›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…490491493495496…705

Comments

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,293
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    FrankXavier wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I certainly think both films are crafted in a manner which appeals to people who have an emotional sensitivity, and therefore more so to women. There's the narrative, and then there's the execution of that narrative. It's in the little moments, like the shower scene, the train scene, the ride to the hotel, the hotel receptionist episode, the stairwell fight and of course the final traumatic scene (changed from the book). This can be viewed readily from a woman's perspective. Of course, one needs to sell it, and Eva Green does. Similarly in SF, Dench does what's required to sell her guilt, inner strength and duty. These are all attributes that women (and particularly mothers or grandmothers) can relate to, just as men can relate to Bond's physical fortitude and sense of duty.
    I agree with you, especially because Judi Dench's M has a whole theme about motherhood interwoven in the film, with the "son" that she raised right (Bond) and the "son" that got off the rails (Silva). And how her decisions to form them ultimately come back to take its toll on her. The movie makes this apparent by having Silva literally call her mommy.

    This only highlights my issues with the Mendes films. They both have a sort of "family angle", which I really don't care for at all. Oh, how I miss the straightforward mission films…

    I agree. Too often these attempts at “character depth” reek of cheap soap opera writing.

    Indeed. I hope they're done with this in depth character exploration by Bond 26. Focus on the mission instead, and make it an entertaining and thrilling one.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    And that's where I blame P&W. They're really not very good writers when they have to come up with brand new stories.

    I do not blame the writers I blame the directors who still have had the last word in the last three movies even Craig admitted they did write stuff due to the writers strike with QoS and whoever was finally responsible for SF and SP, I am quite sure it was not P&W who must have been annoyed with Mr pretentiousness Mendes himself.

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,113
    P&W are not that innocent. If next Bond needs anything, it's not these two back to write.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Yeah Purvis and Wade really need to be out out to pasture now.

    I can't understand why they never brought back Bruce Ferstein or Michael France. Those two seemed to really be able to mould Bond in the modern world to the classic sensebilities of the series.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    If only Michael France and Bruce Feirstein had been hired ,say immediately after CR, to come up with future Bond scripts that highlight and compliment Craig's interpretation. We might have been looking forward to his 7th outing by now.

    In my controversial opinion, the B25 thread should already be around the 10,000 page mark, since I feel it should have been released this past November. We could have had multiple pages devoted to Craig's performance, Lea's performance, and the diminishing screen time of the Scooby Gang. I imagine we'd probably have devoted an entire thread to the gunbarrel by now as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I can't understand why they never brought back Bruce Ferstein or Michael France. Those two seemed to really be able to mould Bond in the modern world to the classic sensebilities of the series.
    I am far more disappointed that France wasn't called back as opposed to Feirstein. I thought the former really had a grip on how to do Bond, although Campbell as director probably helped. TND on the other hand felt very by the numbers and predictable to me, apart from the media baron idea which was interesting.

    I agree that P&W need to go, if only for the sake of variety.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 6,819
    bondjames wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I can't understand why they never brought back Bruce Ferstein or Michael France. Those two seemed to really be able to mould Bond in the modern world to the classic sensebilities of the series.
    I am far more disappointed that France wasn't called back as opposed to Feirstein. I thought the former really had a grip on how to do Bond, although Campbell as director probably helped. TND on the other hand felt very by the numbers and predictable to me, apart from the media baron idea which was interesting.

    I agree that P&W need to go, if only for the sake of variety.

    I agree 're Fierstein. Didn't impress me at all and TND is a very poor script. And wasn't Michael Frances screenplay for GE heavily rewritten?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I can't understand why they never brought back Bruce Ferstein or Michael France. Those two seemed to really be able to mould Bond in the modern world to the classic sensebilities of the series.
    I am far more disappointed that France wasn't called back as opposed to Feirstein. I thought the former really had a grip on how to do Bond, although Campbell as director probably helped. TND on the other hand felt very by the numbers and predictable to me, apart from the media baron idea which was interesting.

    I agree that P&W need to go, if only for the sake of variety.

    I agree 're Fierstein. Didn't impress me at all and TND is a very poor script. And wasn't Michael Frances screenplay for GE heavily rewritten?
    Yes, I believe it was. Here is a thread from this site on it

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/13565/michael-france-goldeneye-script-and-other-bond-films

    This is a link to the actual script. If you click on the 'Goldeneye' link with the red arrow beside it, then it will open it up in pdf format.

    https://www.simplyscripts.com/2014/05/24/goldeneye-screenplay/
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    I like what I've read of Michael France's script.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    This is for the questions thread but why did Michael France never came back?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    Ludovico wrote: »
    This is for the questions thread but why did Michael France never came back?

    His obituary states that he was an uncredited writer on TWINE @Ludovico
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    I forgot he had passed away.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I forgot he had passed away.

    Yes, sounded like quite a nasty battle with diabetes.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I can't understand why they never brought back Bruce Ferstein or Michael France. Those two seemed to really be able to mould Bond in the modern world to the classic sensebilities of the series.
    I am far more disappointed that France wasn't called back as opposed to Feirstein. I thought the former really had a grip on how to do Bond, although Campbell as director probably helped. TND on the other hand felt very by the numbers and predictable to me, apart from the media baron idea which was interesting.

    I agree that P&W need to go, if only for the sake of variety.

