Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

What would Hollywood have to do to push you over the edge?


41 replies to this topic

#31 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:15 AM


Overall Hollywood isn't all that bad. They produce an awful lot of drivel and abysmal hotchpotch but every once in a while there are gems to be found, too.

They don't mean to shoot themselves in the foot. They just do.


They aim to satisfy their audience, nothing else. In the end the majority of productions can show a decent return, even those that went completely down the drain. Whatever it is we don't agree with, chances are it's been spotted long before by marketing research. They just decided to play it safe and keep it because the majority of viewers doesn't mind. Whatever irks you in a film today just goes to show you are a bit off the beaten path in your tastes. North or South is up to anybody's own guess.

The remarkable thing is, by going that safe route Hollywood has not come much closer to predict a smashing mega-success in filmmaking. That's still a bit of a riddle and a mostly unpredictable outcome. They can be sure to get a quite profitable film by the big franchises STAR WARS, BOND, LORD OF THE RINGS, that much is true. But real surprises as BLAIR WITCH (where every invested dollar brought approximately five dollars in return) are still beyond the ability of the streamlined side of the business. Try as they might, they can't foresee such surprises.

On the other hand huge bombs in the HEAVENS GATE league have become surprisingly scarce. Not every film produced today can show a profit. But even those direct-to-DVD productions still seem to earn some money. So in effect Hollywood has invented its own way to hedge its potential losses, unfortunately at the price of stifling its own creativity.

#32 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:24 AM

If Haggis wrote DIRTY HARRY...


...it would probably be called Dirty Henry.

#33 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:22 PM


If Haggis wrote DIRTY HARRY...


...it would probably be called Dirty Henry.

Have Danny Trejo in the film as the lead and the film becomes Dirty Sanchez.

#34 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:11 PM

That said I may feel tempted to become an extremely peeved fellow if Hollywood ever so much as touches MODESTY BLAISE again. I've come to the opinion now that the failed attempt of the 60's was in fact a blessing and would not like to see that material gangraped by grubby dollars and streamlined marketing to the point of a trailer for a flat and uninspired 200 million dollar CGI excess, just so some redneck hicks in the hinterland don't get to wonder what "modesty" means, why the cockney doesn't shag the girl and why the English faggot doesn't pack a decent gun to help him over his inferiority complex. I can do without such defilement and so can MODESTY BLAISE.


How bad a film is MODESTY BLAISE? I ask because I recently saw two excellent films by Joseph Losey (ACCIDENT and THE ROMANTIC ENGLISHWOMAN) and am curious to check out more of his work. Is MODESTY BLAISE an "interesting failure", as they say? Or is it just, well, a failure, with no interesting elements whatsoever?

I mean, it's a sixties spy movie. It's Joseph Losey. Dirk Bogarde is in it. How awful can it be?

#35 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 07:58 AM


That said I may feel tempted to become an extremely peeved fellow if Hollywood ever so much as touches MODESTY BLAISE again. I've come to the opinion now that the failed attempt of the 60's was in fact a blessing and would not like to see that material gangraped by grubby dollars and streamlined marketing to the point of a trailer for a flat and uninspired 200 million dollar CGI excess, just so some redneck hicks in the hinterland don't get to wonder what "modesty" means, why the cockney doesn't shag the girl and why the English faggot doesn't pack a decent gun to help him over his inferiority complex. I can do without such defilement and so can MODESTY BLAISE.


How bad a film is MODESTY BLAISE? I ask because I recently saw two excellent films by Joseph Losey (ACCIDENT and THE ROMANTIC ENGLISHWOMAN) and am curious to check out more of his work. Is MODESTY BLAISE an "interesting failure", as they say? Or is it just, well, a failure, with no interesting elements whatsoever?

I mean, it's a sixties spy movie. It's Joseph Losey. Dirk Bogarde is in it. How awful can it be?



Oh, that's a touchy issue. How bad/good/abysmal is MODESTY BLAISE - The Motion Picture© really?

