DAD on CBS tonite

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » DAD on CBS tonite

DAD on CBS tonite [message #219106]

So, 12 Februar 2006 02:39

FTseng2749

For you Pierce Brosnan as Bond fans, DAD is being broadcast tonight on
CBS. First time the movie has been broadcast on one of the four major
networks (it was broadcast on the cable network Spike TV several months
ago).

-Frank

P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
surprise.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219112 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 05:24

FTseng2749 wrote:
> For you Pierce Brosnan as Bond fans, DAD is being broadcast tonight on
> CBS. First time the movie has been broadcast on one of the four major
> networks (it was broadcast on the cable network Spike TV several months
> ago).
>
> -Frank
>
> P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
> suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
> Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
> surprise.

--- Well, it just ended and I'm amazed at how much worse this movie is
now than when I first saw it in the theater 4 years ago.
Excrutiatingly loud and hyperkentic dumbness to the extreme. And Halle
Berry has got to be the most unBond girl of them all - no chemistry
between her and Brosnan at all. Terrible movie, terrible. I think I
have to say that TND is now better than this horrid mess.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219115 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 06:53

Will Traynor

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1139718279.060042.137110 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> FTseng2749 wrote:
>> For you Pierce Brosnan as Bond fans, DAD is being broadcast tonight on
>> CBS. First time the movie has been broadcast on one of the four major
>> networks (it was broadcast on the cable network Spike TV several months
>> ago).
>>
>> -Frank
>>
>> P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
>> suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
>> Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
>> surprise.
>
> --- Well, it just ended and I'm amazed at how much worse this movie is
> now than when I first saw it in the theater 4 years ago.
> Excrutiatingly loud and hyperkentic dumbness to the extreme. And Halle
> Berry has got to be the most unBond girl of them all - no chemistry
> between her and Brosnan at all. Terrible movie, terrible. I think I
> have to say that TND is now better than this horrid mess.
>

Some posters here like the movie, while others don't. It's probably a mixed
bag on this newsgroup. Personally, it's not one of my favorites but there
are some here who like it, for reasons they can explain.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219117 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 07:46

dgates

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:53:03 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>news:1139718279.060042.137110 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> FTseng2749 wrote:
>>> For you Pierce Brosnan as Bond fans, DAD is being broadcast tonight on
>>> CBS. First time the movie has been broadcast on one of the four major
>>> networks (it was broadcast on the cable network Spike TV several months
>>> ago).
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>>
>>> P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
>>> suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
>>> Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
>>> surprise.
>>
>> --- Well, it just ended and I'm amazed at how much worse this movie is
>> now than when I first saw it in the theater 4 years ago.
>> Excrutiatingly loud and hyperkentic dumbness to the extreme. And Halle
>> Berry has got to be the most unBond girl of them all - no chemistry
>> between her and Brosnan at all. Terrible movie, terrible. I think I
>> have to say that TND is now better than this horrid mess.
>>
>
>Some posters here like the movie, while others don't. It's probably a mixed
>bag on this newsgroup. Personally, it's not one of my favorites but there
>are some here who like it, for reasons they can explain.

It's funny. Right after the film came out, the newsgroup did a
quickie poll: "Did you like it, yes or no (with no other options
allowed)?"

There were more yeses than no's at that point.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219125 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 10:02

JHause

FTseng2749 wrote:
> P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
> suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
> Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
> surprise.

The words "new Pink Panther movie" and "nice surprise" should never be
used in the same sentence.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219128 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 11:15

Jabei

Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.

"dgates" <dgates [at] spamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:tcmtu1pptjc5gtb9so250uu9kl0633n1h1 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:53:03 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>>news:1139718279.060042.137110 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> FTseng2749 wrote:
>>>> For you Pierce Brosnan as Bond fans, DAD is being broadcast tonight on
>>>> CBS. First time the movie has been broadcast on one of the four major
>>>> networks (it was broadcast on the cable network Spike TV several months
>>>> ago).
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>>
>>>> P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
>>>> suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
>>>> Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
>>>> surprise.
>>>
>>> --- Well, it just ended and I'm amazed at how much worse this movie is
>>> now than when I first saw it in the theater 4 years ago.
>>> Excrutiatingly loud and hyperkentic dumbness to the extreme. And Halle
>>> Berry has got to be the most unBond girl of them all - no chemistry
>>> between her and Brosnan at all. Terrible movie, terrible. I think I
>>> have to say that TND is now better than this horrid mess.
>>>
>>
>>Some posters here like the movie, while others don't. It's probably a
>>mixed
>>bag on this newsgroup. Personally, it's not one of my favorites but there
>>are some here who like it, for reasons they can explain.
>
> It's funny. Right after the film came out, the newsgroup did a
> quickie poll: "Did you like it, yes or no (with no other options
> allowed)?"
>
> There were more yeses than no's at that point.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219142 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 22:50

neolib007

Jabei wrote:
> Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
> acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.

Or acknowledge that a James Bond could be that bad.

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219143 ]

So, 12 Februar 2006 22:59

Will Traynor

<neolib007 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139781015.450527.121750 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Jabei wrote:
>> Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
>> acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.
>
> Or acknowledge that a James Bond could be that bad.
>

Are you referring to PB?

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219150 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 01:40

phil.gerrard1

Jabei wrote:

> Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
> acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.

DAD's a long way from being my favourite - is it anybody's? - but at
the same time is there anybody here who couldn't think of four or five
Bond movies they liked less? We've all seen worse, and I don't
particularly like the implication that those of us who liked, or were
at least OK with the film, were somehow deluding ourselves.

Based on recent viewings I think the film is like the kids' poem about
the girl with the curl: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when
it's bad it's horrid. (I have a horrible suspicion I've nicked that
metaphor from Michael Medved, of all people.) For me it still beats
both Connery's and Moore's worst few entries in the series at least, so
this idea that it represents the absolute nadir seems odd to me.

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219157 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 03:00

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Jabei wrote:
>
> > Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
> > acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.
>
> DAD's a long way from being my favourite - is it anybody's? - but at
> the same time is there anybody here who couldn't think of four or five
> Bond movies they liked less? We've all seen worse, and I don't
> particularly like the implication that those of us who liked, or were
> at least OK with the film, were somehow deluding ourselves.
>
> Based on recent viewings I think the film is like the kids' poem about
> the girl with the curl: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when
> it's bad it's horrid. (I have a horrible suspicion I've nicked that
> metaphor from Michael Medved, of all people.) For me it still beats
> both Connery's and Moore's worst few entries in the series at least, so
> this idea that it represents the absolute nadir seems odd to me.
>

--- Well, let's take the worst of the bunch and see which one is really
the worst:

>From Connery: DAF/NSNA
>From Moore: TMWTGG/AVTAK
Fron Brosnan: TND/DAD

It's a tough call to make. At least DAF and NSNA had the pleasure of
Connery's company, but DAF is not nearly as bad as Moore's TMWTGG.
Meanwhile, NSNA was mostly a dull affair if not bad, but AVTAK was far
duller and much more insipid. Besides, a 50ish Connery still looked
like he could be a mean threat more than a 50ish Moore. So, by this
reasoning, it seems that DAF probably ranks as the best so far. Now
come the Brosnan entries. I'm not sure you can even categorize them
the same way as Connery's or Moore's, being so excessive in nature by
comparison and convoluted in plotting. Between the two, TND now fares
better after my re-viewing of DAD the other night, but that's not
saying much because TND was a ridiculous affair, but DAD was just
outright eggregious in its unabashed trashiness. But would I prefer
DAD to TMWTGG, NSNA or AVTAK? Depends if I preferred to be bored or
repulsed. Maybe I prefer being bored, so I guess DAD must rank as the
worst of the lot from my p.o.v. now.

