1017 replies to this topic

[MISALA1994]

Is Oct/Nov release next year too much to ask?

[SecretAgentFan]

We can all agree that Apocalypse was an unwatchable, painful experience.

 

IMO DAFP is ok at best. But it's strange how a film with such breadth in terms of time can feel so small. I think the focus on eras and time travel has weighed down the scripts too much. They spend most of their time setting up puzzles and then trying to clarify their resolutions and there's little left for character and character driven drama. X2 pulled off both plot and character drama in equal measure and had plenty of epic scope.

 

They should've concluded the franchise with the dark Phoenix mumbo-jumbo (sorry, writing 'dark Phoenix' in any sentence is as daft as you like!). Now they're stuck because it's really the same old story over and over and they're desperately trying to refresh it with time-hopping at every opportunity and over cooking it.

 

Why repetition works for Bond but not for X-Men is another thesis, but Singer's made it evident that the franchise is dead as a Dodo. Maybe the next, climatic (apparently) instalment will prove me wrong, but i don't imagine many here would bet on it.

 

I like Usual Suspects. I think it's ultimately over rated as it's a box of tricks movie; one big set up for a trick ending so the makers can say 'Hey, fooled ya!'). But the cast and script are tremendous and Singer displays a deft hand that's been in a big budget plaster cast ever since.

 

Valkyrie was a little turgid, but interesting. Hopefully he'll turn towards grown up material more often in the future.

 

Btw, i'd personally put Fight Club above Usual Suspects. Fincher made a movie with epic scope; politically, socially and culturally. It captures everything wrong the modern, materialistic society. It's a perfect movie. Usual Suspects is also a perfect movie - it achieves it's aims without fail. So does Fight Club, but it's aims a far higher and far reaching.

 

Agreed on all your points but the "perfect"-pedigree.  IMHO, both are just about one central gimmick, and while "Suspects" wraps it up in a very well made noir-package, Fincher goes for the "cool shock"-value that so many of his films employ with impeccable production sheen.  Still, both films feel to me like "look Ma, I´m a director"-cleverness and fall together like cardhouses.  Also, they rather want to be hip and cool instead of admitting their pulp fiction-silliness.

 

But that´s my taste, no objective statement.

[Odd Jobbies]

Agreed on all your points but the "perfect"-pedigree.

 

Indeed, i was a little guilty of over cooking it myself there. 'Perfect' should be reserved for the very few movies that somewhow do all they set out to do and more.

 

Fight Club is darn good, though (dare i say Great!). It's 'cool' and yet undermining what is 'cool' at the same time. It tells us that the post modern generation has lost touch with reality - stuck in a feed back loop of ideas and aesthetics, mimicking itself to the point where we no longer know what those ideas and aesthetics originally stood for. It wonderfully illustrates how we're losing our values and our sense of the value of things.

 

It uses post modernism to tells us that Post Modernism is a bit sh*t.

 

Fightclub isn't perfect, but i find it very clever and effective in its message. To me it's more than a Fincher exercise in Fincher aesthetics, because these cool, glib aesthetics are the very thing he and Palahniuk are lampooning.

[Pushkin]

Thanks very much for your feedback. That certainly does clarify things (i.e., to have shorter window for external meddling). I still think other people's input can add to things but I really do think that depends on the people involved. Something akin to a good editor who knows how to help a writer polish and fix what is broken as opposed to people that just love to change things for the sake of it. You would know better than me how it works as I have never had any connection to the entertainment world other than being in the audience.

 

I always enjoy your posts even when I disagree.

 

Cheers

Edited by Pushkin, 27 April 2017 - 05:55 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Thank you once again!

 

And I agree: every writer can benefit from great input, and even in the moviemaking world this does happen whenerver executives, producers, directors and actors actually share the passion for a story and want the project to succeed, not their own personal agendas.  I actually have encountered situations in which that was possible - to some degree, of course, since we all are guilty of egotism which can rear its ugly head more often than it should be allowed to.

 

As for EON, I do strongly believe that they are only interested in making a great film to further the legacy of the Bond films.  But they do have to put up with the influence of the moneylenders and the creative personnel without whom no Bond film is possible.

 

So with every step forward there comes one step backwards or to the side - and the really difficult thing they have to deal with (like any producer) is how to bring all those viewpoints together.  That is where compromises have to be made and mistakes happen.

