Can Broccoli and Wilson learn from Abrams?

124

Comments

  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.

    Indeed, I was there too. The audience are suckers for nostalgia, it's an easy trick. Stick the Falcon in the Force Awakens and watch everyone lose their shit. The real trick is committing something completely new to film that elicits a similar reaction.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Arguably by overusing the DB5 since 1995, they've sort of reduced its importance in pop culture. It reminds me of Terminator in a way - just played out and every new instance serves to destroy the legacy. I'm sure the owners of some of the original cars at Auction are probably pissed that their values could be at risk.

    I think it's time we see a little renewed love for the Lotus & Rolex. The product placement folks will have to be consulted though.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,090
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.

    I was also there, the audience were still cheering and applauding while Bond was threatening M with the ejector seat. Great moment. However, trying to pull the same trick twice and second time round in a rather vanilla way just comes off as.....
    :-q
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Arguably by overusing the DB5 since 1995, they've sort of reduced its importance in pop culture. It reminds me of Terminator in a way - just played out and every new instance serves to destroy the legacy. I'm sure the owners of some of the original cars at Auction are probably pissed that their values could be at risk.

    Couldn't agree more. It had a certain mystique that to me has only diminished since the 90s, but SF was the real killer for me.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    Double post.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.

    Indeed, I was there too. The audience are suckers for nostalgia, it's an easy trick. Stick the Falcon in the Force Awakens and watch everyone lose their shit. The real trick is committing something completely new to film that elicits a similar reaction.

    Indeed. Them just stumbling across the Falcon in the middle of nowhere was extremely contrived. Yes you enjoy it because it's the Falcon but at the same time it's a hollow enjoyment.

    The same applies to the DB5. At the SF premiere I have to confess to being excited when he activated the machine guns (although I didn't scream and applaud like many) but in the cold light of day you realise it was just Mendes tickling your nostalgia prostate.

    The DB5 these days is the equivalent of hiring a high class prostitute - enjoyable at the time but you feel empty afterwards.

    What we need are orginal Bond moments that we can fall in love with.

    Take TSWLM - they just went and made an epic Bond moment in its own right, no need to reference Connery.

    Christ even OHMSS, which you would think would be the one film more than any other to hang onto the nostalgia life ring, doesn't reference the early Connery films as much as SF and SP.

    We keep hearing from Babs that Mendes is an amazing filmmaker who can tell interesting stories and take the character on an exciting adventure. Well do it then instead of just regurgitating stuff.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 2,115
    Minor, nit-picky point:

    //but no-one ever panicked that the Lotus in the early 80s Moore movies suddenly turned a deep red colour.''//

    It didn't turn red. Moore/Bond had a white Lotus in For Your Eyes Only, which blew up. Despite Bond's joke to Q about "putting the Lotus back together," it seemed like the red Lotus was another car.

    Also, re: DB5 in Skyfall...it wasn't just the Royal premiere. The reveal of the car got a rise out of the audience the four times I saw it in the theater.

    However, after all that effort to blow it up, bring it back *again* for SPECTRE? That was too much for me. Mitigating factor: it did give Whishaw probably the best line of the movie. ("I told you to bring it back in one piece, not bring back one piece.")
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    However, after all that effort to blow it up, bring it back *again* for SPECTRE? That was too much for me.

    This.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2016 Posts: 15,063
    doubleoego wrote: »
    However, after all that effort to blow it up, bring it back *again* for SPECTRE? That was too much for me.

    This.

    Yes, that was indeed rather silly. My long banshee cry is to put Bond back in a Bentley for the first time since FRWL/NSNA.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    However, after all that effort to blow it up, bring it back *again* for SPECTRE? That was too much for me.

    This.

    Yes, that was indeed rather silly. My long banshee cry is to put Bond back in a Bentley for the first time since FRWL/NSNA.

    I would've agreed wth this some years ago but the problem is these days Bentleys are too much associated with chav footballers and morons like Katie Price so I'm happy to stick with Aston as it still manages to retain its class.
  • Posts: 12,280
    They should just get Abrams to do Bond 25!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    They should just get Abrams to do Bond 25!

    Terrible idea.
  • Posts: 7,644
    RC7 wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    They should just get Abrams to do Bond 25!
    Terrible idea.

    We would probably get a fairly good spy and mission driven movie, which has been too bloody long overdue.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    They should just get Abrams to do Bond 25!
    Terrible idea.

    We would probably get a fairly good spy and mission driven movie, which has been too bloody long overdue.