    I agree 're Fierstein. Didn't impress me at all and TND is a very poor script. And wasn't Michael Frances screenplay for GE heavily rewritten?
    Yes, I believe it was. Here is a thread from this site on it

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/13565/michael-france-goldeneye-script-and-other-bond-films

    This is a link to the actual script. If you click on the 'Goldeneye' link with the red arrow beside it, then it will open it up in pdf format.

    https://www.simplyscripts.com/2014/05/24/goldeneye-screenplay/

    If you ask me they could just use this one, change a few names et voilá, Bond 25....
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I can't understand why they never brought back Bruce Ferstein or Michael France. Those two seemed to really be able to mould Bond in the modern world to the classic sensebilities of the series.
    I am far more disappointed that France wasn't called back as opposed to Feirstein. I thought the former really had a grip on how to do Bond, although Campbell as director probably helped. TND on the other hand felt very by the numbers and predictable to me, apart from the media baron idea which was interesting.

    I agree that P&W need to go, if only for the sake of variety.

    I agree 're Fierstein. Didn't impress me at all and TND is a very poor script. And wasn't Michael Frances screenplay for GE heavily rewritten?
    Yes, I believe it was. Here is a thread from this site on it

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/13565/michael-france-goldeneye-script-and-other-bond-films

    This is a link to the actual script. If you click on the 'Goldeneye' link with the red arrow beside it, then it will open it up in pdf format.

    https://www.simplyscripts.com/2014/05/24/goldeneye-screenplay/

    If you ask me they could just use this one, change a few names et voilá, Bond 25....
    I haven't actually read it yet, but the MI6 site thread commenting on it (which I posted above) notes that a lot of the discarded action elements seem to have been used in later films, including SP.

    I'll take a read over the weekend.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    France's script has some great stuff in it but it's WAY too long and bloated. The movie would have been almost three hours and need a budget close to that of SP.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Not to mention, Bond hanging onto a remote controlled mini-helicopter to escape the Kremlin would've been hilariously bad compared to the effects of the time even if they combined the best of their resources.

    Sorry, but France's script was awful. Compared to the final film, anyway.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    I'd love to have a read of this. Is this an early draft? From what the man himself says, he actually did most of the writing on GE as seen on film (and he has said that the other two writers had said he deserved a screenwriting credit over a "story by" credit).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The stronghold of the story as well as the punchline, yes. But, the script differs entirely from that of the final film, other than the climactic finale.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    @ClarkDevlin ... I know France was hired for several drafts. Do we know which one this is? Thanking you in advance.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I believe this is the first draft, @peter, but I can't be sure. All I know is that, there were hordes of drafts after this one, which I've yet to read. And I hopefully do, someday.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    @ClarkDevlin -- thank you my friend! I think you're correct-- it does look like a first draft. I look forward to reading it-- and then seeking out other drafts credited to France. It will be interesting to see how the story evolved.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    No problem at all, my good man. It's got some interesting scenes, and the Severnaya massacre in France's draft is more haunting, at least the way I visualized it in my mind, but I guess all things worked out for the best in the end. Still, I didn't know that France had input for TWINE, unless we're talking about the caviar factory sequence which did exist in his GE draft.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    No problem at all, my good man. It's got some interesting scenes, and the Severnaya massacre in France's draft is more haunting, at least the way I visualized it in my mind, but I guess all things worked out for the best in the end. Still, I didn't know that France had input for TWINE, unless we're talking about the caviar factory sequence which did exist in his GE draft.

    @ClarkDevlin , yes I read his obituary and some other articles about him today that said he was an uncredited writer on TWINE. I take that as being the writer who’s known as a script doctor or polisher (I’m up for this exact position on a film about figure skating— brought on to brush up dialogue (fingers crossed))
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,293
    peter wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    No problem at all, my good man. It's got some interesting scenes, and the Severnaya massacre in France's draft is more haunting, at least the way I visualized it in my mind, but I guess all things worked out for the best in the end. Still, I didn't know that France had input for TWINE, unless we're talking about the caviar factory sequence which did exist in his GE draft.

    @ClarkDevlin , yes I read his obituary and some other articles about him today that said he was an uncredited writer on TWINE. I take that as being the writer who’s known as a script doctor or polisher (I’m up for this exact position on a film about figure skating— brought on to brush up dialogue (fingers crossed))

    Is it a drama, comedy or a musical @peter?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    It's a dramedy @Torgeirtrap ... not exactly my favorite genre, but my job will be brushing up dialogue
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,293
    peter wrote: »
    It's a dramedy @Torgeirtrap ... not exactly my favorite genre, but my job will be brushing up dialogue

    That seems like a difficult job, balancing the humorous elements with the drama and all!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It's a dramedy @Torgeirtrap ... not exactly my favorite genre, but my job will be brushing up dialogue

    That seems like a difficult job, balancing the humorous elements with the drama and all!

    I have great respect to writers who can manage exactly this, @Torgeirtrap !
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,293
    peter wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    It's a dramedy @Torgeirtrap ... not exactly my favorite genre, but my job will be brushing up dialogue

    That seems like a difficult job, balancing the humorous elements with the drama and all!

    I have great respect to writers who can manage exactly this, @Torgeirtrap !

    So have I! Hope the script polishing (guess one could call it that?) goes well. :-)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,502
    Yes, that's what it's called, @Torgeirtrap...!
Sign In or Register to comment.