462 replies to this topic

[stromberg]

And you know what started this craving for "EMOTION"?
 
"Titanic".  The basic love story at the core of that, as corny and simplistic and, um, unrealistic as ist was, made too many audiences shill out their bucks.
 
After that, every executive wanted that kind of dynamic in every picture.

It started way earlier. Four words: "Your father he is."

 

 

I´m not afraid of AUSTIN POWERS, however.  At all.  Those films were mainly joking about the Connery and Moore films, a bygone era.  And they themselves have dropped off the public´s radar.  Sure, some journalists will throw the name around sometimes, but I doubt that many of the key demographic audiences have even seen them or know who Mike Myers is.  Since they probably haven´t seen a lot of the old Bond films, they will hardly think of AUSTIN POWERS when they watch Bond films of the Craig era.

The Bond film that inspired AP the most (apart from the Blofeld look and the cat) has neither Connery or Moore (and lets's not forget the Laz) but David Niven as Sir James Bond in it...

[SecretAgentFan]

[kneelbeforezod]

I also agree that there's no need to worry about Austin Powers... in fact, I've seen those films and I have no memory of what happened that apparently is similar to the Spectre storyline.

 

What I think may happen is this: the central concept will be a bit of a groaner and strain credulity, but it will be so deliciously written and performed by Craig and Waltz that we will all happily go along with it. I think Seydoux is going to be a huge asset to the film too. And hey, if you're going to strain credulity, might as well do it in a Bond flick.

 

And as glum and "emotional" as Craig's films have sometimes been, they do a better job of injecting drama and stakes into the proceedings than, say, the Mission Impossible films (which I also very much enjoy btw]. M's death had real dramatic weight. Emotional depth and dramatic stakes are the path the Craig films have chosen, the style suits his acting better, it's not going anywhere... better get used to it!

[tdalton]

When it comes to the emotional stakes in the Bond films, I've always maintained that there can be an emotional angle that allows Craig and the creative team to really flex their creative muscles while not having to delve into Bond's past. It doesn't have to be Bond working out his mother issues or Bond dealing with the rise of a childhood acquaintance to terrorist mastermind. Perhaps the mission itself is something that hits Bond close to home, or is just something so challenging that we get our moral angle from that rather than from Bond. I've always maintained that Le Chiffre's scheme in Casino Royale should have been human trafficking rather than terrorism. Going that route, you've given Craig something terrific to work with in terms of the ability to delve deep into a challenging subject (which they touched ever so briefly on in Skyfall with Severine), but also kept out of some rather silly backstory exploration that simply doesn't need to be done.

If they want something challenging for SPECTRE, why not pit Blofeld (excuse me, "Oberhauser") as someone with whom Bond might find himself agreeing with at the beginning of the film. Maybe he's someone that M and the government want taken out, but Bond finds himself agreeing with his worldview, in a similar way to how Silva tried to get Bond on board by appealing to his ego and offering him whatever missions he would want anywhere in the world. Maybe Bond, after witnessing the incompetence of Q and Moneypenny and the constant political nonsense that seems to go on back at HQ, considers joining SPECTRE, before seeing just what Blofeld and company are capable of and willing to do. I think that there's plenty here to let Craig flex his acting chops while giving the film some emotional depth that doesn't come from childhood trauma or a sibling rivalry.

Regardless, this just seems like something that the Craig films should be above by now. If all of what has happened in the previous films stems from some long-sealed hatred of Bond, then we're approaching Mission: Impossible territory where you realize that everything could have been avoided by simply taking Bond out of the equation. The stakes for a film franchise like the Bond films needs to be something beyond familial conflict and politics. There needs to be some kind of high stakes. We've gotten the more realistic version of this with Quantum of Solace's water-stealing scheme. The stakes need not be world domination, but something tangible that the audience can latch onto. Water-stealing aside (still the best villainous scheme of Craig's tenure), the stakes have been "don't lose $150 million in poker" and "save M", which Bond failed to do. SPECTRE needs to feature stakes that rise above simply Bond's fate or the fate of those around him and the secret service in general. Setting it up as a familial drama takes away from this greatly, no matter how they go about trying to pull it off.

