007: What would you have done differently?

1545556575860»

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,265
    Birdleson wrote: »
    You can, but I have no reason to. I tried to like SP, I really did. I have no agenda. You’re pretty hung up on being “proven”, etc. I’m just adding my piece and perspective. What you do with it is up to you. Convincing you of anything certainly isn’t my objective.

    +1 Particularly , Convincing you of anything certainly isn’t my objective
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 7,114
    bondsum wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Thunderball arrived at the peak of BondMania. After Goldfinger everyone wanted a piece of Bond, so maybe the success of Thunderball was down to the quality of what went before?

    And therefore it could be argued that the dwindling box office appeal of Bond in YOLT could be down to the quality of Thunderball?

    So TB soaked up the mass appeal of Bond, but ultimately was a major cause for its drop in popularity.

    As for Skyfall, the film was hugely popular with the casual viewers who didn't give two hoots about the plot holes, the Olympic appeal, the gingo-istic aspects of the film. People genuinely enjoyed it. And it still ranks highly among Bond fans on these boards.

    There are so many reasons written on here explaining why it succeeded at the BO, but maybe we should just accept that the most controversial reason of them all may be the real reason. People simply liked the film.
    YOLT’s underperformance at the box-office can easily be attributed to ‘67 Casino Royale beating it to the cinemas that same year. While obviously not an Eon production, what goodwill the series had built up till that point was damaged by this spoof version being released two months prior to the official YOLT. Say what you want about the CR spoof movie, but it was the 13th highest-grossing film in North America in 1967, plus it had its world premiere in London's Odeon Leicester Square, breaking many opening records in the theatre's history, so clearly not a flop but a damaging film that took the gloss of Connery’s movie nevertheless.

    It’s true that GF was really the reason behind the inspiration for Bond Mania. Modern Bond fans simply don’t understand just what a hallmark movie this was in ‘64. TB definitely benefited from the GF effect, no question. But where’s the collation between Craig’s two prior movies to SF if we’re going to apply the same logic? If anything it shows SF was an anomaly that benefited from media hype, not a superior predecessor.

    Sorry, but there’s no proof to back-up your claim that SF was popular with the casual viewer. Just reading laymen reviews over on IMDB, one can see it’s not universally loved, and that’s from those that can be bothered to write a review or score a movie. I haven’t and I’m sure million of others haven’t as well. There’s plenty of people who feel that they were hoodwinked by the hype and went to see the movie out of curiosity, only to discover that it didn’t live up to the hype. I still think Adele had a lot to do with this movie being a must-see movie, especially as it reached out to her huge global fan-base. SF is an example of exemplary marketing. As I’ve pointed out in other posts, there’s been a disconnect from critically appraised movies and how audiences rate a movie, to the point that the critics can no longer be trusted or used as a yardstick anymore. SF was an early example of this that has continued to this day.

    And there is no real proof that it wasn't popular with the casual viewer. Neither is there any proof for your suggestion that 'plenty of people who feel that they were hoodwinked by the hype and went to see the movie out of curiosity' . Who are these hoodwinked people?

    Thing is everyone I know (a drop in the ocean of course) who went to see the film liked it (bar one), and none of them post reviews on IMDB. So, my reasoning is, if we asked 100 people whether they liked it, and 99 said yes, we can assume there is a trend emerging there.

    However, the truth is, those who like it desperately want to defend it, and those who don't desperately want to prove that odd factors were at work and it couldn't possibly have been popular because people actually enjoyed it, God forbid.

    We have the same thing with LTK. It didn't do well (for a Bond film) and those who like it will tell us it was the promotion that was wrong, and it was the competition that was too intense, and it was the 15 certificate that took its audience away. Meanwhile the ones who don't like it will suggest maybe the film didn't resonate, and maybe Timothy Dalton didn't cut it.

    Horses for courses.

  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,499
    In SF, I would have cut all the dialogue about Bond aging. Instead, Bond has just become disheartened with M and MI6.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 3,472
    Haven't visited this one in a while. I don't know if @MadeleineSwann is still around, but I've been interested to explore an idea I had from the other thread, and that's how people would do Die Another Day differently?
  • edited April 22 Posts: 3,009
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Haven't visited this one in a while. I don't know if @MadeleineSwann is still around, but I've been interested to explore an idea I had from the other thread, and that's how people would do Die Another Day differently?

    Answering this question re: Spectre rather than DAD: I'd have left out the whole "Bond & Blofeld are step-brothers" angle, just to start. And I wouldn't have allowed Bond to shoot his way out of Spectre HQ just a minute or so after having a drill in his head. And for that matter, at SOME point I'd have had SOMEONE tell the audience what Mr. Hinx's name is. You know his name, I know his name, every Bond fan in the world knows his name -- but at no point in the actual film is he identified by name. He's just "that big scary guy that Bond keeps fighting with in this particular movie." Am I really the only person in all of Bond fandom that finds this point annoying? And as far as changing DAD... well, I'd probably start with a different director. Then I'd go to work on the script...
  • edited May 16 Posts: 135
    Denbigh wrote: »
    How people would do Die Another Day differently?

    I guess it depends on how different. Is this a page-one rewrite, to use Hollywood jargon, or to modify only a few details? With hindsight, I would have preferred that this installment was not made and that Brosnan concluded his run with another fourth movie. But, at the same time, without the excesses of Die Another Day, we would not have had Casino Royale.

    If DAD had to happen, but that some modifications could be made, I would remove the character of Jinx from the story. In addition to being poorly written, she simply seems useless to the plot. From Cuba to Iceland, the movie would be the same without her. So, no Jinx, which would make Miranda Frost the main and only Bond Girl of the film. I think the story would also benefit from ending at the Ice Palace, without relocating the conclusion to the Korean peninsula.

    As in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond would be stuck in the villain's lair and would have to act alone. One of the elements put forward through promotional materials and which seemed to me ultimately rather misused was the idea that Bond was facing a traitor and that he could trust no one. If Frost becomes the predominant female character and Bond has to stay with her longer in the same closed place, I think this narrative element would be better handle.

    However, I don't think these points would have change much for the overall quality of the film. In addition to a complete rewrite of the script (a page-one rewrite), another director would have been needed - and another title, but this a more secondary issue. These are all the elements that allow me to think that another movie should have been made instead. This would have been necessary to better respond to the laudable intentions that initially guided DAD: the desire to deliver an anniversary installment for the saga that would question the fears of our time, following the premise of a rogue agent trying to undercover a mole within the MI6 after being captive in North Korea.
Sign In or Register to comment.