 

I´m sure that EON never thought that the last act of SPECTRE was brilliant.  I´m sure that they tried to make something great and exciting.  But I´m also sure that their first priority was to get a production that was plagued by so many problems over the finish line.  

 

I imagine that is one reason why no one was eager to jump back into that game immediately after SPECTRE.  But a setback has often inspired more determination to get things right (or better) next time, not only in Bond history.

[rubixcub]

 

Who would have thought a remake script of one of Fleming's weakest books and Eon's weakest films, without a traditional Bond girl and Bond acting as a mere bit player in the drama of two other characters would end up in SKYFALL's success? And plenty of people pointed out the various weak links in the whole affair and were downright angry at its success.

Yet when they tried the same stunt with one of the best books and films in the series, with even more money, time, effort and blingbling it ended up in SPECTRE.

 

Maybe they can get round this by saying that Blofeld was never Bond's step-brother after all and that was all an elaborate deception?

 

Why not?  They made a bigger retroactive continuity reach with the last one.

 

If they were going to go that route, I would personally have gone with Blofeld being an illegitimate child.  His mother's family, being of high social standing, hurriedly (forcibly?) married her off to the suitable Oberhauser upon finding out she was pregnant, and fudged the birth certificate to make it appear that her new husband was the father.  Oberhauser legally (and clandestinely) adopted the boy as his own -- and changed the child's name from Ernst Stavro Blofeld to Franz Oberhauser.  Seemingly, Mrs. Oberhauser was deceased before Franz was fully grown, and perhaps the final straw in the rift between Hannes & Franz was the revelation that the latter was adopted.  As far as the name being "his mother's bloodline", perhaps Blofeld was his mother's maiden name and his grandmother's, with Stavro perhaps being the name of his real father (hence why Oberhauser changed it)?

 

Dave

Edited by rubixcub, 27 April 2017 - 06:51 PM.

[rubixcub]

 

TBH, as the material stands i think it'd be a better movie if it cut from Blofeld's lair blowing up to Bond picking up the Aston Martin and driving off with Swann.

 

Far from ideal, but better than the tv-spooks finale we got, with contrivance, coincidence and sheer luck used to push through almost every story beat.

 

Yeah, it should really have ended with a longer battle as Blofeld's lair blew up, with the Aston Martin epilogue as you say.

 

But that would've meant cutting the MI6 crew out of the finale, and therefore some of the earlier scenes with them, as well as most of the stuff with C...

 

Of course, they could've done a George Lucas-style finale that intercut the MI6 team taking C down in London with Bond and Madeleine escaping from Blofeld's lair. But that would've required a more elegantly structured script (which, as we know from the leaks, was a virtual impossibility unless they delayed shooting).

 

 

Yes to all of this.  You've both hit the nail on the head perfectly.

 

Dave

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

Who would have thought a remake script of one of Fleming's weakest books and Eon's weakest films, without a traditional Bond girl and Bond acting as a mere bit player in the drama of two other characters would end up in SKYFALL's success? And plenty of people pointed out the various weak links in the whole affair and were downright angry at its success.

Yet when they tried the same stunt with one of the best books and films in the series, with even more money, time, effort and blingbling it ended up in SPECTRE.

 

Maybe they can get round this by saying that Blofeld was never Bond's step-brother after all and that was all an elaborate deception?

 

Why not?  They made a bigger retroactive continuity reach with the last one.

 

If they were going to go that route, I would personally have gone with Blofeld being an illegitimate child.  His mother's family, being of high social standing, hurriedly (forcibly?) married her off to the suitable Oberhauser upon finding out she was pregnant, and fudged the birth certificate to make it appear that her new husband was the father.  Oberhauser legally (and clandestinely) adopted the boy as his own -- and changed the child's name from Ernst Stavro Blofeld to Franz Oberhauser.  Seemingly, Mrs. Oberhauser was deceased before Franz was fully grown, and perhaps the final straw in the rift between Hannes & Franz was the revelation that the latter was adopted.  As far as the name being "his mother's bloodline", perhaps Blofeld was his mother's maiden name and his grandmother's, with Stavro perhaps being the name of his real father (hence why Oberhauser changed it)?

 

Dave

 

 

I´d prefer them not complicate this already forced backstory even more.

 

Just move on with Blofeld taking revenge on Bond - and maybe it would be even more interesting to have him NOT escape from jail but conducting his business from there, making use of the whole prison system so Bond cannot get to him.

