› ›

Would you rather Roger Deakins OR Hans Zimmer return for Bond26?

1…206207208209210212»

Comments

  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 2,122
    Roger Deakins for sure.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,394
    2016's Skyfall.

    Ah, here's a film I don't know 😊.

    Deakins' cinematography is unrivalled, so yes, anytime. I still think that a Hans Zimmer score in an otherwise good movie is generally akin to pouring ketchup on a three-star dinner course.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,861
    Deakins for sure. He’s the GOAT at what he does.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 16,129
    Seve wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    How many of these deaths are central to the plot or inciting incidents? They happen within the story, are a result of the plot, but the plot itself is not revenge driven. Even in YOLT, Bond goes to Japan oblivious that he will find Blofeld there. It's the straightest revenge story of the novels (although FRWL is one film SMERSH's perspective), yet him finding Blofeld is completely coincidental.

    As I said, more than one thing can be true

    Look beyond the surface at the mechanics of writing
    The author chooses the circumstances by which his character will approach the subject

    Clearly YOLT the novel is about how Tracey's death affects Bond and the revenge motive is a central theme.

    As I quoted previously
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's are some comments, relating to Book-Bond's SMERSH revenge motivation, from Jamesbond.fandom.com

    "Since these incidents Bond has sought revenge on a number of occasions beginning with Fleming's second novel Live and Let Die where Bond is almost completely uninterested in disrupting Mr. Big's setup to finance Soviet operations until he learns that Big is an agent of SMERSH. After learning this Bond makes it a personal mission of vengeance against the organisation."

    "He had another mission of personal vengeance in Goldfinger after learning Auric Goldfinger is the treasurer of the agency."

    Fleming was writing in the spy / secret agent genre, and revenge is one ingredient among many that he could deploy in order to vary the flavour.

    So IMO you're splitting hairs, even Charles Bronson / Paul Kersey doesn't begin "Death Wish" seeking revenge until events trigger it. After what happens to his family, his intial expectation is that the police will handle it, he doesn't go out and buy a gun, he is given one as a gift by a friend and carrys it for self defence. There is more depth to DW than it's given credit for, which set it apart from most of the subsequent knock-offs it inspired.

    NB Death Wish the book is an examination of an aspect of urban American society in the 1970s, not intended to be the "personal revenge wish fulfillment fantasy" it has become known as. In the film the original questions are still there, but the emphasis, and thus the implied conclusion drawn, is very different.

    Wikipedia says

    "In 1975, Brian Garfield (the author) was disappointed in the 1974 film adaption. He described it as "incendiary", because he felt upset that the film's audience was encouraged by the violence and vigilantism, despite the story being against both topics in his book, in which Charles Bronson agreed with.

    Garfield thought that Bronson was miscast as Paul Kersey, because when the action-star appeared on screen, Garfield commented "you knew he was going to start blowing people away", which spoiled the plot-twist of his story for the audience who had never read the book.

    Paul was originally depicted in the novel as something of a pacifist weakling, with no previous life experience dealing with issues of revenge or violence.

    Bronson noted that, given he was really known better as a customary Hollywood tough guy, he was ill-suited for the part, saying, "I was really a miscast person. It was more a theme that would have been better for Dustin Hoffman or somebody who could play a weaker kind of man. I told them that at the time." The screenplay went through several writers and revisions to better adapt the role for Bronson."

    Did I say that it was mutually exclusive? I said, on the whole, and not to split hair or trying to defend an argutie, all I said, with all the nuance I can bring, is that Bond plots as a whole are generally not very revenge centric. Yes, there can be revenge elements in it, in some stories more than others. But they are rarely strict, "heavy" revenge stories the way, say, I, The Jury or Get Carter are. And that is all I'm saying.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,126
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    2016's Skyfall.

    Ah, here's a film I don't know 😊.

    Deakins' cinematography is unrivalled, so yes, anytime. I still think that a Hans Zimmer score in an otherwise good movie is generally akin to pouring ketchup on a three-star dinner course.

    Winner winner chicken dinner! You caught my error, I was wondering if anyone ever reads the text with the question. I know know at least one person does. LOL!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,394
    thedove wrote: »
    I know know at least one person does. LOL!
    Know know is a no-no. 😁
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,644
    Hands down, Deakins
Sign In or Register to comment.