> Best
>
> Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219160 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 04:07

Draugnar

Four or five? I can only think of three; MR (sorry Tom), TMWTGG, and OP.
Although I will grant that both YOLT and DAF are right there with it. I
guess, depending on my mood, I might have up to five, but only three on a
regular basis. And yes, I happen to enjoy AVTAK. It has flaws (the beach
boys while Bond "surfs" down the glacier) and Tanya Roberts is hardly
believable as a geologist, but it's still above DAD and the sometimes
"realistic" and other times totally invisible car as well as the henchman
who has no bone marrow and scrubbed DNA (no bone marrow means no blood cells
and no immunity to disease as well as no way to carry oxygen to the body,
i.e. certain death). Zao felt like someone who should have been in Dick
Tracy's universe, not 007s. Add to that the headache inducing fast-forward,
MTV, zero attention span editing in the second half and you get one movie in
at least the bottom quarter of the series. I would almost rate TMWTGG above
it for the fact that I at least felt Christopher Lee was a great villain.
Had TMWTGG lost the whole solex agitator energy crisis plot and stuck to it
being one on one (like the book) it might have been a pretty good film. Of
course, the kid's whistle during the jump and everything involving Sheriff
Pepper would have to go as well.

Draugnar

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139791200.011251.70450 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jabei wrote:
>
>> Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
>> acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.
>
> DAD's a long way from being my favourite - is it anybody's? - but at
> the same time is there anybody here who couldn't think of four or five
> Bond movies they liked less? We've all seen worse, and I don't
> particularly like the implication that those of us who liked, or were
> at least OK with the film, were somehow deluding ourselves.
>
> Based on recent viewings I think the film is like the kids' poem about
> the girl with the curl: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when
> it's bad it's horrid. (I have a horrible suspicion I've nicked that
> metaphor from Michael Medved, of all people.) For me it still beats
> both Connery's and Moore's worst few entries in the series at least, so
> this idea that it represents the absolute nadir seems odd to me.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219163 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 04:28

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139791200.011251.70450 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jabei wrote:
>
>> Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
>> acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.
>
> DAD's a long way from being my favourite - is it anybody's? - but at
> the same time is there anybody here who couldn't think of four or five
> Bond movies they liked less? We've all seen worse, and I don't
> particularly like the implication that those of us who liked, or were
> at least OK with the film, were somehow deluding ourselves.
>
> Based on recent viewings I think the film is like the kids' poem about
> the girl with the curl: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when
> it's bad it's horrid. (I have a horrible suspicion I've nicked that
> metaphor from Michael Medved, of all people.) For me it still beats
> both Connery's and Moore's worst few entries in the series at least, so
> this idea that it represents the absolute nadir seems odd to me.
>

Personally, TMWTGG and AVTAK are the absolute nadir of the series, but I've
never been more disappointed than the second half of DAD, given that the
first half showed so much promise. IMHO, Moore's worst films were the worst
of the series, but Connery's worst are more entertaining to me than DAD,
simply because Connery blows doors even when the movies aren't so good.
There was never a better fit of character and actor in the movies. At least
I can't think of one off the top of my head.

> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219164 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 04:31

Will Traynor

"Draugnar" <draugnar [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11uvu0sk2f9cec7 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> Four or five? I can only think of three; MR (sorry Tom), TMWTGG, and OP.
> Although I will grant that both YOLT and DAF are right there with it. I
> guess, depending on my mood, I might have up to five, but only three on a
> regular basis. And yes, I happen to enjoy AVTAK. It has flaws (the beach
> boys while Bond "surfs" down the glacier) and Tanya Roberts is hardly
> believable as a geologist, but it's still above DAD and the sometimes
> "realistic" and other times totally invisible car as well as the henchman
> who has no bone marrow and scrubbed DNA (no bone marrow means no blood
> cells and no immunity to disease as well as no way to carry oxygen to the
> body, i.e. certain death). Zao felt like someone who should have been in
> Dick Tracy's universe, not 007s. Add to that the headache inducing
> fast-forward, MTV, zero attention span editing in the second half and you
> get one movie in at least the bottom quarter of the series. I would
> almost rate TMWTGG above it for the fact that I at least felt Christopher
> Lee was a great villain. Had TMWTGG lost the whole solex agitator energy
> crisis plot and stuck to it being one on one (like the book) it might have
> been a pretty good film. Of course, the kid's whistle during the jump and
> everything involving Sheriff Pepper would have to go as well.
>
> Draugnar
>

You make some good observations, but YOLT is not a bad Bond film, IMHO. On
my list, if falls somewhere in the middle of the pack.

> "phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1139791200.011251.70450 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Jabei wrote:
>>
>>> Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
>>> acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.
>>
>> DAD's a long way from being my favourite - is it anybody's? - but at
>> the same time is there anybody here who couldn't think of four or five
>> Bond movies they liked less? We've all seen worse, and I don't
>> particularly like the implication that those of us who liked, or were
>> at least OK with the film, were somehow deluding ourselves.
>>
>> Based on recent viewings I think the film is like the kids' poem about
>> the girl with the curl: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when
>> it's bad it's horrid. (I have a horrible suspicion I've nicked that
>> metaphor from Michael Medved, of all people.) For me it still beats
>> both Connery's and Moore's worst few entries in the series at least, so
>> this idea that it represents the absolute nadir seems odd to me.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Phil
>>
>
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #219168 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 09:25

dgates

On 12 Feb 2006 01:02:51 -0800, "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote:

>
>FTseng2749 wrote:
>> P.S. For you Bond fans who wished Clive Owen was the new Bond, I
>> suggest you check out the new "Pink Panther" movie (featuring Steve
>> Martin) which just premiered yesterday. You'll be in for a nice
>> surprise.
>
>The words "new Pink Panther movie" and "nice surprise" should never be
>used in the same sentence.

I had a nice surprise involving the new Pink Panther movie -- namely,
that the reviews were SO bad, I never for a minute considered going to
see it.

If the reviews had been about 50-50, and I suspected that the bad ones
were mostly just deifying Peter Sellers, I might have convinced myself
to go spend some money on the thing!

