bond screenwriter should be given a pile of paper with "Oh James" written at the bottom of the last page just so he knows where he needs to be going). And finally Bond must kill the villain HIMSELF. Mikey and Babs cannot wonder why we then turn round and tell that they don't know how to make a Bond film because if it doesn't respect the formula then what we're talking about simply isn't Bond. It's Jason Bourne.

And here's a little tip: the gunbarrel is supposed to go at THE BEGINNING. Sheesh. You'd think that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

- And that's pretty much it. Add some impressive action scenes with lots of effects and make sure that you've got a director who really understands the series (e.g. Lee Tamahori and NOT some misguided arty fop like Marc Foster), and you've got yourself a Bond film. But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

I ask you.

[HildebrandRarity]

...But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

Yeah! Bourne Ultimatum meets The Remains Of The Day!

'em!

[Brix Bond]

I see the CBn forums have changed. They'll let anyone join these days.

The pairing of Jack White and Alicia Keyes is as unconventional as chalk and cheese. However we live in unconventional times. James Bond is blonde, the Bond girl is no longer the eye candy in the film, there are -mercifully - few gadgets and Judi Dench is no longer a bitch in an M&S suit. Ok, so I lied about that last one. My point is that this is a brave step for the producers to take in order to brake the repetitive formulaic approach to Bond that opened it up to parody not only from from comedians but also from the series itself.

Understand that I choose to remain relatively "dispassionate" about new Bond films thanks largely to Die Another Day, opting instead to take a "wait-and-see" attitude. However, I remain positive in spite of the unconventional choices being made in the production of this film, the reason being that these same choices made a hit out of CR.

Marc Forester? That girl from Hitman? Tosca? Perhaps M will be less of Menopause ridden old hag.

Perhaps.

[sark]

What's the phrase..."An educated man doesn't just know what he knows... he knows what he doesn't know"....?

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." --Anonymous

Anonymous no more. That's Donald Rumsfeld.

[stamper]

Well, it's not exactly hard to make a Bond film. You just follow the following steps:

All those steps are exactly why Bond have been more or less sucking for the past 40 years until CR came along. This is formula crap. I'm glad they ditched it and so are millions of moviegoers who couldn't care less before CR came out.

Yeah, and the poster fails to be modern, striking, brave, or even interesting, even aside from its Bond connections.


Describe what you'd do? Beside putting him in a black rubber suit with cowl and cape...or putting him in dusty period garb and accessorizing him with a man bag, fedora and whip?

Just some photoshop paste in that doesn't look amateur. ?

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, it's not exactly hard to make a Bond film. You just follow the following steps:

- Get a good actor for Bond. My pick would be Brosnan, as MAMMIA MIA! shows that he's still the original and best 007. If not Brosnan, Craig will do, but, please, dye your hair, Dan. It's not difficult to get it right - it's all laid down in Flemming if you bother to look. Clue: James Bond does not have blond hair. Thanks.

It's more important that a character gets the personality of Bond right long before they match Fleming's physical description of him. I know that if I were Sir Ian, I'd want that above all else in the actor who played the part.

- Pick a decent title. What is A QUANTUM OF SOLACE supposed to mean to average cinemagoer's. How about SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED as the title of BOND 23. If it's good enough to use in all of Flemming's books then it's good enough for a film title.

Oh, God ... TOMORROW NEVER DIES doesn't make sense and it's better than SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED.

- Get a popular actress as the Bond girl. Catherine Zeta Jones or Angelina Jolie. Spend some money. You gotta spend it to make it and one of the reasons that the Craig era has failed is that the producers have skimped on acting talent.

Oaky, I'm going to ignore for the moment the fact that neither Zeta Jones nor Jolie can act, and that Halle Berry proved an actor's name can easily overshadow the character - which should never happen - and ask how the hell you consider the Age of Craig to have failed. It was successfully both critically and commercially; moreso than pretty much any film from the Age of Brosnan and before.

- Get a big star for the theme song. Hint: people like Chris Cornwell are NOT big stars. Stump up for the likes of Michael Bublé and Leona Lewis. Anyone who thinks the former drummer from Nirvana singing a song called You Knew My Name (HELLO! The film is called CASINO ROYALE, you dolts!) makes for a good Bond song must be on crack, oh that's right they also hired Amy Winehouse, nuff said.

