90 replies to this topic

[Emrayfo]

Personally I love the SPECTRE trailer and it has me really excited for the film. I also love the MI films and the RN trailer has me in eager anticipation as well - partly because I expect MI:RN to tide me over while I'm waiting for SPECTRE. 

[Hansen]

Regarding Jim's post about moribund whining over 'not enough' and the soon to be 'too much' action in the trailer - yes indeed.

Thank goodness to the Lord that the producers are Not making these films for the fans.

When you have been producing only Bond movies for 50 years, neglecting the fans is insulting. In this specific case, producers' talent lies in finding the right balance between innovation and respect of what have been done before

[Major Tallon]

This fan, at least, doesn't feel the least neglected or insulted. I feel more like I've finally been heard.  I've felt insulted only once (care to guess when?), but I have to acknowledge that a fair number of fans, good devoted fans, nevertheless ate that experience up.  

 

I'm enjoying the current films in ways I hadn't for years.  Even during that period, however, I was always a fan.  I overlooked my various disappointments, enjoyed a good bit of what I was offered, and waited hopefully for the next one.  And if the next actor or the next bunch of movies aren't exactly what I'd like to see, I'll still be there.

[Jim]

When you have been producing only Bond movies for 50 years, neglecting the fans is insulting

 

 

That they have been producing the films for 50 years seems evidence enough that they have not neglected the fans. They haven't surrendered to the fans, and that's why they've been producing films for 50 years.

[David_M]

I think they're obviously making films "for the fans," as that's their bread and butter.  But they're not making them in subservience to the fans, and that's an important distinction.  By and large, putting fans in the driver's seat is a bad idea, if only because to BE a fan means you must've liked something you've already seen, and it's human nature to want more of that thing you had and liked.  Most fan demands boil down to "give us more of this" or "more of that," but then when you give it to them, they usually respond with, "But we've HAD that before!"  You can't win.

 

My favorite example is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Word leaked out early in the film's development (probably from an unwillingly sidelined and embittered Gene Roddenberry) that Spock would die in that film, and Trekkies launched huge protests, demanding Paramount change course.  Ultimately, Spock died anyway and now the film is generally regarded -- including by a lot of those same fans --  as the best in the series.  If Paramount had kow-towed to fan demands, who knows how it would have turned out, but almost certainly not as well.

 

I agree with the general sentiment that Bond films don't "feel" like they used to and, for my money, are almost unrecognizable next to the ones I grew up with.  But I still find them entertaining and even -- for the first time in memory -- capable of surprising me, so it's cool.  

 

The trouble with Bond is that everyone else can emulate him and be applauded (I've lost track of how many times I've seen the Marvel films lauded for capturing the spirit of Moore-era Bond) but if an actual Bond film tries it, the makers are lambasted as "stuck in the past", "creatively bankrupt" or "self-cannibalizing."  At this point, the tropes of "Classic Bond" are like a gift handed out to other filmmakers who can use them for instant Brownie points, but they're ironically off-limits to the series that invented them in the first place.

[Hansen]

Regarding Jim's post about moribund whining over 'not enough' and the soon to be 'too much' action in the trailer - yes indeed.

Thank goodness to the Lord that the producers are Not making these films for the fans.

When you have been producing only Bond movies for 50 years, neglecting the fans is insulting. In this specific case, producers' talent lies in finding the right balance between innovation and respect of what have been done before

This is awkward. I meant that neglecting the fans WOULD BE insulting (obviously EoN is not neglecting). Also the balance is hard to find between what everyone expects and to be able to change direction when you have gone too far (remember Moonraker).

[SecretAgentFan]

 

When you have been producing only Bond movies for 50 years, neglecting the fans is insulting

 

 

That they have been producing the films for 50 years seems evidence enough that they have not neglected the fans. They haven't surrendered to the fans, and that's why they've been producing films for 50 years.

 

 

Exactly.