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224820 ]

Mo, 13 Februar 2006 17:14

Will Traynor

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1139796011.477472.90500 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>> Jabei wrote:
>>
>> > Yes...I think it was wishful thinking....no-one wanted to actually
>> > acknowledge that a James Bond film could be that bad.
>>
>> DAD's a long way from being my favourite - is it anybody's? - but at
>> the same time is there anybody here who couldn't think of four or five
>> Bond movies they liked less? We've all seen worse, and I don't
>> particularly like the implication that those of us who liked, or were
>> at least OK with the film, were somehow deluding ourselves.
>>
>> Based on recent viewings I think the film is like the kids' poem about
>> the girl with the curl: when it's good, it's very, very good, but when
>> it's bad it's horrid. (I have a horrible suspicion I've nicked that
>> metaphor from Michael Medved, of all people.) For me it still beats
>> both Connery's and Moore's worst few entries in the series at least, so
>> this idea that it represents the absolute nadir seems odd to me.
>>
>
> --- Well, let's take the worst of the bunch and see which one is really
> the worst:
>
>>From Connery: DAF/NSNA
>>From Moore: TMWTGG/AVTAK
> Fron Brosnan: TND/DAD
>
> It's a tough call to make. At least DAF and NSNA had the pleasure of
> Connery's company, but DAF is not nearly as bad as Moore's TMWTGG.
> Meanwhile, NSNA was mostly a dull affair if not bad, but AVTAK was far
> duller and much more insipid. Besides, a 50ish Connery still looked
> like he could be a mean threat more than a 50ish Moore. So, by this
> reasoning, it seems that DAF probably ranks as the best so far. Now
> come the Brosnan entries. I'm not sure you can even categorize them
> the same way as Connery's or Moore's, being so excessive in nature by
> comparison and convoluted in plotting. Between the two, TND now fares
> better after my re-viewing of DAD the other night, but that's not
> saying much because TND was a ridiculous affair, but DAD was just
> outright eggregious in its unabashed trashiness. But would I prefer
> DAD to TMWTGG, NSNA or AVTAK? Depends if I preferred to be bored or
> repulsed. Maybe I prefer being bored, so I guess DAD must rank as the
> worst of the lot from my p.o.v. now.
>

It's not a tough call for me: Connery's worst still had the benefit of
having Connery. End of story. For example, while NSNA is not a great Bond
film, Connery's performance was very good, probably his best since TB. The
scene where he is giving Basinger a massage was classic Connery for me.
Connery and Carrera's performance alone bring that movie up above the bottom
of the barrel, at least for me. I enjoy watching DAF simply because there
are some good scenes, although the movie as a whole is vacant. But TMWTGG
and AVTAK are the absolute nadir of the series for me. DAD was a huge
letdown for me, simply because the first half showed some promise. Invisible
cars? Para-sailing on an avalanche? Just thinking about it makes me think
how much they've dumbed down the series.

>> Best
>>
>> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224831 ]

Di, 14 Februar 2006 02:09

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:

> But TMWTGG
> and AVTAK are the absolute nadir of the series for me. DAD was a huge
> letdown for me, simply because the first half showed some promise. Invisible
> cars? Para-sailing on an avalanche? Just thinking about it makes me think
> how much they've dumbed down the series.

The parasailing was a terrible idea, I grant you. But dumbed down?
I'm not sure about that at all. Apart from the 'big five' of the'60s -
to tweak Tom's trademarked phrase - the films seem to me to divide
pretty equally between the sublime and the stupid, with several films
combining elements of both. Even those movies have some seriously
stupid moments, but let's leave that aside for now and go with the
general consensus that they're the best, smartest, and classiest of the
series.

Anyway, are the four Brosnan fims really any dumber in general than the
first four Moore films? I like TSWLM as much as anybody, but you
really have to suspend your disbelief to buy almost anything in it. As
for FYEO, I'd defy anyone to find a stretch of dialogue in the Brosnan
movies as bad as the PCS in that film: almost every line is a stinker.
Even the Dalton era, which produced two of my favourite Bond movies,
gave us double-taking monkeys, winking fish, cameras which could
magically produce X-rays of photographs, etc, etc.

AFAIC, from YOLT (nearly 40 years ago!) onwards the EON movies have
been a hugely mixed bag, but I really don't believe there's been the
steady downward spiral that some people suggest. Some are good, some
are bad, some smart, some clever, but there isn't a consistent pattern
of decline there IMHO.

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224832 ]

Di, 14 Februar 2006 02:11

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:
> But TMWTGG
> and AVTAK are the absolute nadir of the series for me. DAD was a huge
> letdown for me, simply because the first half showed some promise. Invisible
> cars? Para-sailing on an avalanche? Just thinking about it makes me think
> how much they've dumbed down the series.

The parasailing was a terrible idea, I grant you. But dumbed down?
I'm not sure about that at all. Apart from the 'big five' of the'60s -

to tweak Tom's trademarked phrase - the films seem to me to divide
pretty equally between the sublime and the stupid, with several films
combining elements of both. Even those movies have some seriously
stupid moments, but let's leave that aside for now and go with the
general consensus that they're the best, smartest, and classiest of the

series.

Anyway, are the four Brosnan fims really any dumber in general than the

first four Moore films? I like TSWLM as much as anybody, but you
really have to suspend your disbelief to buy almost anything in it. As

for FYEO, I'd defy anyone to find a stretch of dialogue in the Brosnan
movies as bad as the PCS in that film: almost every line is a stinker.
Even the Dalton era, which produced two of my favourite Bond movies,
gave us double-taking monkeys, winking fish, cameras which could
magically produce X-rays of photographs, etc, etc.

AFAIC, from YOLT (nearly 40 years ago!) onwards the EON movies have
been a hugely mixed bag, but I really don't believe there's been the
steady downward spiral that some people suggest. Some are good, some
are bad, some smart, some stupid, but there isn't a consistent pattern
of decline there IMHO.

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224847 ]

Di, 14 Februar 2006 06:06

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139879356.224598.213150 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> But TMWTGG
>> and AVTAK are the absolute nadir of the series for me. DAD was a huge
>> letdown for me, simply because the first half showed some promise.
>> Invisible
>> cars? Para-sailing on an avalanche? Just thinking about it makes me think
>> how much they've dumbed down the series.
>
> The parasailing was a terrible idea, I grant you. But dumbed down?
> I'm not sure about that at all. Apart from the 'big five' of the'60s -
> to tweak Tom's trademarked phrase - the films seem to me to divide
> pretty equally between the sublime and the stupid, with several films
> combining elements of both. Even those movies have some seriously
> stupid moments, but let's leave that aside for now and go with the
> general consensus that they're the best, smartest, and classiest of the
> series.
>
> Anyway, are the four Brosnan fims really any dumber in general than the
> first four Moore films? I like TSWLM as much as anybody, but you
> really have to suspend your disbelief to buy almost anything in it. As
> for FYEO, I'd defy anyone to find a stretch of dialogue in the Brosnan
> movies as bad as the PCS in that film: almost every line is a stinker.
> Even the Dalton era, which produced two of my favourite Bond movies,
> gave us double-taking monkeys, winking fish, cameras which could
> magically produce X-rays of photographs, etc, etc.
>
> AFAIC, from YOLT (nearly 40 years ago!) onwards the EON movies have
> been a hugely mixed bag, but I really don't believe there's been the
> steady downward spiral that some people suggest. Some are good, some
> are bad, some smart, some clever, but there isn't a consistent pattern
> of decline there IMHO.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