With regards to Austin Powers, I think more people remember them than many would like to think. Mike Myers got a pretty good reception for reprising the Dr. Evil character on Saturday Night Live within the last year, so I think that there's enough remembrance of those films for people other than the media to draw the connection. Plus, there's the fact that these new Bond films, while certainly still positioned as the crowd pleasers they've always been, are aiming for a slightly older audience than they were when Brosnan was Bond. I'd say that the target audience of these films are probably the same group of people that were the target audience of Brosnan's films, who are now in their late twenties and on up, which would also be the same audience that played a huge part in making the Austin Powers films the successes that they were.

Even if one wants to discount the Austin Powers effect, there's still been a lot made of the fact that those films impacted how Bond films could be made moving forward because their satire was so on the nose that it rendered certain elements of the Bond films useless moving forward. Lots of people pointed to the idea that Blofeld couldn't be depicted in the same way he had been because Dr. Evil had essentially killed that incarnation of the character. I agree with that sentiment. Still, the Bond franchise and its fans have made it a point to look at those films and their impact on the Bond franchise, often from a negative viewpoint. With that in mind, they really shouldn't be going back and trying to "rip off" something that the Austin Powers films did. Having Blofeld/Oberhauser revealed as Bond's foster brother would be such an on-the-nose call back, whether intentional or no, to certain elements of Austin Powers in Goldmember that it would greatly undercut whatever it is that Mendes and company are trying to accomplish. If the films can render certain iconic elements of Bond inaccessible (Blofeld's previous depiction, the white cat, etc.) then it can certainly render a storyline such as what SPECTRE seems to want to tell, inaccessible as well. If the films weren't coming off of a mind-numbing run of "this time, it's personal" films, then it might be worth the risk of going that direction, but it's going to feel very old hat by the time we actually see it. We haven't had a non-personal Bond film since the Roger Moore administration (or perhaps The Living Daylights), and we've certainly been exploring Bond's familial issues (mommy issues with M, his past in Skyfall, etc.) enough in the past decade or so to make this new attempt seem extremely unnecessary.

[blueman]

Agreed.  SF could of/should of been a non-film: just shoot M. I liked some of the Bond material in it but the main plot was a non-plot for me. I worry that SP will be the same, with a villain spending not just 10-15 years obsessing over his revenge, but a lifetime plus hundreds of millions of dollars, when a bullet would do.  Guess we'll see.

[Harmsway]

This idea will be nuanced somewhat differently than is the general expectation, I think.

 

That said, no matter how it turns out, it's ultimately going to come down to whether or not Waltz and Craig can sell the relationship between Blofeld and Bond on an emotional level.

[Guy Haines]

Agreed. In the end, no matter what the link is between Bond and Oberhauser, it will be the acting skills of Craig and Waltz that carry it off. I think they can do it.

[Logie]

Agreed. In the end, no matter what the link is between Bond and Oberhauser, it will be the acting skills of Craig and Waltz that carry it off. I think they can do it.

 

 

Definitely a safe bet. I've been a fan for 30+ years and I've never had this much confidence in the filmmakers before. 

[tdalton]

They can have all the acting talent in the world, but if the idea is poorly conceived and poorly written on the page, then they're not going to be able to pull it off.  

[Harmsway]

They can have all the acting talent in the world, but if the idea is poorly conceived and poorly written on the page, then they're not going to be able to pull it off.  

This gets into dangerous waters, but let's just put it this way: I have very good reason to be optimistic that that isn't the case.

 

Also, I'd note that the translation from script to screen is often very unpredictable. Scenes that read well on the page can become awkward and clumsy when brought to life, and scenes that seemed flat and dull on the page can suddenly come to life based on some inventive direction and bold performance choices. It's not always a very clear-cut matter.

[tdalton]

 

They can have all the acting talent in the world, but if the idea is poorly conceived and poorly written on the page, then they're not going to be able to pull it off.  

This gets into dangerous waters, but let's just put it this way: I have very good reason to be optimistic that that isn't the case.

 

Also, I'd note that the translation from script to screen is often very unpredictable. Scenes that read well on the page can become awkward and clumsy when brought to life, and scenes that seemed flat and dull on the page can suddenly come to life based on some inventive direction and bold performance choices. It's not always a very clear-cut matter.