Chris Cornell was not a drummer for Nirvana; Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters (and someone who could do an excellent theme in his own right) was. Chirs Cornell was the frontman for Soundgarden, the other bit Seattle grunge act, and probably one of the greatest lyricists of the late twentieth century. You Know My Name had more lyrical depth than most of the theme songs that had gone before it because it actually related to the film.

- Don't mess with the formula. It's called a formula because it works. Many people I've spoken to about CASIO ROYALE complained that not only did it not have Q and Moneypenny but it also had very few gadgets. The Bond girl is NOT supposed to die at the end (from now on every Bond screenwriter should be given a pile of paper with "Oh James" written at the bottom of the last page just so he knows where he needs to be going). And finally Bond must kill the villain HIMSELF. Mikey and Babs cannot wonder why we then turn round and tell that they don't know how to make a Bond film because if it doesn't respect the formula then what we're talking about simply isn't Bond. It's Jason Bourne.

The formula is crap; our reward for following it was DIE ANOTHER DAY. I guarantee that if they go back to what you're suggesting, we'll have another on just as bad, if not worse. And I don't hear many people telling MGW and Babs that they can't make a film. We might have done so after DIE ANOTHER DAY, but we changed our tune to something exactly the opposite with CASINO ROYALE. As was pointed out by stamper, your formula is a bad idea.

And here's a little tip: the gunbarrel is supposed to go at THE BEGINNING. Sheesh. You'd think that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

See, when you start doing the same old thing over and over again, you end up witn DIE ANOTHER DAY. CASINO ROYALE stood out because it tried something a little different.

- And that's pretty much it. Add some impressive action scenes with lots of effects and make sure that you've got a director who really understands the series (e.g. Lee Tamahori and NOT some misguided arty fop like Marc Foster), and you've got yourself a Bond film. But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

I ask you.

Tamahori didn't understand a thing other than "everything can be solved by blowing it up"!

I bet that I could write a bette Bond film than you could without even trying. I know that sonds arrogant of me to say it - and maybe it is - but I know just how good a writer I am and I get better every day. And I'm better than everything within your "formula for a successful film".

And yes, that's a challenge. I invite you to take it up.

[sark]

Captain Tightpants... he was being facetious.

[[dark]]

Well, it's not exactly hard to make a Bond film. You just follow the following steps:

- Get a good actor for Bond. My pick would be Brosnan, as MAMMIA MIA! shows that he's still the original and best 007. If not Brosnan, Craig will do, but, please, dye your hair, Dan. It's not difficult to get it right - it's all laid down in Flemming if you bother to look. Clue: James Bond does not have blond hair. Thanks.

It's more important that a character gets the personality of Bond right long before they match Fleming's physical description of him. I know that if I were Sir Ian, I'd want that above all else in the actor who played the part.

- Pick a decent title. What is A QUANTUM OF SOLACE supposed to mean to average cinemagoer's. How about SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED as the title of BOND 23. If it's good enough to use in all of Flemming's books then it's good enough for a film title.

Oh, God ... TOMORROW NEVER DIES doesn't make sense and it's better than SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED.

- Get a popular actress as the Bond girl. Catherine Zeta Jones or Angelina Jolie. Spend some money. You gotta spend it to make it and one of the reasons that the Craig era has failed is that the producers have skimped on acting talent.

Oaky, I'm going to ignore for the moment the fact that neither Zeta Jones nor Jolie can act, and that Halle Berry proved an actor's name can easily overshadow the character - which should never happen - and ask how the hell you consider the Age of Craig to have failed. It was successfully both critically and commercially; moreso than pretty much any film from the Age of Brosnan and before.

- Get a big star for the theme song. Hint: people like Chris Cornwell are NOT big stars. Stump up for the likes of Michael Bublé and Leona Lewis. Anyone who thinks the former drummer from Nirvana singing a song called You Knew My Name (HELLO! The film is called CASINO ROYALE, you dolts!) makes for a good Bond song must be on crack, oh that's right they also hired Amy Winehouse, nuff said.