 

"What do you want to do - arrest me?"

 

And then Bond has to break him out in order to prevent a major catastrophe, becoming his puppet for a while, having to face a situation in which he must not harm him in order to maintain safety for many innocent civilians, which would tackle the theme of revenge from a new angle for Bond.

[Orion]

I like that idea, plays in well with the recurring concept in Craig's films of when he should or shouldn't use his OO Licence.

 

Agree that they should just move on in regarding his relationship with Blofeld - I personally don't mind it but it's kind of just...there in SPECTRE. It never is used to get from one place to another in the plot (Dench's M gets him to Sciara whose widow gets him to the meeting, which in turn leads him back to Mr White, who directs him to Madeline to get to what Mr White had on Blofeld at American, which gets him to Blofelds lair where nine eyes is confirmed to be a spectre plot and so they go back to London)  so they could just continue on and you wouldn't notice.

 

Now this is PURE speculation  but, oddly, the idea there's something more to who raised Bond IS seeded in CR (you where there by the grace of someone else's charity, hence the chip on your shoulder) and has attention drawn to it in Skyfall (You know that, you know the whole story), so I'm assuming that "where Bond came from" was, vaguely in the back of their minds, always going to play into Bond's arc , but then they got the rights to use SPECTRE back so mixed Blofeld and Oberhauser (who I'm just going to call this hypothetical original villain to avoid confusion) into one character. 

[SecretAgentFan]

One might actually argue that the last film would have turned out much better if they had not gotten the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

[DavidJones]

One might actually argue that the last film would have turned out much better if they had not gotten the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

 

Definitely. I think that distracted them.

 

As always, Eon were influenced by other films. In 2014/5, they chose to take from Marvel. Thing is, Marvel films mostly depend on characters crossing between films, and you can't have one character crossing over with himself. So, instead, they decided to make the plot tie in with previous entries which - arguably - is not something Marvel do that much, though it does happen. The result looked like a ret-con and, as such, barely anyone took it seriously.

Edited by DavidJones, 28 April 2017 - 11:13 AM.

[Tiin007]

One might actually argue that the last film would have turned out much better if they had not gotten the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

 

100%. Without stepbrother-gate and a rushed / shoehorned introduction to Spectre, the worst this most recent movie could have done was utilize Quantum and Oberhauser--- again, an unnecessary "this time it's personal" plot, but at least without completely botching Bond's arch nemesis. 

 

I actually think Spectre and Blofeld should have been saved for Bond #7. 

[Orion]

Well Quantum was, even at the time, blatantly meant to be Spectre, but they couldn't use the name, then QOS reception made them drop it all together. Silva being part of that was the only bit that felt really forced. 

[DavidJones]

Well Quantum was, even at the time, blatantly meant to be Spectre...

 

I remember Broccoli saying how Quantum was different in that it revolved around natural resources.

Edited by DavidJones, 28 April 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[RMc2]

 

One might actually argue that the last film would have turned out much better if they had not gotten the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

 

100%. Without stepbrother-gate and a rushed / shoehorned introduction to Spectre, the worst this most recent movie could have done was utilize Quantum and Oberhauser--- again, an unnecessary "this time it's personal" plot, but at least without completely botching Bond's arch nemesis. 

 

I actually think Spectre and Blofeld should have been saved for Bond #7. 

 

 

Yeah, you're right. Craig's era would have been much more coherent and interesting if they'd focused on Quantum and the step-brother angle as the climax to the 'saga'.

 

For even if Bond 25 brings back Waltz' Blofeld to great acclaim, he'll be forgotten about almost immediately. Attention will turn to Bond 7 and whether or not they'll use SPECTRE and Blofeld - and if they do, they're almost certain to do better because it won't have any of the fraternal or retcon baggage that SP suffered, as well as greater potential to develop an arc over several films (instead of a maximum of two).

[plankattack]

I'm no fan of SP - one of my biggest gripes was the ret-conning of trying to tie the previous films together which IMHO didn't work one iota. I was uneasy with creating some sort of "separated at birth" backstory for lead and villain, specifically in that if Fleming hadn't gone there, why on earth should EON? That said, for me it was failed by its execution rather than the idea.