[Emrayfo]

It depends on which fans, really. There are many people who flock to the films and enjoy them and wouldn't consider missing a single one of them at the cinema (and so fill Eon's coffers), but who may only be fans in the shallowest sense. These are the fans that I consider are captured by trite elements of 'the formula', but do not have as deep a knowledge, understanding or respect for the character and his world as say, many of the members of this forum and other similar enthusiasts' groups. They are fans when Bond is on TV or at the cinema, not necessarily between times. But collectively they have a big voice, expressed in dollars. It must be tempting to pander to their expectations. In my view you can deliver an identifiably Bondian film with the requisite signature elements, both stylistic and content-wise, without it being paint-by-numbers formulaic.

 

So for me to be anti-formulaic is not to say there is anything wrong with most of the signature elements that make up the Bond cinematic canon - I cherish these elements as do most long-term fans. The difference is when they are enjoyable components of a rich whole versus when they become the entirety of the experience around a hollow centre.

 

For example, while I enjoy all actors and eras of the cinematic Bond, some films have surrendered a little too far to elements of formula over expressing the more core resonances to the character. The overuse of cartoon-esque gadgets comes to mind, or blindly following the need to put nudes in the credits with a Shirley Bassey rip-off over the top. The Brosnan era is probably one of the worst offenders in my opinion in this regard. It was like Barbara Broccoli finally took over her inheritance in the mid 90s but only understood it through formula. She didn't really "get it". And so she resorted to formula because that's all she thought a Bond film was. It took a few years and the advent of a new actor together with the right script ideas for a pared-back reboot to return to the purer roots of early Connery. It's why I don't get to hung up on the gun barrel discussions. Sure, I would love to see the traditional gun barrel sequqnce return with Spectre, but the overwhelming good outcomes from not surrendering completely to formula in CR, QoS and SF has been a cleansing sorbet that has allowed us to evaluate which parts of the accreted formula are 'core' and which are just distractions.

 

My favourite films generally are the more story and character-driven and less fantasy-reliant ones like From Russia With Love, OHMSS and the Craig films to-date. That said, I still love some of the Brosnan films because of what they still did well. And Moore was perfect for me as a kid when I was growing up in the eighties. And while I know Bond is just a fictional super hero and a bit of fun, I do appreciate it when the creatives take the property seriously and on its own merit. I still want to have fun, but I want that fictional world to be robust and not a cartoon.

 

So far the Spectre teaser trailer has me absolutely drooling due to its mood-setting, cinematography and promise of an intriguing story. As for action, come November I am sure we will not be left wanting.

[Hansen]

This is basic marketing : first address to the core audience (the fan) then broaden your spectre ;-).
Until Skyfall, core audience was considered to be the 'classic' Bond fans (to put it VERY simply action, exotic location, girls and martinis).
Now, it seems (and probably based on Skyfall success) that they (EoN/Sony) have defined their core audience as more adult and character-driven. I see it as a drastic change in Bond universe.
And I know that no action scene was ready for the teaser. And I don't care. If they had wanted to communicate on action, they would have managed to do so.

[Jim]

Sure, I would love to see the traditional gun barrel sequqnce return with Spectre, but the overwhelming good outcomes from not surrendering completely to formula in CR, QoS and SF has been a cleansing sorbet that has allowed us to evaluate which parts of the accreted formula are 'core' and which are just distractions.

 

I think I'm in love.

[Major Tallon]

I've neglected to say this, Emrayfo, but it was inadvertent:  Welcome (in my view, very welcome indeed) to CBn.

[Emrayfo]

Thank you Major Tallon and Jim for your kind words! Much appreciated. I am very much enjoying the quality of the forums and diversity of opinions.

 

Cheers all!

[tdalton]

Excellent analysis Emrayfo.  With regards to the issue of the formula, I couldn't agree more.

 

Welcome to the forum.

