Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, the new Bond film is supposedly out in February 2020. There's one film I will definitely NOT be paying good money to see....

 

Let's face it, the Bond franchise is very tired, repetitive and just not worth the effort anymore, IMHO. They have re-made the same film 24 times now and I've gone right off the whole concept. Despite the modern trappings, they have rigidly stuck to exactly the same story-line in EVERY movie.

 

Can we predict the plot of the new one? Yes, we can.... Bond single-handedly fights shadowy, international organisation with a silly name, does lots of things that would kill an ordinary man, shoots some baddies, things explode (big bang-bang at the end to round things off), maybe sleeps with one lady (promiscuity is just not acceptable these days, apparently), has a few pithy, droll one-liners to deliver, etc, etc, etc...

 

Danny Boyle could have brought something new and fresh to the series, but I'm sure that the producers slammed the brakes on that VERY quickly (so, he subsequently leaves the film).

 

Frankly, why do folks keep turning up to see the same, old movie over-and-over? I just don't get it....

 

I have a suggestion for the producers: Have Bond mess up in an truely unholy manner (lots of people dies as a result) and have him spend the rest of the film making it right again. At the very least, it's a bit different to the last 24 efforts.

 

What do you reckon?

 

Chris. 

Edited by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you’re going to stop going to films because they have basically the same plot as previous ones, that wipes out all the big SF franchises, most superhero movies (all origin stories or team ups), every romantic comedy, pretty much any Disney movie, 95% of horror films... you’ll be left with art house and the occasional quirky “auteur” like Spikes Lee and Jonze or Guillermo del Toro. It’ll be a refined diet, for sure, though, and certainly save you some money at the multiplex!

 

😜

 

best,

M.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m hoping of more stroking of large white fluffy cats. We haven’t seen that action scene in quite a while! 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019 at 9:12 AM, cmatthewbacon said:

Well, if you’re going to stop going to films because they have basically the same plot as previous ones, that wipes out all the big SF franchises, most superhero movies (all origin stories or team ups), every romantic comedy, pretty much any Disney movie, 95% of horror films... you’ll be left with art house and the occasional quirky “auteur” like Spikes Lee and Jonze or Guillermo del Toro. It’ll be a refined diet, for sure, though, and certainly save you some money at the multiplex!

 

😜

 

best,

M.

I used to go to the flicks about twice a month. I've seen one movie in a cinema so far this year. I've had way too many experiences of walking out of the flicks and virtually forgetting what I just saw about 20 minutes later. There are WAY too many deeply mediocre movies out there (I don't mind superhero films, but at 50, I think I might be significantly outside of their intended demographic). 

 

I reckon TV / Netflix is the more satisfying enertainment platform these days. With series like Mindhunter (superb), Line of Duty (well written, if a bit far-fetched at times), Taboo (great to look at, crazy storylines, Tom Hardy mistaking near-continual grunting for acting), Peaky Blinders (similar to Taboo, but with better acting), GLOW (an aquired taste, certainly, but I liked it) and some excellent one-off documentarys floating about, I think that if you want to be both entertained and made to think, then the cinema is no longer the place to go.

 

Hollywood has shot itself in the foot, with most of its producers desperately bowing down to a "yoof" audience and making some truely shoddy, dumb, average movies as a result. 

 

What think ye, sirs?

 

Chris. 

Edited by spruecutter96
Adding some info.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019 at 12:17 AM, spruecutter96 said:

 

 

I have a suggestion for the producers: Have Bond mess up in an truely unholy manner (lots of people dies as a result) and have him spend the rest of the film making it right again. At the very least, it's a bit different to the last 24 efforts.

 

What do you reckon?

 

Chris. 

Err, I think you just described the plot of Skyfall, the only decent one with Craig as Bond .  Great actor but appalling Bond.  Still he’s part producer so gets the part !

 

But then I’m one of those who always liked OHMSS, for years we were crying in the wilderness until people actually watched it without thinking “where’s Sean” and then discovering it’s actually one of the best - because it sticks more to the book , Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas is a good Blofeld.

 

The main problem with newer Bond films is they’re at least 30minutes too long leading to flabby padded storylines. But then that’s true of a lot of recent films.  I was pleased the recent special edition of the Great Escape retained the Intermission!

Edited by malpaso
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, malpaso said:

I’m one of those who always liked OHMSS,

Me too, I've long upheld it to my young as the best & when I bought the DVD of it they were in agreement.

Steve.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 8:32 PM, spruecutter96 said:

I think that if you want to be both entertained and made to think, then the cinema is no longer the place to go.