I noticed you didn't mention the invisible car, which was absolutely
horrible. When I say dumbed down, I include the amount of explosions in a
film, where the producers think that the more explosions the more people
will be awed. Let's face it, the Brosnan Bond films have more explosions and
unnecessary action than any of the Bond films. For example, was there ever
more gratuitous explosions than that ridiculous hovercraft sequence and the
scenes leading up to it? Talk about loud and mind-numbed action. The problem
I have with the newer Bond films is they seem to think big, loud action
sequences are substitutes for suspense. The earlier films combined down to
earth action sequences with suspense. That started to change toward TB and
YOLT. But the new movies use CGI-induced special effects (para-sailing) and
overlong action sequences that could be trimmed in half (back-seat driving
sequence and motorcycle chase in TND, for example). The XXX-style may work
for the Vin Diesel crowd because no one expects any semblance of reality.
But the Bond films have become nothing more than XXX copycats instead of
something along the lines of the Bourne films, which combine hair-raising
action and suspense. Personally, I would rather see a good ol' fight
sequence than an invisible car any day. Let's face it, the sword fight in
DAD was one of the best sequences in the film, and there wasn't one
explosion or CGI effect. I wonder why that is?

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224848 ]

Di, 14 Februar 2006 06:17

Will Traynor

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224859 ]

Di, 14 Februar 2006 22:25

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:

> I noticed you didn't mention the invisible car, which was absolutely
> horrible.

For some bizarre reason, I didn't mind that nearly as much as some
people, but I can see why you'd object.

> When I say dumbed down, I include the amount of explosions in a
> film, where the producers think that the more explosions the more people
> will be awed. Let's face it, the Brosnan Bond films have more explosions and
> unnecessary action than any of the Bond films.

Well, the problem is that this is a tendency which has been there from
the start. Fleming didn't feel the need to blow up Dr No's
headquarters, add a helicopter and boat chase to the end of FRWL, or
finish TB on an out-of-control hydrofoil. The tendency to believe that
bigger was better was there from the start, and by the time EON got to
YOLT they went all-out. Outside of a few war pictures, I can't think
of any mainstream action adventures which had been so heavy on the
pyrotechnics until then, and I would be willing to bet that had this
list existed, people would be making much the same complaints about
suspense being supplanted by explosions. Then there was OHMSS - but
then the films started getting bigger and more action-heavy again, so
by the time of MR they looked more like firework displays than suspense
thrillers and had taken the action scenes as far over-the-top as was
possible for the age in which they were made - and then there was the
FYEO switchback, at which point the pattern started a third time, with
Dalton being the back-to-basics figure after the dumbly spectacular
AVTAK.

I see a distinct pattern there, with EON constantly trying to better
(or bigger?) their previous film until they finally realise they've
gone too far. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the likes
of YOLT and TSWLM were more over-the-top and spectacular than any
mainstream action movies of their respective eras. If, as you argue,
the Brosnan films have become even more reliant on explosions and huge
action sequences than the movies that came before them, I think that's
partly because EON are keeping a wary eye on the competition and are
keen not to be outdone, but I also think it was ever thus. Action
films in general are bigger, crazier, and more spectacular than ever
before, and that's the marketplace in which EON are competing. Is this
keeping up with the Joneses a good idea? Maybe not, but it's not like
it's anything new.

Also, it seems to me that two of the last four Bond films, TND and DAD,
were conceived from the start as Lewis Gilbert style spectacles, so
it's not like the over-the-top action has been shoehorned into scripts
which were intended to be subtler and quieter. Some of the action
scenes in TWINE, apart from being poorly conceived, do look a little
out-of-place to me. But that's not the whole movie, and I like a lot
of the rest enough to overlook or at least tolerate daft things like
the attack on the caviar factory.

> But the new movies use CGI-induced special effects (para-sailing)

The para-sailing should never have been there, and CGI should not be
used to create action sequences and stunts. That's the only time I've
really objected to its use in a Bond movie. If it's there to replace
what would previously have been a travelling-matte shot or foreground
miniature or an obvious dummy falling of a cliff, well, I can go with
that if it's done well. However, jugding from his use of it in some
other films, it would seem that CGI is a bit of a Tamahori fetish
(ahem).

> But the Bond films have become nothing more than XXX copycats instead of
> something along the lines of the Bourne films, which combine hair-raising
> action and suspense. Personally, I would rather see a good ol' fight
> sequence than an invisible car any day. Let's face it, the sword fight in
> DAD was one of the best sequences in the film, and there wasn't one
> explosion or CGI effect. I wonder why that is?

Oh, sure, and I always come back to the fight with Robert Shaw in FRWL
as my favourite action scene in any Bond movie. It's just that EON
sometimes get it into their heads that audiences want their Bond films
big and spectacular, and, whether you or I or even EON like it or not,
they may often have been right in that assessment. (Tom Mankiewicz, of
all people, complained in the late '70s that the Bond movies were
getting too ridiculous and needed to get back to brass tacks no matter
how much the audience was lapping it up.) Don't forget CR is the first
chance that EON have had to react to the success of the Bourne films,
so with the commercial success of that franchise in mind *and* the fact
that there's nowhere to go after DAD but to scale down again, I think
we're going to see yet another return to basics with the new movie.
History repeating, really...

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224864 ]

Di, 14 Februar 2006 23:18

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139952342.682901.254650 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> I noticed you didn't mention the invisible car, which was absolutely
>> horrible.
>
> For some bizarre reason, I didn't mind that nearly as much as some
> people, but I can see why you'd object.
>
>> When I say dumbed down, I include the amount of explosions in a
>> film, where the producers think that the more explosions the more people
>> will be awed. Let's face it, the Brosnan Bond films have more explosions
>> and
>> unnecessary action than any of the Bond films.
>
> Well, the problem is that this is a tendency which has been there from
> the start. Fleming didn't feel the need to blow up Dr No's
> headquarters, add a helicopter and boat chase to the end of FRWL, or
> finish TB on an out-of-control hydrofoil. The tendency to believe that
> bigger was better was there from the start, and by the time EON got to
> YOLT they went all-out. Outside of a few war pictures, I can't think
> of any mainstream action adventures which had been so heavy on the
> pyrotechnics until then, and I would be willing to bet that had this
> list existed, people would be making much the same complaints about
> suspense being supplanted by explosions. Then there was OHMSS - but
> then the films started getting bigger and more action-heavy again, so
> by the time of MR they looked more like firework displays than suspense
> thrillers and had taken the action scenes as far over-the-top as was
> possible for the age in which they were made - and then there was the
> FYEO switchback, at which point the pattern started a third time, with
> Dalton being the back-to-basics figure after the dumbly spectacular
> AVTAK.
>

Well, there's no secret why YOLT is inferior to OHMSS, and one of those
reasons is the mindless action sequences. And you correctly point out the
reasons why MR and AVTAK are among the worst Bond films. For me, TND and DAD
contain much of the same mindless action sequences. I think Bond fans prefer
a suspenseful story mixed with action rather than action sprinkled with a
story.