Chris Cornell was not a drummer for Nirvana; Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters (and someone who could do an excellent theme in his own right) was. Chirs Cornell was the frontman for Soundgarden, the other bit Seattle grunge act, and probably one of the greatest lyricists of the late twentieth century. You Know My Name had more lyrical depth than most of the theme songs that had gone before it because it actually related to the film.

- Don't mess with the formula. It's called a formula because it works. Many people I've spoken to about CASIO ROYALE complained that not only did it not have Q and Moneypenny but it also had very few gadgets. The Bond girl is NOT supposed to die at the end (from now on every Bond screenwriter should be given a pile of paper with "Oh James" written at the bottom of the last page just so he knows where he needs to be going). And finally Bond must kill the villain HIMSELF. Mikey and Babs cannot wonder why we then turn round and tell that they don't know how to make a Bond film because if it doesn't respect the formula then what we're talking about simply isn't Bond. It's Jason Bourne.

The formula is crap; our reward for following it was DIE ANOTHER DAY. I guarantee that if they go back to what you're suggesting, we'll have another on just as bad, if not worse. And I don't hear many people telling MGW and Babs that they can't make a film. We might have done so after DIE ANOTHER DAY, but we changed our tune to something exactly the opposite with CASINO ROYALE. As was pointed out by stamper, your formula is a bad idea.

And here's a little tip: the gunbarrel is supposed to go at THE BEGINNING. Sheesh. You'd think that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

See, when you start doing the same old thing over and over again, you end up witn DIE ANOTHER DAY. CASINO ROYALE stood out because it tried something a little different.

- And that's pretty much it. Add some impressive action scenes with lots of effects and make sure that you've got a director who really understands the series (e.g. Lee Tamahori and NOT some misguided arty fop like Marc Foster), and you've got yourself a Bond film. But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

I ask you.

Tamahori didn't understand a thing other than "everything can be solved by blowing it up"!

I bet that I could write a bette Bond film than you could without even trying. I know that sonds arrogant of me to say it - and maybe it is - but I know just how good a writer I am and I get better every day. And I'm better than everything within your "formula for a successful film".

And yes, that's a challenge. I invite you to take it up.

God bless sarcasm.

[Jim]

Well, it's not exactly hard to make a Bond film. You just follow the following steps:

- Get a good actor for Bond. My pick would be Brosnan, as MAMMIA MIA! shows that he's still the original and best 007. If not Brosnan, Craig will do, but, please, dye your hair, Dan. It's not difficult to get it right - it's all laid down in Flemming if you bother to look. Clue: James Bond does not have blond hair. Thanks.

It's more important that a character gets the personality of Bond right long before they match Fleming's physical description of him. I know that if I were Sir Ian, I'd want that above all else in the actor who played the part.

- Pick a decent title. What is A QUANTUM OF SOLACE supposed to mean to average cinemagoer's. How about SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED as the title of BOND 23. If it's good enough to use in all of Flemming's books then it's good enough for a film title.

Oh, God ... TOMORROW NEVER DIES doesn't make sense and it's better than SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED.

- Get a popular actress as the Bond girl. Catherine Zeta Jones or Angelina Jolie. Spend some money. You gotta spend it to make it and one of the reasons that the Craig era has failed is that the producers have skimped on acting talent.

Oaky, I'm going to ignore for the moment the fact that neither Zeta Jones nor Jolie can act, and that Halle Berry proved an actor's name can easily overshadow the character - which should never happen - and ask how the hell you consider the Age of Craig to have failed. It was successfully both critically and commercially; moreso than pretty much any film from the Age of Brosnan and before.

- Get a big star for the theme song. Hint: people like Chris Cornwell are NOT big stars. Stump up for the likes of Michael Bublé and Leona Lewis. Anyone who thinks the former drummer from Nirvana singing a song called You Knew My Name (HELLO! The film is called CASINO ROYALE, you dolts!) makes for a good Bond song must be on crack, oh that's right they also hired Amy Winehouse, nuff said.