I feel that's truly impossible to decide from an objective point of view if one happens to be a fan of 'Modesty Blaise' (books or comics) such as I was already when seeing the film for the one and only time. In another thread I went on at some length about the decision to go the spoof route with their material, but after all that was the flavour of the week at the time and they were only doing a comic strip that had not yet become the series of splendid adventure/spy thrillers O'Donnell's novels would later turn out as. So it probably was for the same reason most major atrocities are born of, it simply looked like a good idea at the time.

The key element where MB-TMP (I refuse to call it simply MB, lest it might mislead the novice) failed in my opinion simply is the cast. Terence Stamp is a joke here and phoned in his part. Bogarde could have made a fine Willie just a few years earlier, yet he must play the part of the old villain Gabriel. But what every adaption of the material regardless if spoof, straight or in between (there is some humour in MODESTY BLAISE) simply must have as conditio sine qua non is a strong actress in the lead. Vitti was cast like one of a dozen pool girls. She can barely deliver her own lines, let alone take the main emphasis of the entire film. The film is stuffed to the brim with sacrileges against the source material (indication of Modesty and Willie having sex for example) but the central failure is the complete and utter disregard for the characters and their motivation as well as the misinterpretation of the tone and spirit of the strips.

That said MB-TMP is hardly guilty of such crimes against its source alone; see for example the Matt Helm series. Much the same mechanisms at work with in the end a similar result, a quick and mostly unlamented demise of the series. But even if we directly compare THE SILENCERS to MB the latter doesn't score. The Matt Helms - yes, all of them! - have to be considered great art in comparison.

Overall I would say MB is a failure only interesting inasmuch as it shows how good characters and an intriguing plot can be bastardised by decisions to make some fast money.

But as always, Loomis, please do have a look for yourself and see if it agrees more with you than it did with me. I'd only urge you to read the first MODESTY BLAISE book (titled fittingly just that and based on O'Donnell's first draft of the script) and ideally the early strips until 1965 or so, LA MACHINE through UNCLE HAPPY/TOP TRAITOR before exposing yourself to this adaption. This is immensely strong thriller material, among the very best of the time and perhaps the genre in general. As a fan of COLONEL SUN you will be interested to see a central element of the plot in TOP TRAITOR, with the action set in a fictional region of the Alpes (reminding me of FF's Doctor Doom and his Latverian home). Given that TOP TRAITOR was published 20/09/65 through 19/02/66 it might well have served as inspiration for Amis.

Edited by Dustin, 31 January 2012 - 08:03 AM.


#36 Jaws0178

Jaws0178

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, Station SD

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:30 AM

Honestly, I would hate to see a remake of The Godfather. Any of them. The reason is actually quite funny. Godfather was such a great movie because of the team behind it. Mario Puzzo, all the actors, Francis Ford Coppola. These days, there is not a cast out there who could do the movie True Justice. It would at best be a bunch of people basically pretending to be the original cast, at worst, the beginning of the Zombie Apocalypse.

#37 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 31 January 2012 - 09:22 AM

What is it with this obsession about zombie apocalypses?

#38 Jaws0178

Jaws0178

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, Station SD

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:06 PM

Zombies are cool. Kind of like Fezzes. Just imagine a Zombie wearing a fez. The world would just come to a stop in its coolness. :)

#39 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:40 PM



That said I may feel tempted to become an extremely peeved fellow if Hollywood ever so much as touches MODESTY BLAISE again. I've come to the opinion now that the failed attempt of the 60's was in fact a blessing and would not like to see that material gangraped by grubby dollars and streamlined marketing to the point of a trailer for a flat and uninspired 200 million dollar CGI excess, just so some redneck hicks in the hinterland don't get to wonder what "modesty" means, why the cockney doesn't shag the girl and why the English faggot doesn't pack a decent gun to help him over his inferiority complex. I can do without such defilement and so can MODESTY BLAISE.