 

 

I think the difference is that you can have good ideas that are poorly written and then saved by the actors or the other way around.  That's something that can be saved.  But when an idea is terrible at its very core, as is the proposed scenario that we've been debating back and forth, I don't think that there's any amount of acting that can save it.  

 

At best, I think that they'd be looking to have the same effect that Skyfall had.  A lot of people (I wasn't one of them) were able to overlook the massive gaps in logic because they were invested in the moment, only for it to all fall apart when thinking about it later.  I'd prefer that they didn't go that route again, but we'll see.  That's really the only way that I see the whole "sibling" rivalry thing going down with Bond vs. Oberhauser/Blofeld, if that's indeed what they've decided to do.  I sincerely hope that I'm surprised by it when I ultimately see it, but just on its face, it seems to be an awful idea.

[Harmsway]

Like I said, I've good reason to be optimistic that Spectre has found a version of the proposed scenario that I would like. But your mileage may vary.

[kneelbeforezod]

But when an idea is terrible at its very core, as is the proposed scenario that we've been debating back and forth, I don't think that there's any amount of acting that can save it.  

 

At best, I think that they'd be looking to have the same effect that Skyfall had.  A lot of people (I wasn't one of them) were able to overlook the massive gaps in logic because they were invested in the moment, only for it to all fall apart when thinking about it later.  I'd prefer that they didn't go that route again, but we'll see.  That's really the only way that I see the whole "sibling" rivalry thing going down with Bond vs. Oberhauser/Blofeld, if that's indeed what they've decided to do.  I sincerely hope that I'm surprised by it when I ultimately see it, but just on its face, it seems to be an awful idea.

 

Yes I think the film is most definitely unsalvageable for you sadly. But I don't think most of us agree that the idea is "terrible at its core", merely questionable. It's definitely an idea that can work with the help of nuanced writing, dialogue AND acting. What a shame that one concept you don't like can completely torpedo a film for you. I've become used to Bond films being flawed in one way or another - I agree that Skyfall has a lot of problems - but the good outweighs the bad. I've got a feeling Spectre will be the same. Great cinematography, action and acting can go a lonnnggg way to papering over one dodgy central concept! 

[tdalton]

I wouldn't say that it's torpedoed the film for me.  Heck, we don't even know if this is the direction they're going with it (or at least I don't, some of us have read the stolen material and know).  There are other things to look for in the film (Craig, the cinematography, the Bond girls), but I feel fairly confident that once they get set for the big reveal towards the end of the film, with Oberhauser revealing himself as Blofeld and the source of all Bond's pain, that that particular moment is going to fall completely on its face.  Doesn't mean the rest of the film will be terrible.

[Logie]

 

At best, I think that they'd be looking to have the same effect that Skyfall had.  A lot of people (I wasn't one of them) were able to overlook the massive gaps in logic because they were invested in the moment, only for it to all fall apart when thinking about it later.

 

Is there such a thing as a Bond film - or book, for that matter - that doesn't defy logic?

[tdalton]

Most films that take themselves as seriously as Skyfall does (Bond or otherwise) don't base their entire premise on a plot that hangs together as poorly as Skyfall's does.  

 

There are moments in most, if not all, films that defy some sort of logic, but Skyfall relies on the viewer suspending too much disbelief in order to tell its rather low-key and serious story.  

[Logie]

With respect, I must disagree. I'll grant you Skyfall may be a gag told with a slightly straighter face than usual but, like all Bond films, it's still a gag nonetheless.

[glidrose]

Most films that take themselves as seriously as Skyfall does (Bond or otherwise) don't base their entire premise on a plot that hangs together as poorly as Skyfall's does.  
 
There are moments in most, if not all, films that defy some sort of logic, but Skyfall relies on the viewer suspending too much disbelief in order to tell its rather low-key and serious story.

Tho' I like SF more than you, I do otherwise agree with everything you say. In fact I've often had this gripe about the "serious" Bond films. The plots often hang together worse than the campier Bond films. Case in point Moonraker vs. FYEO.