 

Not sure it's the mainstream film industries aim or need to make you think, surely as a medium it's main aim is to entertain (and make money)?

 

Look back at the history of cinema and the vast majority of films are pure entertainment, fluff and froth, the number of films that made you think or influenced public attitudes are much fewer.

 

The cinema going demographic is a young one, the industry caters to that, they expect a fast moving, loud experience, undoubtedly influenced by their online experiences. Most of us more mature citizens prefer being tucked up with a glass of wine watching our entertainment.

 

"Bond single-handedly fights shadowy, international organisation with a silly name, does lots of things that would kill an ordinary man, shoots some baddies, things explode (big bang-bang at the end to round things off), maybe sleeps with one lady (promiscuity is just not acceptable these days, apparently), has a few pithy, droll one-liners to deliver, etc, etc, etc..."   

 

I expect nothing less from a Bond film! Add some exotic locations and sumptuous filming what's not to like? I might go to the cinema to see it but I probably wouldn't bother again when it comes to the small screen, it's usually not good enough to watch more than once.

 

But then isn't that the same with most films? Even the worthy ones that make you think? *

 

*(I exclude Top Gun here - saw it 7 times at the cinema, loads of times on TV and have the DVD, but as for storyline and making you think....fluff and froth)

Edited by Coors54
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe its my age, but I don't enjoy being treated like a moron when I have just spent 10 quid to sit in a cinema. Hollywood consistently aims very low and greatly underestimates the intelligence of its audience.

 

The Chris Nolan Batman movies prove you can produce intelligent AND action-filled fare, that don't have to rely on huge coincedences, contain gaping plot-holes or spoon-feed their watchers with an utterly predictable, by-the-numbers storyline. 

 

I think that a big part of the problem is that Yank film-producers will very happily spend 80 million on the latest special-effects, but are reluctant to spend the tiniest fraction of that money on producing a decent script.

 

The issue is, if the script is rubbish, then the film's rubbish. No amount of jazzy special-effects is ever going to cover that up (are you listening, Mike Bay and the Transformers movies?)

 

Chris.  

Edited by spruecutter96
Adding some info.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spruecutter96 said:

 reluctant to spend the tiniest fraction of that money on producing a decent script.

I think that the fact that the Bond producers have brought Phoebe Waller-Bridge on board suggests that they DO have an interest in getting a decent script for this one... whether Fleabag or Villanelle are your thing or not, they've both been great pieces of writing for TV...

best,

M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmatthewbacon said:

I think that the fact that the Bond producers have brought Phoebe Waller-Bridge on board suggests that they DO have an interest in getting a decent script for this one... whether Fleabag or Villanelle are your thing or not, they've both been great pieces of writing for TV...

best,

M.

Agree on that one. But I can't help the feeling that the producers will be VERY reluctant to change their winning formula to any noticeable degree. They will probably water-down any genuinely new elements to the point where the script could have been written by any half-decent script-writer, who is essentially there just for the pay-cheque.  

 

Chris.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I'd like to see the movie as seeing the clip in the shorts before movies that we are currently seeing in our cinemas down under and this damn covid situation where it has been postponed four times. Originally to be shown in November 2019, then to February 2020, then October 2020 and then to April 2021. Not at all good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 9:52 AM, malpaso said:

Err, I think you just described the plot of Skyfall, the only decent one with Craig as Bond .

We'll have to agree to disagree on that i think he makes a good Bond but i don't like Pierce Brosnan or Timothy Dalton as Bond,for some reason they just didn't fit....I was born in '65 so i grew up with Roger Moore as 007 but like you say about OHMSS it's one of my favourites...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I confess I can relate. Not that I ever was a big fan of Bond movies or agent movies in general but I have to say the "same old, same old" is getting rather obvious with this sort of movie,even more so than in other genres, or at least it does appear to me as more obvious in the genre of agent movies. ....

 

Let's face it, there is only one true super duper agent and one true super villain that would have deserved and endless row of sequels and who incidently just have had far too few movies going for them ....

 

40089096uc.gif

 

40089097zn.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried watching one of the Austin Powers movies the other day. It has NOT aged well. Had a few proper laughs and an assortment of chuckles in it, but not as funny as I remembered. 

 

Chris. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be great if they did a period Bond from when the books were written in the Fifties - lots of themes to explore. 
 