> I see a distinct pattern there, with EON constantly trying to better
> (or bigger?) their previous film until they finally realise they've
> gone too far. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the likes
> of YOLT and TSWLM were more over-the-top and spectacular than any
> mainstream action movies of their respective eras. If, as you argue,
> the Brosnan films have become even more reliant on explosions and huge
> action sequences than the movies that came before them, I think that's
> partly because EON are keeping a wary eye on the competition and are
> keen not to be outdone, but I also think it was ever thus. Action
> films in general are bigger, crazier, and more spectacular than ever
> before, and that's the marketplace in which EON are competing. Is this
> keeping up with the Joneses a good idea? Maybe not, but it's not like
> it's anything new.
>

Keeping up with the competition doesn't mean its the right thing to do, if
the competition continues to knock out an inferior product. The action films
of today are loaded with CGI-induced images that try to emulate reality even
though the audience knows its not real. Those effects might work with
fantasy or outer space films, like LOTR or Star Wars, but Bond is supposed
to be rooted a bit more in reality. At least he used to be. I remember
watching DAD in the theater and thinking to myself, "This is XXX all over
again." I would love to compare how much screen time is used for action
sequences in Bond films now compared to the 60s, 70s or 80s. I would argue
it is higher now than ever before. The teaser sequences are much longer now.
They used to be five minutes of suspense and some action. Now they are 10-15
minutes, and mostly action. I watched Goldfinger the other night and there
is one explosion, some suspense, and a fight. Compare that to the teaser in
DAD, with its 50 explosions. No contest.

> Also, it seems to me that two of the last four Bond films, TND and DAD,
> were conceived from the start as Lewis Gilbert style spectacles, so
> it's not like the over-the-top action has been shoehorned into scripts
> which were intended to be subtler and quieter. Some of the action
> scenes in TWINE, apart from being poorly conceived, do look a little
> out-of-place to me. But that's not the whole movie, and I like a lot
> of the rest enough to overlook or at least tolerate daft things like
> the attack on the caviar factory.
>
>> But the new movies use CGI-induced special effects (para-sailing)
>
> The para-sailing should never have been there, and CGI should not be
> used to create action sequences and stunts. That's the only time I've
> really objected to its use in a Bond movie. If it's there to replace
> what would previously have been a travelling-matte shot or foreground
> miniature or an obvious dummy falling of a cliff, well, I can go with
> that if it's done well. However, jugding from his use of it in some
> other films, it would seem that CGI is a bit of a Tamahori fetish
> (ahem).
>
>> But the Bond films have become nothing more than XXX copycats instead of
>> something along the lines of the Bourne films, which combine hair-raising
>> action and suspense. Personally, I would rather see a good ol' fight
>> sequence than an invisible car any day. Let's face it, the sword fight in
>> DAD was one of the best sequences in the film, and there wasn't one
>> explosion or CGI effect. I wonder why that is?
>
> Oh, sure, and I always come back to the fight with Robert Shaw in FRWL
> as my favourite action scene in any Bond movie. It's just that EON
> sometimes get it into their heads that audiences want their Bond films
> big and spectacular, and, whether you or I or even EON like it or not,
> they may often have been right in that assessment. (Tom Mankiewicz, of
> all people, complained in the late '70s that the Bond movies were
> getting too ridiculous and needed to get back to brass tacks no matter
> how much the audience was lapping it up.) Don't forget CR is the first
> chance that EON have had to react to the success of the Bourne films,
> so with the commercial success of that franchise in mind *and* the fact
> that there's nowhere to go after DAD but to scale down again, I think
> we're going to see yet another return to basics with the new movie.
> History repeating, really...
>

At this point, EON appears more interested in making a spectacle rather than
a good spy film that has a strong story and characterization. And they've
made a ton of money doing it. So we'll see if they care about making a good
movie or not. We'll see what they do next. But you don't know how many
people have told me the Bourne films were the Bond films that never
were.....

Always a pleasure, Phil, you make some good points.

> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224866 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 00:56

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:

> Always a pleasure, Phil, you make some good points.

Ah, you too. Call this end of round one :-)

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224868 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 00:58

Mac

Will wrote:

> At this point, EON appears more interested in making a spectacle
> rather than a good spy film that has a strong story and
> characterization. And they've made a ton of money doing it. So we'll
> see if they care about making a good movie or not. We'll see what
> they do next. But you don't know how many people have told me the
> Bourne films were the Bond films that never were.....

Comparing Bourne with Bond is a facile argument because they
are, on a surface level, "spies." but one can clearly see they
approach the genre from opposite ends of the spectrum.

One is an angst-ridden assassin and the other a hedonistic
adventurer.

Jason Bourne is David Callan and Bond is Richard Hannay.

An examination of the source material also reveals they have
very different roots. The Bourne films barely feature the Bourne
Robert Ludlum created!

Those complaining about changes and/or additions being made to
"Casino Royale" should read Ludlum's novels before using them to
berate the Bonds. There's little or nothing of the source left in
the translation to film; it's just that Tony Gilroy has done such
a wonderful job "re-imagining" them.

Ian Fleming wrote imaginative fantasies, brimming with a touch of
the absurd. The likes of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" would
be ridiculous if one tried to transplant it into the "serious" world
of Jason Bourne.

James Bond should never lose sight of the fantasy. Does that
mean I advocate invisible cars? Not at all. However, I'd miss the
"wildly improbable" if EON ditched it...

....just give it some basis in reality.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas wonders if Jason Bourne's hand-wringing will still be
selling tickets in forty years."

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224871 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 01:47

Will Traynor

"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:45f962F6gtsgU1 [at] individual.net...
> Will wrote:
>
>> At this point, EON appears more interested in making a spectacle
>> rather than a good spy film that has a strong story and
>> characterization. And they've made a ton of money doing it. So we'll
>> see if they care about making a good movie or not. We'll see what
>> they do next. But you don't know how many people have told me the
>> Bourne films were the Bond films that never were.....
>
> Comparing Bourne with Bond is a facile argument because they
> are, on a surface level, "spies." but one can clearly see they
> approach the genre from opposite ends of the spectrum.
>
> One is an angst-ridden assassin and the other a hedonistic
> adventurer.
>
> Jason Bourne is David Callan and Bond is Richard Hannay.
>
> An examination of the source material also reveals they have
> very different roots. The Bourne films barely feature the Bourne
> Robert Ludlum created!
>
> Those complaining about changes and/or additions being made to
> "Casino Royale" should read Ludlum's novels before using them to
> berate the Bonds. There's little or nothing of the source left in
> the translation to film; it's just that Tony Gilroy has done such
> a wonderful job "re-imagining" them.
>
> Ian Fleming wrote imaginative fantasies, brimming with a touch of
> the absurd. The likes of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" would
> be ridiculous if one tried to transplant it into the "serious" world
> of Jason Bourne.
>
> James Bond should never lose sight of the fantasy. Does that
> mean I advocate invisible cars? Not at all. However, I'd miss the
> "wildly improbable" if EON ditched it...
>
> ...just give it some basis in reality.
> --

Obviously, the Bourne films are not entirely comparable to the Bond films,
but the style of the films is much closer to the original Bond movies than
the new Bond films. That was my point. You can have the style of DAD and
TND, and I'll take the Bourne Identity and Supremacy anyday.

> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas wonders if Jason Bourne's hand-wringing will still be
> selling tickets in forty years."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224872 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:02

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> Comparing Bourne with Bond is a facile argument because they
> are, on a surface level, "spies." but one can clearly see they
> approach the genre from opposite ends of the spectrum.
>
> One is an angst-ridden assassin and the other a hedonistic
> adventurer.
>
> Jason Bourne is David Callan and Bond is Richard Hannay.

But isn't there a middle ground? For example, Bond in Fleming's TLD,
and indeed in the first half-hour of the film, seems to me to be closer
to Callan than Hannay, a reluctant, press-ganged assassin. There are
plenty more of Bond's crises of consicence in the Fleming novels, which
to me may be better depicted in 'Callan' than in many of the EON films.
I certainly can't imagine Hannay coming up with anything like the
'nature of evil' speech in Fleming's CR. Contradictorily, Bond is
sometimes as insolent to M in the films as Callan is to Hunter in the
TV series, something which never occurred in the books. Although
Bond's *probably* nearer to Hannay than to Callan, IMHO it's a closer
call than your comparison suggests.

(Overseas readers who don't know 'Callan' might be interested to know
that the second season ended with secret agent David Callan,
brainwashed by the KGB, assassinating his boss...)

> Those complaining about changes and/or additions being made to
> "Casino Royale" should read Ludlum's novels before using them to
> berate the Bonds. There's little or nothing of the source left in
> the translation to film; it's just that Tony Gilroy has done such
> a wonderful job "re-imagining" them.

Excellent point.

> James Bond should never lose sight of the fantasy. Does that
> mean I advocate invisible cars? Not at all. However, I'd miss the
> "wildly improbable" if EON ditched it...
>
> ...just give it some basis in reality.

It's a balancing act, no doubt about it, and Fleming pushed it to its
limits as well. What's the betting that something like the line 'I
discovered he had a crush on me' would have made it into DN if EON had
had the money to film Bond fighting an octopus?

> "Vargas wonders if Jason Bourne's hand-wringing will still be
> selling tickets in forty years."

The two films they've made so far have been fine. IMHO the formula
that's been established is going to have to change if the series is
going to avoid getting stale, and there were hints in 'The Bourne
Supremacy', with the introduction of Joan Allen's character, that this
might happen. Whatever happens, I very much doubt that a third Bourne
film will be anywhere near as faithful to its source material as EON's
GF was.

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224873 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:02

Will wrote:
> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
> news:45f962F6gtsgU1 [at] individual.net...
> > Will wrote:
> >
> >> At this point, EON appears more interested in making a spectacle
> >> rather than a good spy film that has a strong story and
> >> characterization. And they've made a ton of money doing it. So we'll
> >> see if they care about making a good movie or not. We'll see what
> >> they do next. But you don't know how many people have told me the
> >> Bourne films were the Bond films that never were.....
> >
> > Comparing Bourne with Bond is a facile argument because they
> > are, on a surface level, "spies." but one can clearly see they
> > approach the genre from opposite ends of the spectrum.
> >
> > One is an angst-ridden assassin and the other a hedonistic
> > adventurer.
> >
> > Jason Bourne is David Callan and Bond is Richard Hannay.
> >
> > An examination of the source material also reveals they have
> > very different roots. The Bourne films barely feature the Bourne
> > Robert Ludlum created!
> >
> > Those complaining about changes and/or additions being made to
> > "Casino Royale" should read Ludlum's novels before using them to
> > berate the Bonds. There's little or nothing of the source left in
> > the translation to film; it's just that Tony Gilroy has done such
> > a wonderful job "re-imagining" them.
> >
> > Ian Fleming wrote imaginative fantasies, brimming with a touch of
> > the absurd. The likes of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" would
> > be ridiculous if one tried to transplant it into the "serious" world
> > of Jason Bourne.
> >
> > James Bond should never lose sight of the fantasy. Does that
> > mean I advocate invisible cars? Not at all. However, I'd miss the
> > "wildly improbable" if EON ditched it...
> >
> > ...just give it some basis in reality.
> > --
>
> Obviously, the Bourne films are not entirely comparable to the Bond films,
> but the style of the films is much closer to the original Bond movies than
> the new Bond films. That was my point. You can have the style of DAD and
> TND, and I'll take the Bourne Identity and Supremacy anyday.

--- What I liked about the Bourne films is how it recaptured what Bond
had lost, which is that sense of location. I really felt those
European places in much the same way as I felt the exotic locations of
the early Bonds. Nowadays, Bond scoots off to some exotic locale and
we barely have a sense that he was even there. There appears to be no
scope or panavisionistic view of where he is anymore. It's just
another place to him. Worse yet, we're given subtitles as to where he
is now, which I guess is supposed to inject that sense of place in us
that the directors fail to convey cinematically? They might as well
shoot everything at Pinewood Studios then, it'd be little difference.
The two Bourne succeeded on so many different levels that the Bonds
have failed at, especially during Brosnan's tenure.

>
> > --Mac
> >
> > "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> > What do you do, Vargas?"
> >
> > "Vargas wonders if Jason Bourne's hand-wringing will still be
> > selling tickets in forty years."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224874 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:07

Mac

Will wrote:
> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message

> Obviously, the Bourne films are not entirely comparable to the Bond
> films, but the style of the films is much closer to the original Bond
> movies than the new Bond films. That was my point. You can have the
> style of DAD and TND, and I'll take the Bourne Identity and Supremacy
> anyday.

That was my point, Wil. Are the Bourne films really that close in style
to GOLDFINGER or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE? To DOCTOR
NO or THUNDERBALL?

I agree that DIE ANOTHER DAY and TOMORROW NEVER DIES are
hardly ideal Bond films, but I don't think attempting to turn Bond
into Bourne is the right direction either.

--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas think the secret is within."

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224875 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:22

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:

> Obviously, the Bourne films are not entirely comparable to the Bond films,
> but the style of the films is much closer to the original Bond movies than
> the new Bond films. That was my point. You can have the style of DAD and
> TND, and I'll take the Bourne Identity and Supremacy anyday.

I'm probably repeating an argument from a previous post, but you're
comparing a series which so far is comprised of two movies with one
which now numbers twenty. I like the two Bourne films a lot, but
they're awfully similar in atmosphere and even in plot. If the third
and fourth Bourne movies were to maintain the same mood, how long do
you think it would be before people started to lose interest?