[tdalton]

I think that FYEO manages to hang together fairly well, considering that they (admirably, I'd say) to blend several different Fleming elements together. While, as you point out, it probably doesn't hang together as well as some of the campier entries, it at least doesn't have me sitting their dissecting it as the film goes along in the way that SKYFALL did. I remember sitting in the theater (and I was absolutely excited to be there to see the film, given all the rave reviews) thinking to myself "wait a minute" at several of the plot holes in the film. While those moments are undoubtedly there in many other, if not all, of the Bond films, they don't stand out nearly as much as the ones in SKYFALL manage to.

I do think, though, that the campier films' plots tend to hang together better (not in all cases, but I'd agree that there's something to that line of thinking) because they're much simpler plots. They tend to be world domination or human extinction plots rather than the more intricate, low-key affairs that films like FOR YOUR EYES ONLY seek to portray.

[Guy Haines]

I wouldn't agree that the campier Bond films are always the more simple to follow. OP followed FYEO,which did mix two Fleming short stories into one quite well - even thought a lot of time was spent in the Italian alps when the missing McGuffin, the ATAC, was down at the bottom of the sea.

OP was more camp than its predecessor, yet imho had a more complicated plot. Fake Faberge eggs, real ones, train carriage switches, Bond being able to change into a monkey suit, and later dress up as a clown in no time at all.

The three epic Bonds - all directed by Lewis Gilbert - were not without bits that leave you scratching your head if you think too hard about them. YOLT - a spacecraft that can return to base with pinpoint accuracy, and then in the final reel we get to see it attempt to intercept the second US craft - had SPECTRE got a TV satellite up in orbit just for that? And a "new power will dominate the world" after WW III? Only the safe bits of it, I'd have thought.

MR improves on YOLT and TSWLM in that our villain has at least preserved some youthful followers on his space station to regenerate the human race, although nowhere near enough - whereas Stromberg seems to want a war which leaves a planet fit only for fish, and Blofeld's concern is how much he's being paid to inaugurate a little war for a major foreign power.

None of which detracts from the enjoyability of the films. They've all got plot holes. Even the Fleming books had absurdities - Goldfinger especially so.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, life´s full of plot holes, isn´t it?

 

I understand the desire to have everything completely explained and logically built up - but that´s not the way human beings interact with each other.

 

As for contrivances (the quick dress changes in OP, for example) - I never had a problem with that.  I don´t cry out either when Indiana Jones escapes in the last second any closing doors which should have been closed already.  

 

Let´s face it: Bond might look as if he´s living in our real world - but he is a fantasy figure who always dodges the millions of bullets that should have killed a real person years ago.

 

Any movie, especially these from the escapism-genres, needs a viewer to suspend his disbelief.  The moment one stops to do that, contemplating the reality of any depicted situation, one was not ready anymore to follow the flow of the particular film.  That´s okay and one´s personal decision.  But it will not help you to enjoy any work of fiction.

 

And really - which film is not "guilty" of contrivances and - gasp - unexplained, accidental actions?  I don´t think there is any example.

[Guy Haines]

Exactly. The Bond films are fantastic adventures set against a realistic backdrop. And if Bond was a real person, set against all that, he should have been dead, or suffering from substance abuse and probably a few, er, social diseases a long time ago. To say nothing of a probable spell being treated for post traumatic stress or other psychiatric problems.

 

(Substance abuse and psychological problems being points raised by Raoul Silva when he reveals what he really knows about Bond in the famous "two survivors" scene in SF.)

[tdalton]

Well, life´s full of plot holes, isn´t it?

 

I understand the desire to have everything completely explained and logically built up - but that´s not the way human beings interact with each other.

 

As for contrivances (the quick dress changes in OP, for example) - I never had a problem with that.  I don´t cry out either when Indiana Jones escapes in the last second any closing doors which should have been closed already.  

 

Let´s face it: Bond might look as if he´s living in our real world - but he is a fantasy figure who always dodges the millions of bullets that should have killed a real person years ago.

 

Any movie, especially these from the escapism-genres, needs a viewer to suspend his disbelief.  The moment one stops to do that, contemplating the reality of any depicted situation, one was not ready anymore to follow the flow of the particular film.  That´s okay and one´s personal decision.  But it will not help you to enjoy any work of fiction.

 

And really - which film is not "guilty" of contrivances and - gasp - unexplained, accidental actions?  I don´t think there is any example.