Fleming wrote a few of the books while living in East Kent and elements like 007 are evident now that live in that neck of the woods.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I suggest that you watch the bonus/special features on "casino Royale". Producers Barbara Broccoli, and Michael G. Wilson(her step-brother I believe), talked about how the Bonds had become a sort of "uber fantasy", and wanted to do a change. They decided to go to a "Bond from the beginning" after Pierce Brosnan left the series. They discussed the reasons it took so many decades to get the rights to "Casino Royale"(it was bought by a different producer when the book was published), and, so on. It is a fascinating watch and worth the time. In "Spectre" they gave us "Blofeld" for the his first time as a Bond villain(with a fluffy cat). And, have given some explosions, but, not what has been done in the past. Well, maybe "specter" gives us the big one. As for who is the best "Bond"? That is a different thread entirely.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie has been postponed yet again for a further six months and is now scheduled for a release date in October 2021.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/04/2019 at 10:10, spruecutter96 said:

 

The issue is, if the script is rubbish, then the film's rubbish. No amount of jazzy special-effects is ever going to cover that up (are you listening, Mike Bay and the Transformers movies?)

 

Chris.  

And thereby hangs a tale!! You are absolutely right. 

One of the worst examples is The Haunting.

The 1963 original, is a favourite of mine. It was very atmospheric, you never actually saw anything but, you didn't need to. It was very cleverly done. The scene where Claire Bloom and Julie Harris are huddling terrified in a room where something unfriendly is clearly trying to get in still has the hairs rising on the back of my neck!!

Then we had the truly appalling 1999 version with overblown special effects standing in for a decent story. Even a fine actor like Liam Neeson couldn't save this mess!.

These is of course only one example amongst many.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

In his book "Adventures in the Screen Trade", William Goldman stated "No one in Hollywood knows anything". He was making the point that many "surefire hits" have bombed spectacularly and some very mediocre movies have made HUGE amounts of money. Hollywood executives love to project the image that they can predict the future, but they are just as fallible as everyone else. Big egos do not always translate into big profits. 

 

Chris.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 4/30/2019 at 10:10 AM, spruecutter96 said:

 

The issue is, if the script is rubbish, then the film's rubbish. No amount of jazzy special-effects is ever going to cover that up (are you listening, Mike Bay and the Transformers movies?)

 

 

umm.....   I  liked the first Michael Bay Transformers movie....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanHx said:

umm.....   I  liked the first Michael Bay Transformers movie....

So did I, Ian. It was typically Big, Loud and Dumb.... but it was entertaining with it. As the Transformers went on, the "quality" of the film just slid downhill with each ridiculous, illogical, overblown storyline. When American teenagers decide they don't like a movie, you know it has to be the absolute dogs' eggs. The box-office for the last movie was more than a little disappointing (although I believe "Bumblebee" took some money). 

 

Chris.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

So did I, Ian. It was typically Big, Loud and Dumb.... but it was entertaining with it. As the Transformers went on, the "quality" of the film just slid downhill with each ridiculous, illogical, overblown storyline. When American teenagers decide they don't like a movie, you know it has to be the absolute dogs' eggs. The box-office for the last movie was more than a little disappointing (although I believe "Bumblebee" took some money). 

 

Chris.    

 

Agreed.

The first two were decent enough US military hardware porn, but after that it suffered from "how many new toy characters to sell can we stuff into a movie itis" and got a bit silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2020 at 18:46, Vince1159 said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that i think he makes a good Bond but i don't like Pierce Brosnan or Timothy Dalton as Bond,for some reason they just didn't fit....I was born in '65 so i grew up with Roger Moore as 007 but like you say about OHMSS it's one of my favourites...

I'll have to respectfully  disagree with you (at least with regard to Timothy Dalton).

He's a fine actor and, having read all the Bond novels, I liked his very hard edged, rather ruthless interpretation of Bond.

I think, like Connery, he was actually very close to the "real" character as created by Ian Fleming.

Staying true to the original character is, for me anyway what makes a good Bond.

I agree with you regarding OHMSS, despite a somewhat wooden (in my view) overall performance by George Lazenby, it more than made up for it elsewhere, especially with the tragic end to the film.

I though Roger Moore was just to lightweight. I couldn't take him seriously as Bond!

I still rate the original Connery films as the finest by far. My favourite being "From Russia With Love" - complete with wonderful performance from Robert Shaw as a truly nasty piece of work!

My favourite villains, in no particular order:

Blofeld (Donald Pleasance)

Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi)

Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee)

Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya )

Blofeld (again - this time played by Charles Gray)

Auric Goldfinger (Gert Frobe)

 

John

Ps, I'm old enough to remember seeing Dr No at the cinema!!

Edited by Beermonster1958
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...