If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.
I deliberately got it wrong, to emphasise the utter predictability of the script.
Posted 24 August 2009 - 05:47 PM
If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.
Posted 24 August 2009 - 06:40 PM
Posted 24 August 2009 - 07:01 PM
Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.
Edited by The Shark, 24 August 2009 - 07:03 PM.
Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:32 AM
Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:38 AM
So sappy secondary characters don't count? C'mon, sap is sap and Fleming wrote a lot of it (main character excepted, most of the time ).
Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:35 AM
Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.
Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.
Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.
Posted 25 August 2009 - 08:48 PM
The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.
Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:03 PM
If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.
I deliberately got it wrong, to emphasise the utter predictability of the script.
Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:09 PM
If you're going to quote a line from the film, at least get it right.
I deliberately got it wrong, to emphasise the utter predictability of the script.
What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:16 AM
Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.
Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.
Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.
'Arc'?
Seriously - 'arc'?
Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?
Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.
Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.
That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.
The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.
What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:16 AM
Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.
Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.
Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.
'Arc'?
Seriously - 'arc'?
Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?
Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.
Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.
That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.
The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.
What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:17 AM
Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.
Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.
Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.
'Arc'?
Seriously - 'arc'?
Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?
Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.
Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.
That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.
The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.
What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.
Wow again, Fleming's "character work" was absolutely befitting thrillers: pretty one-dimensional, almost parody at times. He also wrote a few good ones, sure, but there's a lot in his character writing that seems just plain lazy IMHO.
Again for secondary characters. However when it comes to Bond himself, his individual character arc has hardly been surpassed today by thriller writers.
Everything revolves around him, his fantasies, his fears etc..... Almost like everything else doesn't exist but are figments of his imagination.
'Arc'?
Seriously - 'arc'?
Bond had a character arc? As in, y'know, what the term actually means?
Don't get me wrong, the character's a splendid creation, but he starts and ends as pretty much the same guy. There's not a lot of nuance or evolution. Everything from the death of a bride to mental reprogramming ultimately leads him back to being the same guy he always was. That's not an arc.
Old-style franchise characters - Bond, Indiana Jones, Billy Bunter - are like sitcom characters. To function at their best, they need to remain frozen in aspic. So audiences can have variations of the same adventure over and over again. Fleming knew what he was doing - and what he was doing was nobody's idea of a character study.
That the character was able to be adapted that way by the current screenwriters - in the same way Batman went from Zorro knock-off in a grand tradition to mentally troubled product of a childhood tragedy as new creatives got involved - shows the enduring appeal of the original creation. But making a Fleming Bond now would be like making a 40s Batman flick: woefully short of substance and utterly out of kilter with audience tastes.
The only people who want to see literal Fleming on-screen at this point are the same people who consider the writer some kind of deity in his own sub-genre. And, thankfully, those aren't the people who make the decisions.
What praytell is so wrong with the line in question? Bond has just lost someone he's loved. M feels that he's so upset over the whole ordeal that he's not going to listen to reason and go off and do his own thing. Makes sense to me given the context.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:56 AM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:01 AM
Is there a reason why you did this three time over?
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:02 AM
Is there a reason why you did this three time over?
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:03 AM
Will it be fixed soon?Cut him some slack on that. There's a error on the board that times out when someone submits a post. Not knowing that the post got submitted the user will hit refresh to try to get the page back. Each time they hit refresh the post is submitted over and over again. That's why there are a lot more instances of multiple posting around here than in the past.Is there a reason why you did this three time over?
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:12 AM
Just a thought, but why in the world would EON deviate from their current formula incarnation, when it's making them such boatlaods of money? Might not be your cup of Bond tea, but seems to be getting the job done just fine. I never have the expectation EON makes any creative decision except that it's to make money (very sensible IMO).Almost like some of the elements of the Brosnan are still hanging over the Craig era, along with David Arnold and overblown action. Once the producers get rid of these, Craig can get the Bond he film he deserves.
Posted 26 August 2009 - 01:23 AM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 02:46 AM
Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:18 AM
I totally agree. This further cements my thinking that Marc Forster is one of the worst directors of the series (only Michael Apted is worse) and simultaneously makes me a little more accepting of Dan Bradley as a second unit director. The shaky cam, super-quick editing was a terrible decision. It's hard to like a film when you can't see or follow what the hell is going on. I don't see how anyone can't understand that.Well, you succeeded but I don't think it's anything to be proud of.'I wanted to create that opening to be very disorientating...'
Forster did have a couple of good ideas such as keeping David Arnold and having the footchase end with the characters falling through the ceiling and battling on ropes; but his negative contributions to the film such as the aforementioned editing and hiring MK12 instead of Daniel Kleinman, not to mention the Elvis fiasco, completely overshadow them.
Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:08 PM
I keep playing the soundtrack regularly (I stop the disc before the bloody title "song" closes it, though) and find it easily the best aspect of the film. For all the criticism about DA's originality, etc, his music spells BOND. Had Arnold been replaced along with Lamont, Hemming, Kleinman, etc, QOS would no longer have been a Bond film at all.
Just a thought, but why in the world would EON deviate from their current formula incarnation, when it's making them such boatlaods of money? Might not be your cup of Bond tea, but seems to be getting the job done just fine. wink.gif I never have the expectation EON makes any creative decision except that it's to make money (very sensible IMO).
Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:34 PM
I keep playing the soundtrack regularly (I stop the disc before the bloody title "song" closes it, though) and find it easily the best aspect of the film. For all the criticism about DA's originality, etc, his music spells BOND. Had Arnold been replaced along with Lamont, Hemming, Kleinman, etc, QOS would no longer have been a Bond film at all.
Some of it does spell Bond, very good tracks like Inside Man, Night at the Opera and Time to Get Out, however when the rest of the score is mainly filler. I'd say for the most part his music spells BROSNAN ERA, and that's a slate that needs to be wiped clean.