 

It's one thing to have contrivances and plot holes, as every film has them to a degree.  But you can't have those faults actually providing the foundation of the film, as they do in Skyfall.  The plot of that film necessitates Silva being, more or less, a clairvoyant.  The plot requires far too many specific things happening as part of Silva's plan that no human being could have planned out or forseen happening.  Having the entire film built around this ridiculous premise is not the same thing as the film just simply having a few plotholes. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m explaining lots of those "holes" in the "Revisiting Skyfall"-thread 

[glidrose]

I think that FYEO manages to hang together fairly well, considering that they (admirably, I'd say) to blend several different Fleming elements together.

I do think, though, that the campier films' plots tend to hang together better (not in all cases, but I'd agree that there's something to that line of thinking) because they're much simpler plots. They tend to be world domination or human extinction plots rather than the more intricate, low-key affairs that films like FOR YOUR EYES ONLY seek to portray.

Can't agree with you there. Bond's mission in FYEO? Get the ATAC before the Russians. A real race against time. So why does he spend so much time buggering about in Cortina trying to find Havelock's killers? Is MI6 that short-staffed? Good thing he ran into Columbo when he did or the ATAC would still be at the bottom of the ocean - or safely in Russia. And why did Bond have to go to Cortina to meet Kristatos? Oh yes, that's right, so we can get some snow action. Think about it. A single dialogue scene is the only plot point, the only justification for that entire location & sequence. Nothing in that sequence truly leads to Greece, where of course Bond once again chats with Kristatos. Bond sure knows how to rack up frequent flyer miles talking to this Kristatos guy!

Whereas Moonraker moves smoothly - perhaps too smoothly - from plot point to plot point. Every clue and location deftly relates to Drax's plan. One of our members here wrote an impressive essay praising MR's structural ingenuity somewhere on these boards but I'm damned if I can find it.
 

I wouldn't agree that the campier Bond films are always the more simple to follow. OP followed FYEO,which did mix two Fleming short stories into one quite well - even thought a lot of time was spent in the Italian alps when the missing McGuffin, the ATAC, was down at the bottom of the sea.

And that killed the film for me.

Actually, FYEO mixed three Fleming stories together. I will forever maintain that the mountain climbing sequence in Fleming's short story Octopussy inspired the film FYEO's climactic sequence.

[Guy Haines]

I wonder if FYEO might have made more sense if;
1) Bond tracks down Locque to Greece instead of Cortina, meets Kristatos who blames Columbo for the Havelock murders
2) action takes place pretty much as happens in the Greek/Albanian scenes - Columbo not the bad guy, raid on Kristatos warehouse, attempt to locate ATAC, which falls into hands of Kristatos, keehauling scene;
3) Kristatos then makes for his base - in Cortina, Italy, Bond and Melina go there to recover it. Plenty of scope for ski chases etc. Columbo and co arrive and help Bond save the day.

[B. Ret Smythe]

Its going to be like in star trek into darkness where they trick you the bad guy is name is john harrision and then half way through the movie he goes 'nah my name is really Khan'.

 

It seems like from the trailer that they have rebooted blofeld as the man who paedophiled james bond as a child and caused all his pain.

[Jim]

Its going to be like in star trek into darkness where they trick you the bad guy is name is john harrision and then half way through the movie he goes 'nah my name is really Khan'.

 

It seems like from the trailer that they have rebooted blofeld as the man who paedophiled james bond as a child and caused all his pain.

 

Hm.

[kneelbeforezod]

Its going to be like in star trek into darkness where they trick you the bad guy is name is john harrision and then half way through the movie he goes 'nah my name is really Khan'.

 

It seems like from the trailer that they have rebooted blofeld as the man who paedophiled james bond as a child and caused all his pain.

 

I hate it when Barbara Broccoli posts in forums using a pseudonym.

[thecasinoroyale]

It's a pity B. Ret Smythe seems to have been taken out by Hinx from the forum. He had a very convincing argument I was eager to hear more of. Oh well. Back to reality!

 

 

I still can't comfortably say I think Oberhauser is our Blofeld or not...even with all these new images coming up and trailers etc. I love the fact nothing is clear and hopefully will remain murky until revealed in the final film.