Chris Cornell was not a drummer for Nirvana; Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters (and someone who could do an excellent theme in his own right) was. Chirs Cornell was the frontman for Soundgarden, the other bit Seattle grunge act, and probably one of the greatest lyricists of the late twentieth century. You Know My Name had more lyrical depth than most of the theme songs that had gone before it because it actually related to the film.

- Don't mess with the formula. It's called a formula because it works. Many people I've spoken to about CASIO ROYALE complained that not only did it not have Q and Moneypenny but it also had very few gadgets. The Bond girl is NOT supposed to die at the end (from now on every Bond screenwriter should be given a pile of paper with "Oh James" written at the bottom of the last page just so he knows where he needs to be going). And finally Bond must kill the villain HIMSELF. Mikey and Babs cannot wonder why we then turn round and tell that they don't know how to make a Bond film because if it doesn't respect the formula then what we're talking about simply isn't Bond. It's Jason Bourne.

The formula is crap; our reward for following it was DIE ANOTHER DAY. I guarantee that if they go back to what you're suggesting, we'll have another on just as bad, if not worse. And I don't hear many people telling MGW and Babs that they can't make a film. We might have done so after DIE ANOTHER DAY, but we changed our tune to something exactly the opposite with CASINO ROYALE. As was pointed out by stamper, your formula is a bad idea.

And here's a little tip: the gunbarrel is supposed to go at THE BEGINNING. Sheesh. You'd think that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

See, when you start doing the same old thing over and over again, you end up witn DIE ANOTHER DAY. CASINO ROYALE stood out because it tried something a little different.

- And that's pretty much it. Add some impressive action scenes with lots of effects and make sure that you've got a director who really understands the series (e.g. Lee Tamahori and NOT some misguided arty fop like Marc Foster), and you've got yourself a Bond film. But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

I ask you.

Tamahori didn't understand a thing other than "everything can be solved by blowing it up"!

I bet that I could write a bette Bond film than you could without even trying. I know that sonds arrogant of me to say it - and maybe it is - but I know just how good a writer I am and I get better every day. And I'm better than everything within your "formula for a successful film".

And yes, that's a challenge. I invite you to take it up.

Um, it was joke. Loomis was being ironic. Or sarcastic. One of those. Both of them, probably.

Loo-Loo go ha-ha.

Just as I assume you were joking with the reference to "Sir Ian".

[byline]

...But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

Yeah! Bourne Ultimatum meets The Remains Of The Day!

'em!

"Here's the 'Remains of the Day' lunchbox. Kids don't like eating at school, but if they have a 'Remains of the Day' lunchbox they're a lot happier." Corky St. Clair

[Captain Tightpants]

Um, it was joke. Loomis was being ironic. Or sarcastic. One of those. Both of them, probably.

Loo-Loo go ha-ha.

Just as I assume you were joking with the reference to "Sir Ian".

Yeah, and there's always one idiot who takes it seriously and think he's got someone well-known around the forums to back up his opinions. This consequently makes them louder, which is bad because they're already loud enough in trying to ram their opinions down our throats. Best to burn that stump before the head can grow.

Edited by Captain Tightpants, 07 August 2008 - 05:09 AM.

[Jim]

...But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

Yeah! Bourne Ultimatum meets The Remains Of The Day!

The Bourne Remains [2010]

Still in hiding from the CIA, Jason Bourne takes a job in the 1930s as butler to a fascist sympathiser. But has a group of Mosley-ite Neo-Nazis found out his identity.... his Bourne Identity? (Answer - yes). And has he been betrayed by the lippy housekeeper with whom he has a painfully repressed relationship? (Answer: no) And does Hugh Grant's character die, in a moment of huge satisfaction? (Answer: I sincerely hope so). Gasp! as the hunting scene is almost unwatchable, the camera having been strapped to the back of the running fox. Thrill! at the car chase around the hedge-lined country lanes of Devon (referred to as Devonshire for no apparent reason). Cheer! at the wallpaper and the very lovely decanters. Hide your eyes! when, using only domestic weapons (a highly polished soup ladle and some Brasso), Bourne kills a weekend house-party guest for holding his knife like a pen. Weep! as Bourne reveals his tragic past over high tea (with lovely jammy scones) at a Sidmouth hotel, at great length. Be manically depressed! when you realise that it's a desecration of one wonderful book but a colossal improvement on another.