How bad a film is MODESTY BLAISE? I ask because I recently saw two excellent films by Joseph Losey (ACCIDENT and THE ROMANTIC ENGLISHWOMAN) and am curious to check out more of his work. Is MODESTY BLAISE an "interesting failure", as they say? Or is it just, well, a failure, with no interesting elements whatsoever?

I mean, it's a sixties spy movie. It's Joseph Losey. Dirk Bogarde is in it. How awful can it be?



Oh, that's a touchy issue. How bad/good/abysmal is MODESTY BLAISE - The Motion Picture© really?

I feel that's truly impossible to decide from an objective point of view if one happens to be a fan of 'Modesty Blaise' (books or comics) such as I was already when seeing the film for the one and only time. In another thread I went on at some length about the decision to go the spoof route with their material, but after all that was the flavour of the week at the time and they were only doing a comic strip that had not yet become the series of splendid adventure/spy thrillers O'Donnell's novels would later turn out as. So it probably was for the same reason most major atrocities are born of, it simply looked like a good idea at the time.

The key element where MB-TMP (I refuse to call it simply MB, lest it might mislead the novice) failed in my opinion simply is the cast. Terence Stamp is a joke here and phoned in his part. Bogarde could have made a fine Willie just a few years earlier, yet he must play the part of the old villain Gabriel. But what every adaption of the material regardless if spoof, straight or in between (there is some humour in MODESTY BLAISE) simply must have as conditio sine qua non is a strong actress in the lead. Vitti was cast like one of a dozen pool girls. She can barely deliver her own lines, let alone take the main emphasis of the entire film. The film is stuffed to the brim with sacrileges against the source material (indication of Modesty and Willie having sex for example) but the central failure is the complete and utter disregard for the characters and their motivation as well as the misinterpretation of the tone and spirit of the strips.

That said MB-TMP is hardly guilty of such crimes against its source alone; see for example the Matt Helm series. Much the same mechanisms at work with in the end a similar result, a quick and mostly unlamented demise of the series. But even if we directly compare THE SILENCERS to MB the latter doesn't score. The Matt Helms - yes, all of them! - have to be considered great art in comparison.

Overall I would say MB is a failure only interesting inasmuch as it shows how good characters and an intriguing plot can be bastardised by decisions to make some fast money.

But as always, Loomis, please do have a look for yourself and see if it agrees more with you than it did with me. I'd only urge you to read the first MODESTY BLAISE book (titled fittingly just that and based on O'Donnell's first draft of the script) and ideally the early strips until 1965 or so, LA MACHINE through UNCLE HAPPY/TOP TRAITOR before exposing yourself to this adaption. This is immensely strong thriller material, among the very best of the time and perhaps the genre in general. As a fan of COLONEL SUN you will be interested to see a central element of the plot in TOP TRAITOR, with the action set in a fictional region of the Alpes (reminding me of FF's Doctor Doom and his Latverian home). Given that TOP TRAITOR was published 20/09/65 through 19/02/66 it might well have served as inspiration for Amis.


Cheers, Dustin. I expect I'll watch Losey's MODESTY BLAISE at some point, but I won't exactly be falling over myself to do so. At best, and to quote Dr Johnson, it looks like it's worth seeing but not worth going to see. Maybe I'll catch it on TV one day.

I'm much more interested in O'Donnell's book.

#40 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 07:23 PM

Cheers, Dustin. I expect I'll watch Losey's MODESTY BLAISE at some point, but I won't exactly be falling over myself to do so. At best, and to quote Dr Johnson, it looks like it's worth seeing but not worth going to see. Maybe I'll catch it on TV one day.

I'm much more interested in O'Donnell's book.


Well, you know, these days we rediscover an awful lot of stuff that's been forgotten by pop culture, swept away by the next big thing and the latest fad. But some of it was forgotten for a reason, and I strongly suspect MB-TMP may belong into that category. You can find fans of the 60's BATMAN series (lots of!), fans of the Dean Martin MATT HELM films (still a considerable number) and fans of 1967's CASINO ROYALE (have to look a bit but they are there).