[marktmurphy]

Presumably more of the action of the Mission: Impossible one had been filmed and post-produced therefore there was much more of it to show. I suspect the next Bond trailer will have plenty of action and then folks will whinge about it having too much. Such moribund whining won't stop the film from happening, though,.

 

The reason for it being rubbish is fairly clear, yeah; but that doesn't stop it from being rubbish. It's a dull trailer. I'm sure the film will be great, but as a trailer it's pretty uninspiring and the only excitement comes from the knowledge of it being for the next James Bond film, not from the contents of the trailer itself.

All of this 'for the fans/not for the fans' chat seems to be another subject entirely to me.

[Hansen]

Hi Emfrayfo,
Your analysis is indeed extremely interesting but I think something is missing.
I consider myself as a true Bond Fan. I like the the fun, the action and so on but it has never been enough for me. I need to have a good script with great characterization. FRWL OHMSS and CR are my favourites.
But the insight we had on Bond psyché in Skyfall and what is presented to us through Spectre is -to me- totally wrong and does not fit to the idea I had on Bond based on films AND books.
There are not just 2 categories : the 'formulaic' and those who are expecting more and enjoy SF and Sp teaser. Some like me expect more but this is not the 'more' they have been offered lately.
But this is a different subject than the initial one of this chat.:-)

[SecretAgentFan]

 

Presumably more of the action of the Mission: Impossible one had been filmed and post-produced therefore there was much more of it to show. I suspect the next Bond trailer will have plenty of action and then folks will whinge about it having too much. Such moribund whining won't stop the film from happening, though,.

 

The reason for it being rubbish is fairly clear, yeah; but that doesn't stop it from being rubbish. It's a dull trailer. I'm sure the film will be great, but as a trailer it's pretty uninspiring and the only excitement comes from the knowledge of it being for the next James Bond film, not from the contents of the trailer itself.

All of this 'for the fans/not for the fans' chat seems to be another subject entirely to me.

 

 

Is it really rubbish to see Bond approaching the little house in the mountains where he meets Mr. White again?  Is it really rubbish to see Oberhauser welcoming Bond during a secret meeting?

 

At least these two little snippets made the teaser extraordinary for me.

[Simon]

And me. 

 

More 'atmosphere' driven and less, well, anything else.

[David_M]

At this stage of the game, does anyone need to have a teaser "inform" us that the Bond series is an action franchise?  I think the idea was to hint at the plot and not the spectacle.  Now if the actual FILM is two hours of snowy landscape shots and portentous conversations with shadow-obscured villains, I'll be as disappointed as anyone, but how likely is that?

 

On the other hand, I only liked the parts of QoS that had no action, so who knows?

 

I agree the teaser doesn't stand on its own as an "exciting" mini-film.  But then, it is called a "teaser."  And you have to admit it teases.  Plus it gets a thumbs-up from me if only because it doesn't feature a bombastic, over-wrought, choir-backed rendition of the James Bond Theme.  If the full trailer can avoid that tiresome cliche as well. I'll be a confirmed fan of this marketing campaign.

[marktmurphy]

 

 

Presumably more of the action of the Mission: Impossible one had been filmed and post-produced therefore there was much more of it to show. I suspect the next Bond trailer will have plenty of action and then folks will whinge about it having too much. Such moribund whining won't stop the film from happening, though,.

 

The reason for it being rubbish is fairly clear, yeah; but that doesn't stop it from being rubbish. It's a dull trailer. I'm sure the film will be great, but as a trailer it's pretty uninspiring and the only excitement comes from the knowledge of it being for the next James Bond film, not from the contents of the trailer itself.

All of this 'for the fans/not for the fans' chat seems to be another subject entirely to me.

 

 

Is it really rubbish to see Bond approaching the little house in the mountains where he meets Mr. White again?  Is it really rubbish to see Oberhauser welcoming Bond during a secret meeting?

 

At least these two little snippets made the teaser extraordinary for me.