So all that said, I'd prefer Bond 25 to either completely stand on it's own (without Blofeld), or if Blofeld is to return, to move on by paying as little attention to SP as possible. DAF as it is has a lot of faults, but not being a follow-up to OHMSS is not its weakness (a missed opportunity perhaps, but not a fault of the film as it exists - I don't watch it thinking "why can't Bond avenge his dead wife?") - if Bond 25 is to include Blofeld, then great, but just start over without worrying whether it fits SP.

Continuity and the series never sits well (I suspect it's of greater discussion to us fans than the average moviegoer), so I'd prefer that Bond 25 follows the series' MO and just forgets about the last film. Trying to make "sense" of the previous three was what got SP into trouble.....

[Orion]

Like I said earlier, I only found Skyfall being written in rung hollow, but to be honest I think a mastermind behind everything works, and an enemy from Bond's childhood who envied the life Bond now had, a life Oberhauser felt should have been his, works. The two being the same person is where it dies. We could've had C be Oberhauser, whom Blofeld had sought out following the removal of Quantum, with the intention of removing Bond.

[Tiin007]

Like I said earlier, I only found Skyfall being written in rung hollow, but to be honest I think a mastermind behind everything works, and an enemy from Bond's childhood who envied the life Bond now had, a life Oberhauser felt should have been his, works. The two being the same person is where it dies. We could've had C be Oberhauser, whom Blofeld had sought out following the removal of Quantum, with the intention of removing Bond.

 

That would have been a much better solution, albeit would have necessitated a major overhaul of the script.

 

I think perhaps the safest and easiest way to fix this aspect of the script would have been to simply have Oberhauser remain Oberhauser the entire time-- even though doing so would keep intact the absurd coincidence you mention. Oberhauser could die at the end of SP, and then the last scene of the movie would have been his nameless successor officially being crowned as the new head of Spectre-- and the last shot of the movie would be the hands stroking the familiar white cat. Would have been a great set up for Bond 25.

 

I think the reason most of us abhor this aspect of the script is because it tinkered with Blofeld. Had it remained Oberhauser, we would still think it was ridiculous, but we'd sooner be able to simply roll our eyes and move on. 

[DavidJones]

It was Mendes' fault. He insisted on a twist, like M's death in Skyfall.

[rubixcub]

Just move on with Blofeld taking revenge on Bond - and maybe it would be even more interesting to have him NOT escape from jail but conducting his business from there, making use of the whole prison system so Bond cannot get to him.

 

"What do you want to do - arrest me?"

 

And then Bond has to break him out in order to prevent a major catastrophe, becoming his puppet for a while, having to face a situation in which he must not harm him in order to maintain safety for many innocent civilians, which would tackle the theme of revenge from a new angle for Bond.

 

I like that idea, plays in well with the recurring concept in Craig's films of when he should or shouldn't use his OO Licence.

 

Agreed.  Very unique idea, SAF!

 

One might actually argue that the last film would have turned out much better if they had not gotten the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

 

I think the reason most of us abhor this aspect of the script is because it tinkered with Blofeld. Had it remained Oberhauser, we would still think it was ridiculous, but we'd sooner be able to simply roll our eyes and move on. 

 

I think that's the biggest sticking point for me.  It'd be one thing if it was just a disappointing villain with a disappointing master plan in a disappointing Bond.  But making Blofeld and SPECTRE itself disappoint only increases the letdown.  Note that the only murders committed by SPECTRE happen off-screen save one henchman taking out another henchman as an "audition".  The scene was played so that everyone feared Blofeld -- but in the end, the character did nothing to justify that fear.

 

Even using the step-brother angle, there was opportunity to make their conflict compelling -- a decent monologue about some horrible thing that Franz did to the boy James -- but alas, no such luck.  I feel like they wanted a closer, more intimate look at the character, but didn't go far enough to successfully manage it.  It just made him smaller.

 

Regardless, it changes who Blofeld is, reducing him to an alias.  This is also why I wouldn't mind if they wiggled out of it with more backstory.

 

Dave

This is also why I wouldn't mind if they wiggled out of it with more backstory.

[SecretAgentFan]

I actually think Quantum was presented as a much scarier organization than Spectre was.  And the "modernization" of it, obviously trying to get the "cheese"-aspect out of it, worked not at all and even relied on Bloferhauser being so feared by a table full of grown-ups - which in itself is very cheesey.  Why would this group of people, all heads of large enterprizes, not get together and chase this little, weird man out like real businesses to all the time?

[univex]

Why didn´t they do it with Napoleon? That little, weird man? Myth and psyche go a long way.