    You'd get a remake of an earlier film. Were people clamouring for the Russo brothers before Cap 2? Let's be honest, most people here haven't got the slightest idea of how to go about producing or directing a Bond movie they just assume the 'in vogue' director is the obvious route.
  • Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    Arguably by overusing the DB5 since 1995, they've sort of reduced its importance in pop culture. It reminds me of Terminator in a way - just played out and every new instance serves to destroy the legacy. I'm sure the owners of some of the original cars at Auction are probably pissed that their values could be at risk.

    I think it's time we see a little renewed love for the Lotus & Rolex. The product placement folks will have to be consulted though.

    It does feel somewhat strange that this iconic car has now appeared in more DC Bond films than any other Bond actor.
  • Posts: 4,431
    Joining this thread late, sorry if point has been made but, two things that strike me, firstly, Star Wars has a childish family element and many of us, as kids, were brought up with Star Wars so there is genuine love for the series and it reminds us of happy times (like John Noakes, Spanglers, Choppers, Scalextric etc) plus the long gap between the originals and the remake led to a massive level of excitement. So I dont think comparisons are fair. The only thing I would say is the Abrams has clever and sensitive enough to make great efforts to keep the original feel and not change a winning formula. Plus, the original three movies were very simialr in feel and their target audience (plus obvioulsy the actors did not change) in contrast, the feel of Bond has changed massively over the years and there is no true, original Bond plus the fan base is very divided on what makes a great Bond movie...so its very hard. Sorry to reference again but when N Mayer was tasked with getting Star Trek back on track he made a list on a piece of paper of all the things that made Star Trek great. Its a much harder task with Bond as the shifting sands of time have changed that list and there is not much of a consensus re what makes Bond great....unless of course you go by box office, in which case, we just need another Skyfall (no argument from me there)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,725
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Arguably by overusing the DB5 since 1995, they've sort of reduced its importance in pop culture. It reminds me of Terminator in a way - just played out and every new instance serves to destroy the legacy. I'm sure the owners of some of the original cars at Auction are probably pissed that their values could be at risk.

    I think it's time we see a little renewed love for the Lotus & Rolex. The product placement folks will have to be consulted though.

    It does feel somewhat strange that this iconic car has now appeared in more DC Bond films than any other Bond actor.

    On a somewhat unrelated note - I don't think you can really put Lotus in the same boat as Rolex. The former was product placement in the 70's, whilst the latter is part of Bond's 'DNA', being his wristwatch in Fleming's work.
    The Rolex Submariner will forever be the quintessential 007 timepiece I think, even though Fleming wore the Explorer
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.

    Indeed, I was there too. The audience are suckers for nostalgia, it's an easy trick. Stick the Falcon in the Force Awakens and watch everyone lose their shit. The real trick is committing something completely new to film that elicits a similar reaction.

    Indeed. Them just stumbling across the Falcon in the middle of nowhere was extremely contrived. Yes you enjoy it because it's the Falcon but at the same time it's a hollow enjoyment.

    The same applies to the DB5. At the SF premiere I have to confess to being excited when he activated the machine guns (although I didn't scream and applaud like many) but in the cold light of day you realise it was just Mendes tickling your nostalgia prostate.
    I wouldn´t even compare the Falcon in TFA with the DB5, because the Falcon actually does make sense far beyond the nostalgia. It isn´t even much contrived that they stumble upon it like that, because the Force guides them.
    The Falcon was a continuing character in the old trilogy, whereas the DB5 vanishing after the pts of TB indicated that it was no lasting character.



    We keep hearing from Babs that Mendes is an amazing filmmaker who can tell interesting stories and take the character on an exciting adventure. Well do it then instead of just regurgitating stuff.
    Please, no! They should have told Mendes before shooting SF, not now. If he did another one, he would probably come up next with a golden PPK.

  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.

    Indeed, I was there too. The audience are suckers for nostalgia, it's an easy trick. Stick the Falcon in the Force Awakens and watch everyone lose their shit. The real trick is committing something completely new to film that elicits a similar reaction.

    Indeed. Them just stumbling across the Falcon in the middle of nowhere was extremely contrived. Yes you enjoy it because it's the Falcon but at the same time it's a hollow enjoyment.

    The same applies to the DB5. At the SF premiere I have to confess to being excited when he activated the machine guns (although I didn't scream and applaud like many) but in the cold light of day you realise it was just Mendes tickling your nostalgia prostate.
    I wouldn´t even compare the Falcon in TFA with the DB5, because the Falcon actually does make sense far beyond the nostalgia. It isn´t even much contrived that they stumble upon it like that, because the Force guides them.
    The Falcon was a continuing character in the old trilogy, whereas the DB5 vanishing after the pts of TB indicated that it was no lasting character.



    We keep hearing from Babs that Mendes is an amazing filmmaker who can tell interesting stories and take the character on an exciting adventure. Well do it then instead of just regurgitating stuff.
    Please, no! They should have told Mendes before shooting SF, not now. If he did another one, he would probably come up next with a golden PPK.