I'd watch it. For the frocks.

[Santa]

Oh dear. It's like pearls before swine. I got it, Loo-loo.

[Skudor]

As a real fan of the films (and not the bull paranoia that surrounds the films when the fan / fanatics don't get the information they WANT to hear) I think the creative and artistic longevity of the films is only secured when the paraphernalia of the films (the posters, the music, the marketing) move out of the fans comfort zone and into the realm of surprising the public and its cinematic consciousness. CASINO ROYALE was not a noted film because the fans said so. CASINO ROYALE was a noted film because the public thought so.

Quite. The most dangerous thing they could do is satisfy the fans. Fan"dom" appears inherently conservative, small c anyway, in that it simply wants more of what attracted it to the series in the first place. Accordingly, it stifles or seeks to stifle creativity by insisting on the same thing over again otherwise it may not approve. Sometimes this takes on a vicious bent - craignotbond - or sometimes it's more hidden, but pervasive, such as some disappointment that the poster is not quite as lively as the one for the previous film, or the chosen singers aren't Tom Jones or whoever did it before.

The problem with the Bond series is that it became too successful too quickly and therefore why upset the apple-cart too much? Routine was presumably perceived to keep the fans happy and the dollars rolling in, and to an extent that worked - look at the lack of anything new to say in The Spy who Loved Me and GoldenEye - but the danger was spiralling into doom so that when something that should have been radical hoved into view - Licence to Kill - so riddled with the canker of trying to satisfy a select few had the series become that it satisfied...who, in all honesty? It was neither sufficiently different to other Bond films to stand out as anything interesting to the casual observer - it has Q, it has a routine structure, it has silly gadgets, it has a big chase and exploding things at the end, it has Bond getting the girl and saving the world - and too radical for those stuck with how it had always been. A foot in both camps; a mess.

Let them try something different, please. What they are now doing may all prove to be mistakes, but if you don't make mistakes you don't make anything. If you fail, try again, and fail better. At least they're trying. They could have just churned out Die Another Die until we were all so sick of it everyone went home.

The healthiest thing that can happen is that the people who make the films never come anywhere near places like this. Not that they're being abused - this always appears to be a courteous environment - but they'd get very depressed at the lack of imagination. Shake it up every bloody film; not that they'll ever read that, either. The alternative leads to Star Trek.

The Bond series has had to deal with a reputation - a well-deserved reputation - for churning out the same old rubbish every couple of years or so. Now, trying new things, those who profess to like it don't want that to happen. It's all a bit eccentric. Can't insist that everyone likes every new development - that's silly, and it's not my point. However, don't they at least deserve some admiration for trying, even if it turns out to be dreadful? It must be terribly difficult to come up with new things; I'm not sure we're helping.

Zorin will kiss your feet and take you for a spin in his airship, young Jim! (without having MAYDAY take you for a private drink).

THAT'S the sort of discussion I want to read round here. Not all the time, but at least some of the time. And the small "c" comment is spot on.

What's the phrase..."An educated man doesn't just know what he knows... he knows what he doesn't know"....?

Now - I must get back to my rewrite of BOND 23.... any ideas folks?

Bring back Q and Moneypenny!!

Only joking.

Make a filmable script out of You Only Live Twice.

Wholeheartedly agree with Mr Jim above. There are 20 odd James Bond films, of varying quality, granted, to satisfy every conservative instinct we may have. Let the film makers shake things up - to the point of utter failure a couple of times if that's what it needs - and give us something exciting.

Just don't turn Bond into, I don't know, a left handed dwarf or something silly like that.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well, it's not exactly hard to make a Bond film. You just follow the following steps:

- Get a good actor for Bond. My pick would be Brosnan, as MAMMIA MIA! shows that he's still the original and best 007. If not Brosnan, Craig will do, but, please, dye your hair, Dan. It's not difficult to get it right - it's all laid down in Flemming if you bother to look. Clue: James Bond does not have blond hair. Thanks.

It's more important that a character gets the personality of Bond right long before they match Fleming's physical description of him. I know that if I were Sir Ian, I'd want that above all else in the actor who played the part.