That being said, yes, now that you mention it, I did find Quantum to be more scarier than Spectre. Mr. White was had a ghostly presence that conveyed that "big brother" paranoia sensation that is essencial to an evil org on film.

[Dustin]

Why didn´t they do it with Napoleon? That little, weird man? Myth and psyche go a long way.
That being said, yes, now that you mention it, I did find Quantum to be more scarier than Spectre. Mr. White was had a ghostly presence that conveyed that "big brother" paranoia sensation that is essencial to an evil org on film.

But actually...they did it with Napoleon, didn't they? Not a single step he wasn't contested, he just proved himself the better strategist. Until one day he didn't...

The thing is here we don't see Blofeld doing anything vaguely evil or threatening. We get to hear about Oberhauser and Blofeld is lurking in the half-shadows in Rome, yes. But none of it is truly the stuff that makes you think he'd be the guy to dismantle Quatum and take over their business. In SPECTRE's script Blofeld simply isn't threatening enough, that's why I would have had him meddling with White's children to show how extremely ruthless and unscrupulous he is.

[SecretAgentFan]

Exactly!  And it would have made sense to give him a right hand man/woman - like they originally planned with Irma Bunt - because even an evil mastermind needs at least one person to trust, better even an inner circle of people.

 

"C" came across as someone who would turn on Blofeld or anybody else easily, only being interested in his own ideas.  (And by the way, casting the "Sherlock"-bad guy was extremely lazy, IMO.  He should have been a sympathectic guy at the outset, just someone who regards the spy business differently and wants to modernize.  Then, it could have been a real twist to have him in league with Blofeld.)

 

I sincerely hope, the next director will not cast the usual suspects again - something Mendes could not refrain from.  Sure, with Bardem he lucked out - but the novelty factor of Bardem playing a bad guy could not be recreated after NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.  Also, Christoph Waltz as Blofeld - no surprise here at all.  Why not cast someone who at least does not bring so much baggage with him?  That´s what the Bond films previously managed to at least play with much better.  Sure, you got "Dracula" Christopher Lee as Scaramanga - but that kind of villain was very different from the roles Lee had played before.  And on the other hand of the spectrum you got someone like Curt Jürgens who was a magnificent choice because he usually played the tough straight man, not the evil maniac.

[DavidJones]

I think casting Andrew Scott was a mistake, simply because he was obviously there because of Sherlock - yet another indication that Eon would grab from whatever was popular at the time of filming.

 

Reminded me of when Ruth Jones and Matthew Horne from Gavin and Stacey appeared in a MIss Marple when the former was so popular. It's too conspicuous. It makes it look like the casting director was playing the actors' version of Fantasy Football.

Edited by DavidJones, 29 April 2017 - 01:54 PM.

[Dustin]

Scott was ridiculous in his part, Bond could have strangled him right there in M's office and nobody would have bat an eyelid. If they used him he should have turned out as a straight [no pun] and valuable character, not the caricature he plays. And the scheme he stands for is even more obvious, they would have him put up on a lamppost right after the failed vote and the terror attack; everybody would have known he's behind it. For SPECTRE's script it would have been vastly better to have him as a young minister opposed to this Spider Eyes nonsense, against all in the security services. And only then turn in a speech mirroring M's after a major attack on British soil. This would have made that subplot interesting, not the obvious corruption of a Whitehall mandarin.

[Orion]

Brutus politicians are the slimy...

 

Hasn't this topic gone very off topic, amazing how easily this particular thread does that.

I wrote British. Kindle auto-corrected. Can't speak for the trustworthiness of Brutus politicians ;-)

[Dustin]

Genius.

[glidrose]

Brutus politicians are the slimy...
 
I wrote British. Kindle auto-corrected. Can't speak for the trustworthiness of Brutus politicians ;-)

Et tu, Brute?

[univex]

 

Why didn´t they do it with Napoleon? That little, weird man? Myth and psyche go a long way.

But actually...they did it with Napoleon, didn't they? Not a single step he wasn't contested, he just proved himself the better strategist. Until one day he didn't...

 

True. Very true. And yes, his demise against the Russian winter had the same root as his verve: ambition. 

 

And I do agree wee need a surprise actor to play a villain. Can´t believe their lack of imagination. Mads and Almaric were superb choices as far as casting goes. Well, maybe Mads was. The order should be: first a Bond villain, then always glued to the villainous role. Not the other way around.