    Gimme a break. She just happens to have the Falcon and just happens to be picked up by Han and Chewie straight after she presumably flew it for the first time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a screenwriting opus, but if we're knocking SP, SW isn't getting away with its contrived bollocks either. The main point is that, irrespective of the narrative, the Falcon and DB5 are there first and foremost to get the general public moist because, 'look it's dat fing wot is famous and was in dat ova one'.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,437
    Ha ha, so true.
  • Posts: 7,644
    RC7 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    They should just get Abrams to do Bond 25!
    Terrible idea.

    We would probably get a fairly good spy and mission driven movie, which has been too bloody long overdue.

    You'd get a remake of an earlier film. Were people clamouring for the Russo brothers before Cap 2? Let's be honest, most people here haven't got the slightest idea of how to go about producing or directing a Bond movie they just assume the 'in vogue' director is the obvious route.

    Abrams did quite a good reinvention of another franchise with MI3, he did so with ST & SW. Alias as a pretty good spy story so I would wager that he could actually deliver.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I think the issue with the DB5 is implausible overuse. That's not the case (yet) with the Falcon.

    I'd say the Falcon appearance in TFA is similar to the DB5 appearance in GE. First time in as many years (30 in the case of the DB5, and 32 in the case of TFA). Also, it has some relevance, because it is Han's ship, and he is in the film.

    The DB5 in SF would be more similar to the Falcon miraculously (and unbelievably) being shoehorned out of nowhere into the prequels.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,228
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a screenwriting opus, but if we're knocking SP, SW isn't getting away with its contrived bollocks either.
    Yes, I agree. I can remember saying that the critics had a double standard by giving TFA such enormous praise when they lambasted SP.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would also add that at the Royal Premiere of SKYFALL the reveal of the DB5 got a MASSIVE reaction and applause. Those sort of audience moments stay with a director when or if he eventually returns to direct another Bond film.

    Indeed, I was there too. The audience are suckers for nostalgia, it's an easy trick. Stick the Falcon in the Force Awakens and watch everyone lose their shit. The real trick is committing something completely new to film that elicits a similar reaction.

    Indeed. Them just stumbling across the Falcon in the middle of nowhere was extremely contrived. Yes you enjoy it because it's the Falcon but at the same time it's a hollow enjoyment.

    The same applies to the DB5. At the SF premiere I have to confess to being excited when he activated the machine guns (although I didn't scream and applaud like many) but in the cold light of day you realise it was just Mendes tickling your nostalgia prostate.
    I wouldn´t even compare the Falcon in TFA with the DB5, because the Falcon actually does make sense far beyond the nostalgia. It isn´t even much contrived that they stumble upon it like that, because the Force guides them.
    The Falcon was a continuing character in the old trilogy, whereas the DB5 vanishing after the pts of TB indicated that it was no lasting character.



    We keep hearing from Babs that Mendes is an amazing filmmaker who can tell interesting stories and take the character on an exciting adventure. Well do it then instead of just regurgitating stuff.
    Please, no! They should have told Mendes before shooting SF, not now. If he did another one, he would probably come up next with a golden PPK.

    Gimme a break. She just happens to have the Falcon and just happens to be picked up by Han and Chewie straight after she presumably flew it for the first time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a screenwriting opus, but if we're knocking SP, SW isn't getting away with its contrived bollocks either. The main point is that, irrespective of the narrative, the Falcon and DB5 are there first and foremost to get the general public moist because, 'look it's dat fing wot is famous and was in dat ova one'.
    For you perhaps. That doesn´t change the logic of what I wrote.



    pachazo wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a screenwriting opus, but if we're knocking SP, SW isn't getting away with its contrived bollocks either.
    Yes, I agree. I can remember saying that the critics had a double standard by giving TFA such enormous praise when they lambasted SP.
    I´d say that has to do with SP being a bore, while TFA rocks.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    pachazo wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting a screenwriting opus, but if we're knocking SP, SW isn't getting away with its contrived bollocks either.
    Yes, I agree. I can remember saying that the critics had a double standard by giving TFA such enormous praise when they lambasted SP.

    It's very true. They can wax lyrical about the enjoyment factor until the cows come home, but as a screenplay it does very little new in terms of content and nothing new in terms of form. So I don't see it as some kind of benchmark in that regard. Far from it.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the issue with the DB5 is implausible overuse. That's not the case (yet) with the Falcon.

    I'd say the Falcon appearance in TFA is similar to the DB5 appearance in GE. First time in as many years (30 in the case of the DB5, and 32 in the case of TFA). Also, it has some relevance, because it is Han's ship, and he is in the film.