- Pick a decent title. What is A QUANTUM OF SOLACE supposed to mean to average cinemagoer's. How about SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED as the title of BOND 23. If it's good enough to use in all of Flemming's books then it's good enough for a film title.

Oh, God ... TOMORROW NEVER DIES doesn't make sense and it's better than SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED.

- Get a popular actress as the Bond girl. Catherine Zeta Jones or Angelina Jolie. Spend some money. You gotta spend it to make it and one of the reasons that the Craig era has failed is that the producers have skimped on acting talent.

Oaky, I'm going to ignore for the moment the fact that neither Zeta Jones nor Jolie can act, and that Halle Berry proved an actor's name can easily overshadow the character - which should never happen - and ask how the hell you consider the Age of Craig to have failed. It was successfully both critically and commercially; moreso than pretty much any film from the Age of Brosnan and before.

- Get a big star for the theme song. Hint: people like Chris Cornwell are NOT big stars. Stump up for the likes of Michael Bublé and Leona Lewis. Anyone who thinks the former drummer from Nirvana singing a song called You Knew My Name (HELLO! The film is called CASINO ROYALE, you dolts!) makes for a good Bond song must be on crack, oh that's right they also hired Amy Winehouse, nuff said.

Chris Cornell was not a drummer for Nirvana; Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters (and someone who could do an excellent theme in his own right) was. Chirs Cornell was the frontman for Soundgarden, the other bit Seattle grunge act, and probably one of the greatest lyricists of the late twentieth century. You Know My Name had more lyrical depth than most of the theme songs that had gone before it because it actually related to the film.

- Don't mess with the formula. It's called a formula because it works. Many people I've spoken to about CASIO ROYALE complained that not only did it not have Q and Moneypenny but it also had very few gadgets. The Bond girl is NOT supposed to die at the end (from now on every Bond screenwriter should be given a pile of paper with "Oh James" written at the bottom of the last page just so he knows where he needs to be going). And finally Bond must kill the villain HIMSELF. Mikey and Babs cannot wonder why we then turn round and tell that they don't know how to make a Bond film because if it doesn't respect the formula then what we're talking about simply isn't Bond. It's Jason Bourne.

The formula is crap; our reward for following it was DIE ANOTHER DAY. I guarantee that if they go back to what you're suggesting, we'll have another on just as bad, if not worse. And I don't hear many people telling MGW and Babs that they can't make a film. We might have done so after DIE ANOTHER DAY, but we changed our tune to something exactly the opposite with CASINO ROYALE. As was pointed out by stamper, your formula is a bad idea.

And here's a little tip: the gunbarrel is supposed to go at THE BEGINNING. Sheesh. You'd think that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.

See, when you start doing the same old thing over and over again, you end up witn DIE ANOTHER DAY. CASINO ROYALE stood out because it tried something a little different.

- And that's pretty much it. Add some impressive action scenes with lots of effects and make sure that you've got a director who really understands the series (e.g. Lee Tamahori and NOT some misguided arty fop like Marc Foster), and you've got yourself a Bond film. But Eon nowadays seems determined to give us a blend of Bourne and Merchant-Ivory.

I ask you.

Tamahori didn't understand a thing other than "everything can be solved by blowing it up"!

I bet that I could write a bette Bond film than you could without even trying. I know that sonds arrogant of me to say it - and maybe it is - but I know just how good a writer I am and I get better every day. And I'm better than everything within your "formula for a successful film".

And yes, that's a challenge. I invite you to take it up.

LOL!





Wow! Funniest post this week.

[dee-bee-five]

[quote name='Captain Tightpants' date='7 August 2008 - 05:37' post='900612'
I bet that I could write a bette Bond film.[/quote]

Bette Davis as Bond? I'm not sure that would work, even if she wasn't dead, but I suppose at least it wouldn't be formulaic.

[Captain Tightpants]

Or alternatively, it was a combination of my running out of bipolar meds and a spelling error.

[HildebrandRarity]

Betty Davis as Jayne Bourne 007 in Her EyeDentity Remains, a Merchant-Eon Production directed by Paul Greengrass' grand-mommy, sans shakey-cam.