Fans of the MODESTY BLAISE film are few and far between. And I have yet to find a single one that defends the film as a depiction of O'Donnell's characters and work. There is a trailer and a few clips on youtube, giving an authentic idea of the actual film and revealing the terrifying truth about what kind of material actually could make it on the silver screen - if circumstances are just right, that is. Not a pretty sight.

The book. Now, that's an entirely different matter.

As you know the Evening Standard strips were already going for a couple of years when the film project came into play. The pressure was on to find source material with 'spy/agent' written above, but also somehow different, so the decision to take this very popular comic then probably seemed quite natural. They got a script from O'Donnell, thanked him warmly, and before he was ushered out of the exec's office someone apparently asked him in an afterthought if he was willing to do a film tie-in. It's difficult to say exactly what their reaction was when O'Donnell agreed. But an educated guess might see us imagining a brief look of surprise and relief, because it meant they would not have O'Donnell troubling them with all sorts of complaints he didn't have any business voicing.

O'Donnell wrote the book as an origin story. His comic up to then had been quick to establish the basics, Modesty the former head of The Network, a freelance crime syndicate, Willie her lieutenant and platonic friend. A strong and assertive woman able to deal with unwanted attentions as well as the deadliest and most ruthless characters in crime and espionage. Both Modesty and Willie helping out Sir Gerald Tarrant, an M figure who has become a friend. And friendship is the entire motivation for Modesty and Willie, both having all the financial means they are ever likely to need. 'Honorary basis' it's called at the end of Modesty's first adventure. Modesty and Willie aren't looking for trouble, it finds them. And usually it regrets meeting them.

The second comic story sees Tarrant trying to get Willie to help him with an issue alone, but Willie insists on asking Modesty and she is of course involved from the start. So right from the start the emphasis is on the team of Modesty and Willie, and Modesty here clearly is the leader. Yet Willie isn't merely the muscle, he provides secret weapons and the most curious intelligence. And he's far from lacking initiative, can (and does) work quite independent whenever the situation asks for it.

All that was already there when the film loomed, but had yet to be given a literary form. O'Donnell didn't want to reinvent the character from scratch, but the different medium and readership also called for a deeper explanation of characters and a different timing. That's very evident in the first MODESTY BLAISE novel and if one is familiar with 63's strip 'La Machine' you can clearly see where O'Donnell retraced his own steps and ever so gently changed details to better fit what by then had become of Modesty Blaise and Willie.

This first book is still not what you'd call 'perfect'. But thankfully it was so well received and successful that it spawned the entire series of novels, so this at least is something we have to thank the ignominious film for. Setting and timing always remind me a bit of COLONEL SUN but it has much stronger characters and a better climax going for it. Mrs Fothergill alone would keep a half-dozen books by lesser writers going.

The second book SABRE-TOOTH ('66) already feels more comfortable in its shoes (there's irony for you, it deals with the invasion of Kuwait by a mercenary outfit) and I, LUCIFER ('67) then shows the Modesty-Willie-Tarrant chemistry in full working mode, together with the 'ordinary' characters that came to be an important element of the series and a favourite amongst fans. By this time the books have established a whole cosmos of lovingly drawn support characters that lend the series an added depth and credibility way beyond the outlandish themes and plots. And the mixture here really is a strong one, blending such unlikely elements as statistics, extra sensoric perception, blackmail, psychosis, pørn-marionette plays, dolphin conditioning and contract killings. If you want to see how all this adds up - and have a hell of a read in the bargain - pick up a copy of I, LUCIFER and rejoice in one of the most remarkable thrillers period.

#41 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:09 AM

Remake of the Battle of Britain but rename it the Battle of America, and have the British as the Nazi bad guys.

#42 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 February 2012 - 05:35 AM

Zombies are cool. Kind of like Fezzes. Just imagine a Zombie wearing a fez. The world would just come to a stop in its coolness. :)


What´s cool about a decaying corpse?