Is modern Bond action lacking?

1246

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Two action scenes in SP suffered from a distinct lack of creativity.

    The Rome car chase is dull. Nothing happens apart from some pretty naff humour. They are two gorgeous looking cars but the chase has no real threat or menace.

    The plane chase is well filmed but its such a stupid idea. What was it exactly that Bond was trying to achieve? By sheer luck he destroys all the cars and Madeline somehow survives.

    A the same time the PTS is just brilliant and the train fight is one of the best fight scenes in the series.

    The brief shootout at Blofeld's crater isn't bad but yet again there's little danger and Bond kills all the guards like he's playing a computer game.

    And the finale is atrocious. Probably Definately worst in the series.

  • edited August 2018 Posts: 17,241
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I miss seeing Bond check into a hotel, relax, inspect the room for bugs, set up traps for the inevitable bad guy who is bound to break in, etc. I want more of this, I feel like it's been missing from the entire Craig era.

    FirmLankyBluegill-max-1mb.gif
    Agree! It's something about the films I really enjoy, and shows Bond in his element. It's these little things that lifts the films for me.
  • Posts: 15,785
    In this day and age Bond could be seen checking his hotel suite for bugs. Bed bugs.

  • Posts: 19,339
    James Bond is a secret agent,a spy..simple as that.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 658
    .
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    Yes, but a 145 minute where the most exciting thing that happens is throwing a flame rag around, it'll get boring. I wish Bond films could be shorter in future, and have action like that, rather than being so overblown.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Yes, but a 145 minute where the most exciting thing that happens is throwing a flame rag around, it'll get boring. I wish Bond films could be shorter in future, and have action like that, rather than being so overblown.

    I don't much care for the run times of the Craig films. I liked OHMSS having the distinction of being the longest running Bond film. Excellently paced film at that. I think CR and SF could have benefited from some tighter editing. SPECTRE seems to feel like it drags to three hours or more. One of the reasons why I rarely pop in the Craig Bonds compared to the others.

    I'd also take Bond in LALD tossing the flaming rags over any action sequence in SPECTRE.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 658
    .
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 19,339
    This is why QOS appeals to me so much.

    It's slick,pacy,great dialogue in places,and short and to the point .
    Very rewatchable.

    I find the same thing with DAF, the Brosnan flicks and some of the Moore films.The rest I have to be in the mood for and have the spare time.

    Not heavy going,just enjoyable romps.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    I must admit I struggle with any film that goes over two hours. CR it was okay. SF and SP didn't need to be as long as they were. I think it makes it harder to keep the story together. And action is shoehorned in to compensate.
    The 80's Bond films were the best for action. TLD, FYEO and OP being some of my favourites. The action was often inventive and exciting.
    It doesn't matter if it's a stuntman performing these action scenes. Credit to Tom Cruise for being so invested in the making of a film, to put himself front and centre. But many films have great action without risking the stars life.
    It's hard to come up with original action nowadays as pretty much everything has been thought of and done. (Of course there are always new action scenes to come up with) Skiing off a mountain and opening a parachute, skydiving without a parachute.
    It needs to be exciting and relevant. Not just added too have an action scene. I'm looking at you TWINE, and your parahawk scene.
    And please, I don't need to believe the actor is performing these stunts if they're not.
    The CGIing of Craig's face during the motorcycle chase on the rooftops in SF or the rear projection work are just bad. Along with getting his face into the pts helicopter antics of SP. Keep it like they used too. Longshot or keep the stuntman's face out of view. It's a lot more effective.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 1,661
    Modern era Bond wouldn't need to check for bugs. He'll have some spy app on his phone. It would send out an infra red beam and scan the room.

    The phone would also send and receive calls too! :P


  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,380
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Modern era Bond wouldn't need to check for bugs. He'll have some spy app on his phone. It would send out an infra red beam and scan the room.

    The phone would also send and receive calls too! :P


    Alexa, are there any bugs in this room?

    Yes, on the phone, chandelier and behind the bed.

    End scene
  • Posts: 17,241
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Modern era Bond wouldn't need to check for bugs. He'll have some spy app on his phone. It would send out an infra red beam and scan the room.

    The phone would also send and receive calls too! :P


    But he could still check into a hotel, relax, etc. - have his Plenty O'Toole moment!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 7,966
    Benny wrote: »
    I must admit I struggle with any film that goes over two hours. CR it was okay. SF and SP didn't need to be as long as they were. I think it makes it harder to keep the story together. And action is shoehorned in to compensate.
    The 80's Bond films were the best for action. TLD, FYEO and OP being some of my favourites. The action was often inventive and exciting.