 

 

Going to a little house isn't that exciting, no. I don't know why you listed those things as if I'd forgotten about them: I clearly didn't find them all that exciting otherwise I wouldn't have said it- it's not like there's much more in the trailer. I'm a huge Bond fan, obviously, but it's not really enough to get my juices flowing. I'm much less of a Star Wars fan but the sight of Harrison Ford in that set was a far bigger money shot.

 

I'm sure the next trailer will be fantastic but the first one wasn't. I'm certainly not saying that the concept for the film is flawed or anything, but I don't really find the idea of discovering more about Bond's family to be enough in itself to get me excited. I'm not one of those who says that the films should never do that or anything (or one of these tiresome "oh no not another 'it's personal' mission" people) but seeing him not entirely meet a bad guy in the dark whose identity we don't even know isn't much of an exciting payoff to a trailer. I don't know who that guy is but it turns out he might have something to do with James Bond's childhood... pfft.

 

 

Why can't Daniel Craig's Bond sit down in boats, anyway? Quantum: he stands up in the boat chase. Skyfall: he stands up in his little boat on his way to the casino. Spectre: he's standing up on his way to the exciting little house and on the Thames with Tanner! Does it bring back bad memories of Le Chiffre's offer of a seat on that barge at the end of Casino Royale?

[Simon]

Trailer appeal aside, I did laugh at the 'Bond standing in boats' motif.

 

Very amusing.

 

Rather like all of Craig's Bond films where rain is present.  None others, I believe.  (Cue the onslaught of points to prove otherwise.)

[Hansen]

We also always have in Craig's trailer this voice-over (usually a woman) patronising him giving Bond this 'childish' side

[marktmurphy]

 

 

Rather like all of Craig's Bond films where rain is present.  None others, I believe.  (Cue the onslaught of points to prove otherwise.)

 

 

Apparently it rains briefly in OHMSS

[saint mark]

I'll expect a reboot as soon as Craig leaves the franchise as his navel-staring with SF annoyed me more than anything else. After SF my expectations for SP are low, with MI4 being a brilliant and smart spy actioner I do look forward to MI5 a lot more. In that sense for me the MI series have become more the 007 franchise with its personal story put in a good script yet impressive stunts done by a Cruise who has been raising the bar too high for EON.

 

For me CR was a game changer, QoS was a game stealer of inferiour quality from which they did do the nicking and SF was pretentious, grand and its script had more leaks than a sinking Titanic [The story kept making no sense at all and that takes me out of a movie] a case of style over content.

 

The MI movies have done a personal story for Ethan Hunt and yet managed to be good and entertaining, something I cannot accuse EON of remembering the last two stories.

[tdalton]

Ghost Protocol was a brilliant and smart spy film?  Wish I had gotten to see that version.  That was one of those rare Tom Cruise films that failed to be entertaining.

[Call Billy Bob]

Ghost Protocol was a brilliant and smart spy film?  Wish I had gotten to see that version.  That was one of those rare Tom Cruise films that failed to be entertaining.

I agree with saint mark. MI4 was great and one of the better action/spy films of the last decade.

[Hansen]

Hey Saint Mark
can't say better
we are definitely on the same page.

[SecretAgentFan]

The internet - a place where people can come together.

[Call Billy Bob]

The internet - a place where people can come together.

Let's all hold hands and sing!

[marktmurphy]

Ghost Protocol was a brilliant and smart spy film?  Wish I had gotten to see that version.  That was one of those rare Tom Cruise films that failed to be entertaining.

 

I think it was cracking fun.

[Double-Oh Agent]

 

Ghost Protocol was a brilliant and smart spy film?  Wish I had gotten to see that version.  That was one of those rare Tom Cruise films that failed to be entertaining.

 

I think it was cracking fun.

 

I think it was the best of the Mission: Impossible movies. It actually used a team concept like the TV show throughout the film (about the first time that happened in the series). I really enjoyed it. It was a good movie.