    The DB5 in SF would be more similar to the Falcon miraculously (and unbelievably) being shoehorned out of nowhere into the prequels.

    Like I said above, though, it's primary function is to tickle your testes. The film could function perfectly fine without it. The fact it's not even in Han's possession only serves to highlight the needless narrative gymnastics. I get that it's part of a wider continuity, but still, it serves exactly the same purpose as the DB5 emotionally.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I really can't tell the difference between the Falcon turning up out of nowhere in TFA and the DB5 turning up out of nowhere in CR.

    Both are solely there just to fellate the fans.

    I can accept a bit of subtle fan wankery (Hildebrand in SP is a good example) but what bothers me is that time and again now (6 times in 8 films) we just keep reaching for the DB5 like Amy Winehouse for a crack pipe and it just seems like them being out of ideas more than anything else.

    If someone is doing a Bond sketch or parody then fine, shoehorn in a DB5 at every opportunity but you would like to think that the official Bond filmmakers would be confident enough in the character to wean themselves off this mother's tit substitute and stand on their own two feet.

    Rog made it through 7 films perfectly fine without you ever thinking 'This film isn't very Bond like. I really wish the DB5 would turn up for no apparent reason to remind I'm watching a Bond film.'
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 267
    Stamper wrote: »
    They had the formula with CR and they messed it up.
    What they should have done is keep updating the novels into films.
    The follow up to CR should have been a mix of the LALD and Moonraker novels, updated to modern settings.
    The third film should have been drawing from DAF and FRWL novels, with Bond dying at the end (instead of at the beginning like in Skyfall)
    Then they should have drawn from Dr No and Goldfinger, rolled into one film.
    Then adapt straight TB, OHMSS and YOLT/MWTGG, remaking the movies in essence, just like the new SW remakes the first.

    That would have been 7 Craig films, some of them costing about half what any current Bond movie cost, covering most of the Fleming era, just like CR draws from CR.

    Instead they spend x amount of money into stunts no one cares about and jokes only die hard fans would smile for, basically remaking the Brosnan era films.

    Makes no sense.

    This makes even more sense as the model they should've followed when you go watch Spectre and realize what a piss poor job they did of constructing any sort of coherent plot. Base it off a novel that's barely been touched yet (MR for instance - or one of the better continuation novels), and at the very least you've got a plot that isn't the mess Spectre came up with. Its incredibly frustrating to leave a Bond film that has such a poor plot, poorly written characters, etc. and go home where you have countless Bond novels that could've been used as a basis for the film and saved the production time, money and effort.

    In regard to the DB5, I liked the usage of it in the Brosnan era. One car chase in his first film, and a brief shot in his 2nd. In Skyfall I liked the inclusion of it simply because it was the 50th film. Casino Royale felt forced - like they knew they were stripping down some of the same, tired elements of Bond films so they decided to throw one in there for the hell of it. Spectre was the killer though. If they want to show it getting rebuilt in the background, then fine. But the mentions, the final sequence, etc. was just too much.

    Craig's era is a weird one for me to think about. I love CR, like QoS & SF, and am not a big fan of SP at all. However I like SF because it was a well made film, but like QoS more because it tried to be original (and if they'd had the time to put together a full script and production it might have been a worthy follow up to CR). SP went and kind of put a damper on the entire era though for me when I try to look at it as a whole. I definitely hope Bond 25 can right some of those wrongs for what I hope will be one more Craig outing.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    In Skyfall I liked the inclusion of it simply because it was the 50th film.

    I've never understood this guff surrounding anniversarys. They should be celebrated outside of the film. If they want to include some subtle homages, which they do in every movie anyway, then so be it, but why are people so enamoured with this concept of overt references just because the film happens to be released in a specific year? Do we roll out the DB5 again for the 60th and the 65th? How about the 70th, 75th, 80th... Why not just have it in every film from now on?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    In Skyfall I liked the inclusion of it simply because it was the 50th film.

    I've never understood this guff surrounding anniversarys. They should be celebrated outside of the film. If they want to include some subtle homages, which they do in every movie anyway, then so be it, but why are people so enamoured with this concept of overt references just because the film happens to be released in a specific year? Do we roll out the DB5 again for the 60th and the 65th? How about the 70th, 75th, 80th... Why not just have it in every film from now on?

    Quite.

    We had none this garbage for the 25th anniversary just a cracking Bond film.

    Perhaps if they worried more about delivering us something at the level of TLD rather than how many references they can shoehorn in we might be might not be bemoaning the quality of the script so much.

    Seems like Mendes and P&W are hoodwinking EON by using being knowledgable about Bond as a smokescreen for not being very good at their jobs. Why come up with something inventive and original when you can just wheel out the DB5 again?
Sign In or Register to comment.