    I agree, over 2 hours for a Spy franchise is a little too much. Also, I think they sometimes put in too much action, and not enough suspense and intrigue, and well story. I felt in SPECTRE there was very little genuine intrigue and what story was there was signposted. I knew C was a baddie pretty much from the first scene. And there was no prizes for guessing who Waltz was playing. The whole film was very predictable, which makes it seem longer than it was.

    Imagine e how easy it would be to watch Skyfall and Spectre if they were only 2 hours long.
  • Posts: 4,400
    I suppose the point I was trying to make was that the action in the 70s/80s seems a lot more exciting and physically challenging.

    The action in modern Bond seems slightly tempered in comparison.

    The action in the films directed by John Glen (either his first-unit or second-unit work) was more spectacular. There are single great images in those films that define great action filmmaking. For example:

    octopussy-movie-screencaps.com-14769.jpg?strip=all
    licence-to-kill-558.png
    licence-to-kill-569.png
    the-living-daylights-268.png
    the-spy-who-loved-me-8.pngthe-spy-who-loved-me-1321.png
    moonraker-121.png

    There’s been a ton of stuff recently that has been terrific. I love the parkour chase and crane fight (even though calling that sequence ‘recent’ seems fraudulent as CR is nearly 12 years old) and there are certainly moments in SF and SP (though Mendes was no Glen when it came to shooting and editing action).

    I guess what I’m trying to say, is that Bond needs to return to the stunt. The single brilliant display of physical ability in action.

    Even in the most fussy and overly complicated Marvel movies where a thousand action beats are happening at once, there is something raw and genuinely frightening about seeing something happening in camera. I think it has something to do with the way our eye is conditioned. When we see something that is CGI we can be impressed but nothing will beat the genuine sense of jeopardy when we see it’s been done for real.

    You’ll never truly have your heart in your mouth when Thanos fights Spider-Man but when you watch Mission Impossible you’ll constantly be in awe.

    latest?cb=20160913054955

    vs

    3563348.jpg
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    I wish they would tone down the action for a better script and story. Especially for the Craig Bonds, which suit his portrayal better
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 7,966
    Wrong thread.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Pierce2Daniel, I quite agree with your assessment. I think many would.

    A lot of us (including myself) cite the parkour sequence as the best of the Craig era. There are many who advocate for Martin Campbell to return as well, despite his age. Why? Well, because he understands this genre. He is the one director of the past 20+ years who has been able to straddle the past and the future, contemporarizing Bond while still having one foot in the action driven spectacle of the past. None of the others have truly gotten that balance right, even though some (Mendes most notably) have delivered decent (or even excellent) films.

    Ms. Broccoli (and let's not kid ourselves, it was her and not Wilson) cast Craig for a directional change. What we've received since then reflects that change and it also reflects her attitudes. While she is in charge I doubt we will go back to action driven spectacle. It doesn't seem to be her cup of tea (and it's certainly not Mr. Craig's), and she (along with him) calls the shots.

    That's why I'm grateful to Cruise (and McQ) for filling that void while Bond contemplates his navel. Eventually they will switch back, but only once organizational changes take place or once she has a change of heart. Not sure when that will occur, but it will, one day.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    In this day and age Bond could be seen checking his hotel suite for bugs. Bed bugs.

    Today he would probably put his phone in the micro or fridge.
  • Posts: 4,599
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.
    I saw Lethal Weapon 4 last night on tv. They have some really excellent stunts in that film, done the old school way with a stuntman. I would shoot it attempting to hide the stuntman's face like in the old days, and when the situation warrants it, I would insert a CGI face, but only if/when it can be done properly (not like in SP on the helicopter when it was shamefully obvious).

    Of course it won't be perfect, but I don't think most of us will mind. CR parkour is a stuntman (a bit bulkier than Craig). It's all about how the 2nd unit team and director set it up and shoot it. It's a skill.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.
    I saw Lethal Weapon 4 last night on tv. They have some really excellent stunts in that film, done the old school way with a stuntman. I would shoot it attempting to hide the stuntman's face like in the old days, and when the situation warrants it, I would insert a CGI face, but only if/when it can be done properly (not like in SP on the helicopter when it was shamefully obvious).

    Of course it won't be perfect, but I don't think most of us will mind. CR parkour is a stuntman (a bit bulkier than Craig). It's all about how the 2nd unit team and director set it up and shoot it. It's a skill.

    Exactly...in Roger's day the stuntmen didn't even look like him and they were face-on many times,but it didn't stop the enjoyment of the film.

    It was appreciated for the great stunts and the effort put in,the marvel of it,that made going to a Bond film so exciting,the magical stuntwork.
  • Posts: 4,400
    patb wrote: »
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.

    Firstly, you have to appreciate that the Mission films are an anomaly.

    Tom Cruise is both terrific and idiotic. He’s unique. The Mission films are his mid-life crisis. If he wasn’t hanging off planes in the movies, I suspect he’d find time in his daily life. He’s an adrenaline junkie who gets studios to pay him millions to do stupid shit. He’s brilliant and totally insurmountable in that respect. Tom Cruise is the king of action cinema.

    However….he doesn’t need to do what he does. He can use a stuntman but the sell of those film is that he doesn’t.

    Secondly, Bond doesn’t need an adrenaline-fuelled moron in the lead. There are stuntmen who can pull off the big sequences.

    I think the days of the TSWLM jump are over as safety concerns, insurance issues and budget restrictions stop them from doing things quite as reckless. Plus CGI will always rear its head these days (even to tidy up shots). You never had that in the older movies which always made those earlier stunts look that bit more breathtaking.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,966
    patb wrote: »
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.

    Firstly, you have to appreciate that the Mission films are an anomaly.

    Tom Cruise is both terrific and idiotic. He’s unique. The Mission films are his mid-life crisis. If he wasn’t hanging off planes in the movies, I suspect he’d find time in his daily life. He’s an adrenaline junkie who gets studios to pay him millions to do stupid shit. He’s brilliant and totally insurmountable in that respect. Tom Cruise is the king of action cinema.

    However….he doesn’t need to do what he does. He can use a stuntman but the sell of those film is that he doesn’t.

    Secondly, Bond doesn’t need an adrenaline-fuelled moron in the lead. There are stuntmen who can pull off the big sequences.

    I think the days of the TSWLM jump are over as safety concerns, insurance issues and budget restrictions stop them from doing things quite as reckless. Plus CGI will always rear its head these days (even to tidy up shots). You never had that in the older movies which always made those earlier stunts look that bit more breathtaking.

    MI proves those days are not over. Not quite.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.
    I saw Lethal Weapon 4 last night on tv. They have some really excellent stunts in that film, done the old school way with a stuntman. I would shoot it attempting to hide the stuntman's face like in the old days, and when the situation warrants it, I would insert a CGI face, but only if/when it can be done properly (not like in SP on the helicopter when it was shamefully obvious).

    Of course it won't be perfect, but I don't think most of us will mind. CR parkour is a stuntman (a bit bulkier than Craig). It's all about how the 2nd unit team and director set it up and shoot it. It's a skill.

    Exactly...in Roger's day the stuntmen didn't even look like him and they were face-on many times,but it didn't stop the enjoyment of the film.

    It was appreciated for the great stunts and the effort put in,the marvel of it,that made going to a Bond film so exciting,the magical stuntwork.
    Precisely, and that's something ubiquitous and pathetic CGI can never replicate, no matter how hard they try. That crap only works in an overt fantasy context (read Marvel) where suspension of disbelief is more easily accepted, which Bond most definitely isn't.
    patb wrote: »
    One of the issues moving forward is that some of the Cruise stunts are formatted to clearly show his face (see the screen shot above). So the stunts are big but, at the same time, close up shots. How would you shoot that sequence with a stunt man/Bond sequence? CGI the face? longer shots? Bond lookalike? Some are quick to say that Cruise doing his own stunts is a gimmick but that screenshot IMHO proves that wrong.

    I think Bond will struggle in future.

    Firstly, you have to appreciate that the Mission films are an anomaly.

    Tom Cruise is both terrific and idiotic. He’s unique. The Mission films are his mid-life crisis. If he wasn’t hanging off planes in the movies, I suspect he’d find time in his daily life. He’s an adrenaline junkie who gets studios to pay him millions to do stupid shit. He’s brilliant and totally insurmountable in that respect. Tom Cruise is the king of action cinema.

    However….he doesn’t need to do what he does. He can use a stuntman but the sell of those film is that he doesn’t.

    Secondly, Bond doesn’t need an adrenaline-fuelled moron in the lead. There are stuntmen who can pull off the big sequences.

    I think the days of the TSWLM jump are over as safety concerns, insurance issues and budget restrictions stop them from doing things quite as reckless. Plus CGI will always rear its head these days (even to tidy up shots). You never had that in the older movies which always made those earlier stunts look that bit more breathtaking.

    MI proves those days are not over. Not quite.
    Thank goodness.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,548
    The awful car chase in SP is a byproduct of the location, I think. I don't know why EON and Mendes thought it was a good idea to film this in Rome, as opposed to the countryside or elsewhere, where they'd have more leeway. Mendes has shown that he can film action sequences just fine, so pacing and design was a flaw in location, more than anything else. The city placed all sorts of restrictions on what they could do--narrow streets, not enough room to get up to speed, government regulations, etc. While it might have seemed good "on paper" (a car chase through the streets of Rome!!!), they all needed to rethink being on location for that.

    As for the stuntwork, my only stipulation is that it be grounded in reality. Some have brought up the parkour scene in CR. Much of the chase scene through the construction site is terrific work; but the climb to the top of the construction crane is pure stupidity. As Bond ran perilously up a two-feet wide (at best) conveyer belt, I remember thinking, "Yeah. Right." I don't like thinking "Yeah, right," during the action sequences in a modern Bond film. Thankfully, that's the only one. (The sky jump in QoS was close.)
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 4,599
    All interesting stuff. Already, it looks like Cruise and McQ are planning the next MI movie (with a Bond in between) so it's inevitable that the mainstream audience will compare the two.

    I love the stunts from the RM era but thats what I was brought up with. MI has changed the expectations of a whole generation of young movie fans. For example, there is just no way they could shoot the Moonraker parachute stunt the way they did back then. It would be laughed at , sadly.

    maxresdefault.jpg

  • Posts: 4,023
    patb wrote: »
    All interesting stuff. Already, it looks like Cruise and McQ are planning the next MI movie (with a Bond in between) so it's inevitable that the mainstream audience will compare the two.

    I love the stunts from the RM era but thats what I was brought up with. MI has changed the expectations of a whole generation of young movie fans. For example, there is just no way they could shoot the Moonraker parachute stunt the way they did back then. It would be laughed at , sadly.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    But that is a terrific stunt.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    vzok wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    All interesting stuff. Already, it looks like Cruise and McQ are planning the next MI movie (with a Bond in between) so it's inevitable that the mainstream audience will compare the two.

    I love the stunts from the RM era but thats what I was brought up with. MI has changed the expectations of a whole generation of young movie fans. For example, there is just no way they could shoot the Moonraker parachute stunt the way they did back then. It would be laughed at , sadly.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    But that is a terrific stunt.
    True. I still get a massive kick out of all those scenes for which screencaps were posted above. They don't seem all that dated to me, although I admit that I view them through the prism of when they were filmed (as I do the 60's stunts). I'll add the CR parkour, SF PTS, GE PTS jump & dish finale to those that really impress me.

    I don't think it's all about the stunts. There are other films with great stunts that people hardly watch (like that Point Break remake from a few years back). MI is successful not only because of its stunts (even if that might be a big marketing draw to pull crowds in), but also because Cruise has been able to create a framework which resonates with people. He's built up the Brand IP slowly and surely with a series of top notch entries.

    As an example of how stunts can be done today without necessarily putting the actor in harm's way, we need only look no further than the Nolan Bat trilogy. I'm sure Hardy wasn't up there in that plane, but that PTS scene in TDKR is one of the best of the last 20 years. Same goes for the truck flip in TDK. It's all about how it's done. Tension, suspense, etc. etc.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2018 Posts: 4,548
    vzok wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    All interesting stuff. Already, it looks like Cruise and McQ are planning the next MI movie (with a Bond in between) so it's inevitable that the mainstream audience will compare the two.

    I love the stunts from the RM era but thats what I was brought up with. MI has changed the expectations of a whole generation of young movie fans. For example, there is just no way they could shoot the Moonraker parachute stunt the way they did back then. It would be laughed at , sadly.

    maxresdefault.jpg

    But that is a terrific stunt.

    And more or less copied in Point Break (directed by none other than Kathryn Bigelow)

    Bond stunts have always generally set the standard. Even the MI films aren't as original as many would think. Most of those stunts/action sequences are rooted in Bond.

    Notice here that JT Holmes doesn't say he wants to be Ethan Hunt:

Sign In or Register to comment.