Fleming himself recognised this, and I think it's one of the reasons
that he's still widely read today. Unlike many so-called 'genre'
writers, the vast majority of whom have been long forgotten, partly
because their stories became so repetitive, he mixed things up within
the limitations he'd imposed on himself. The world in which Bond finds
himself in YOLT is completely different to the world he's faced with
in, say, TLD. Like Conan Doyle, Fleming had his hero dealing with
problems both big and small, and part of the excitement of picking up a
new Fleming novel for me as a kid was never quite knowing whether I
would be dealing with sort-of-gritty, semi-realistic fare or baroque
escapism. (I hasten to add that I didn't read them when they first
came out, which that sentence might have implied. I'm only in my
thirties :-))

Neither Fleming nor EON could have come up with a score of stories in
the vein of FRWL without boring their respective audiences, and if
their attempts to do other kinds of films or books might have failed in
almost everybody's eyes at one time or another, I kind of think that's
the price you pay for trying to keep a popular character alive for
years on end.

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224876 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:26

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> But isn't there a middle ground? For example, Bond in Fleming's TLD,
> and indeed in the first half-hour of the film, seems to me to be
> closer to Callan than Hannay, a reluctant, press-ganged assassin.
> There are plenty more of Bond's crises of consicence in the Fleming
> novels, which to me may be better depicted in 'Callan' than in many
> of the EON films. I certainly can't imagine Hannay coming up with
> anything like the 'nature of evil' speech in Fleming's CR.
> Contradictorily, Bond is sometimes as insolent to M in the films as
> Callan is to Hunter in the TV series, something which never occurred
> in the books. Although Bond's *probably* nearer to Hannay than to
> Callan, IMHO it's a closer call than your comparison suggests.

Remember why Bond is reluctant in the first half-hour of THE LIVING
DAYLIGHTS: because he doubts the professional status of his target.
He only kills professionals, and has no qualms about it when they
are deserving. Bond is not under any obligation to remain in the
service, and gets off on the dangerous assignments.

David Callan, on the other hand, cannot leave the service and lives
under the suspicion that he will become a red file if he attempted
to do so. He is filled with revulsion at the thought of murder,
professional or not. I doubt Bond suffers that level of self-loathing
that Callan does. Let's face it, Bond will never have to do some of
the reprehensible things Callan has done!

Of course, Jason Bourne has some Richard Hannay in him too,
but I still think the genesis of Bond (and his universe) is with
the Drummonds and Hannays as opposed to the Callans and
Burnsides.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas like them all."

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224877 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:33

Will Traynor

"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:45fd69F6e8s5U1 [at] individual.net...
> Will wrote:
>> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
>
>> Obviously, the Bourne films are not entirely comparable to the Bond
>> films, but the style of the films is much closer to the original Bond
>> movies than the new Bond films. That was my point. You can have the
>> style of DAD and TND, and I'll take the Bourne Identity and Supremacy
>> anyday.
>
> That was my point, Wil. Are the Bourne films really that close in style
> to GOLDFINGER or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE? To DOCTOR
> NO or THUNDERBALL?
>
> I agree that DIE ANOTHER DAY and TOMORROW NEVER DIES are
> hardly ideal Bond films, but I don't think attempting to turn Bond
> into Bourne is the right direction either.
>

I never said it was, but EON would be better served if they emulate the
Bourne films over recent Bond outings, at least in style. For example,
whatever happened to hand-to-hand combat in the Bond films? The last good
fight scene in a Bond film was GE. Before that, when? Maybe TLD teaser? The
Bourne films had that quick editing, tough fighting style which was gone
after Connery's fight in DAF. The Bourne films are pretty suspenseful, which
is something also sorely lacking in recent Bond outings. Another thing I
liked about the Bourne films is that Jason Bourne is a dangerous person. If
you follow Ian Fleming's characterization of Bond, he should be dangerous
too. But somehow, I don't feel that way with Bond anymore. After all, Bond
is a highly trained secret agent that can kill if necessary. With a few
exceptions, I think that concept has been lost, starting with the Moore
films. I guess it's just a matter of which direction you want to go. Are
people ready for that type of style in a Bond film again? I think so. Don't
get me wrong, I find all the Bond films entertaining in their own ways. But
I much prefer FRWL or OHMSS over TND or MR. That's just my preference and
that of most Bond purists.

>
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas think the secret is within."
>
>
>
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224878 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:35

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139965360.549041.188950 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mac wrote:
>
>> Comparing Bourne with Bond is a facile argument because they
>> are, on a surface level, "spies." but one can clearly see they
>> approach the genre from opposite ends of the spectrum.
>>
>> One is an angst-ridden assassin and the other a hedonistic
>> adventurer.
>>
>> Jason Bourne is David Callan and Bond is Richard Hannay.
>
> But isn't there a middle ground? For example, Bond in Fleming's TLD,
> and indeed in the first half-hour of the film, seems to me to be closer
> to Callan than Hannay, a reluctant, press-ganged assassin. There are
> plenty more of Bond's crises of consicence in the Fleming novels, which
> to me may be better depicted in 'Callan' than in many of the EON films.
> I certainly can't imagine Hannay coming up with anything like the
> 'nature of evil' speech in Fleming's CR. Contradictorily, Bond is
> sometimes as insolent to M in the films as Callan is to Hunter in the
> TV series, something which never occurred in the books. Although
> Bond's *probably* nearer to Hannay than to Callan, IMHO it's a closer
> call than your comparison suggests.
>
> (Overseas readers who don't know 'Callan' might be interested to know
> that the second season ended with secret agent David Callan,
> brainwashed by the KGB, assassinating his boss...)
>
>> Those complaining about changes and/or additions being made to
>> "Casino Royale" should read Ludlum's novels before using them to
>> berate the Bonds. There's little or nothing of the source left in
>> the translation to film; it's just that Tony Gilroy has done such
>> a wonderful job "re-imagining" them.
>
> Excellent point.
>
>> James Bond should never lose sight of the fantasy. Does that
>> mean I advocate invisible cars? Not at all. However, I'd miss the
>> "wildly improbable" if EON ditched it...
>>
>> ...just give it some basis in reality.
>
> It's a balancing act, no doubt about it, and Fleming pushed it to its
> limits as well. What's the betting that something like the line 'I
> discovered he had a crush on me' would have made it into DN if EON had
> had the money to film Bond fighting an octopus?
>
>> "Vargas wonders if Jason Bourne's hand-wringing will still be
>> selling tickets in forty years."
>
> The two films they've made so far have been fine. IMHO the formula
> that's been established is going to have to change if the series is
> going to avoid getting stale, and there were hints in 'The Bourne
> Supremacy', with the introduction of Joan Allen's character, that this
> might happen. Whatever happens, I very much doubt that a third Bourne
> film will be anywhere near as faithful to its source material as EON's
> GF was.
>

Are they making the Bourne Ultimatum? I haven't heard a thing about it.

> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224879 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:37

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139966519.939270.239210 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> Obviously, the Bourne films are not entirely comparable to the Bond
>> films,
>> but the style of the films is much closer to the original Bond movies
>> than
>> the new Bond films. That was my point. You can have the style of DAD and
>> TND, and I'll take the Bourne Identity and Supremacy anyday.
>
> I'm probably repeating an argument from a previous post, but you're
> comparing a series which so far is comprised of two movies with one
> which now numbers twenty. I like the two Bourne films a lot, but
> they're awfully similar in atmosphere and even in plot. If the third
> and fourth Bourne movies were to maintain the same mood, how long do
> you think it would be before people started to lose interest?
>
> Fleming himself recognised this, and I think it's one of the reasons
> that he's still widely read today. Unlike many so-called 'genre'
> writers, the vast majority of whom have been long forgotten, partly
> because their stories became so repetitive, he mixed things up within
> the limitations he'd imposed on himself. The world in which Bond finds
> himself in YOLT is completely different to the world he's faced with
> in, say, TLD. Like Conan Doyle, Fleming had his hero dealing with
> problems both big and small, and part of the excitement of picking up a
> new Fleming novel for me as a kid was never quite knowing whether I
> would be dealing with sort-of-gritty, semi-realistic fare or baroque
> escapism. (I hasten to add that I didn't read them when they first
> came out, which that sentence might have implied. I'm only in my
> thirties :-))
>
> Neither Fleming nor EON could have come up with a score of stories in
> the vein of FRWL without boring their respective audiences, and if
> their attempts to do other kinds of films or books might have failed in
> almost everybody's eyes at one time or another, I kind of think that's
> the price you pay for trying to keep a popular character alive for
> years on end.
>

I was just comparing style of the movies, not one series to another. There
are ways to produce stories that are compelling without overshadowing the
character, as Bond producers have done too many times.

> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224880 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:48

Mac

Will wrote:

> I never said it was, but EON would be better served if they emulate
> the Bourne films over recent Bond outings, at least in style. For
> example, whatever happened to hand-to-hand combat in the Bond films?
> The last good fight scene in a Bond film was GE. Before that, when?
> Maybe TLD teaser? The Bourne films had that quick editing, tough
> fighting style which was gone after Connery's fight in DAF. The
> Bourne films are pretty suspenseful, which is something also sorely
> lacking in recent Bond outings. Another thing I liked about the
> Bourne films is that Jason Bourne is a dangerous person. If you
> follow Ian Fleming's characterization of Bond, he should be dangerous
> too. But somehow, I don't feel that way with Bond anymore. After all,
> Bond is a highly trained secret agent that can kill if necessary.
> With a few exceptions, I think that concept has been lost, starting
> with the Moore films. I guess it's just a matter of which direction
> you want to go. Are people ready for that type of style in a Bond
> film again? I think so. Don't get me wrong, I find all the Bond films
> entertaining in their own ways. But I much prefer FRWL or OHMSS over
> TND or MR. That's just my preference and that of most Bond purists.

Indeed. I hear what you're saying and I'm inclined to agree. I want the
suspense and grounded feel of the early films. The difference, I feel,
as a Bond purist, is that EON should emulate the early James Bonds,
*not* Jason Bourne.

Not that I have anything against them, I think the two Bourne films
are great.

The other thing to remember with Bourne is that the two films have
featured hand-to-hand combat and a car-chase with Bourne on
the run. To present another car chase or fist-fight with Bourne
again on the run in the third picture is going to take some imagination
or audiences are going to find it all too familiar....

--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas likes GET SMART..... Vargas will get his coat."

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224881 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:50

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> Remember why Bond is reluctant in the first half-hour of THE LIVING
> DAYLIGHTS: because he doubts the professional status of his target.
> He only kills professionals, and has no qualms about it when they
> are deserving. Bond is not under any obligation to remain in the
> service, and gets off on the dangerous assignments.
>
> David Callan, on the other hand, cannot leave the service and lives
> under the suspicion that he will become a red file if he attempted
> to do so. He is filled with revulsion at the thought of murder,
> professional or not. I doubt Bond suffers that level of self-loathing
> that Callan does. Let's face it, Bond will never have to do some of
> the reprehensible things Callan has done!

I'm not 100% sure here, and I'd be willing to bet you could point me to
examples to the contrary, but I always thought that when Callan was
dealing with a target as nasty as some of those Bond had to deal with,
he didn't feel a great deal of self-loathing. In 'Breakout', to choose
just one example, Callan shows no remorse about what has happened and
even praises Cross for his cold-bloodedness. Neither man is happy with
killing amateurs or people who've been caught up in the whirlwind of
Cold War politics, but when it comes to the really nasty villains, I
don't think either lets it bother their consciences particularly. It's
just that Bond deals with far more cases where good and bad are easily
defined than Callan does.

> Of course, Jason Bourne has some Richard Hannay in him too,
> but I still think the genesis of Bond (and his universe) is with
> the Drummonds and Hannays as opposed to the Callans and
> Burnsides.

Oh yeah. Hannay and Drummond were Fleming's reading matter as he
formulated Bond, but I think even CR suggests that he wanted to move on
to another level. He'd never have written a Le Carre type novel (thank
god - how turgid can a man's prose be before critics realise that he
really truly can't write?) but I think he's a transitional figure in
that some elements of cynicism start to creep in.

Best

Phil

(Keen to re-read some Len Deighton as a result of this discussion...)

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224882 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:51

Will wrote:
> "phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1139965360.549041.188950 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Mac wrote:
> >

> Are they making the Bourne Ultimatum? I haven't heard a thing about it.

--- If you dare to read anything about it, you'll find the script
review of it at the same site they reviewd CR.

http://www.latinoreview.com/scriptreview.php?id=3

What they review is a very early draft of it, so their view of it can
change once the final draft is submitted.

>
> > Best
> >
> > Phil
> >

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224883 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 02:52

Mac

Will wrote:

> Are they making the Bourne Ultimatum? I haven't heard a thing about
> it.

Yup. Tony Gilroy is writing it; an early draft has been reviewed on the
'net.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas is writing THE BOURNE ONANISM"

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224884 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 03:04

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:

> I was just comparing style of the movies, not one series to another. There
> are ways to produce stories that are compelling without overshadowing the
> character, as Bond producers have done too many times.

Perhaps - but as a near-total amnesiac does Bourne have anything one
could even describe as a 'character'? It seems to me that in those
films events happen around him to which he reacts as best he can,
given his lack of self-knowledge, which isn't quite how the Bond films
have ever worked IMHO. Bourne is always a victim of events, which
seems to me to be very different to Bond.

Best

Phil

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224885 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 03:11

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1139969078.851813.123260 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> I was just comparing style of the movies, not one series to another.
>> There
>> are ways to produce stories that are compelling without overshadowing the
>> character, as Bond producers have done too many times.
>
> Perhaps - but as a near-total amnesiac does Bourne have anything one
> could even describe as a 'character'? It seems to me that in those
> films events happen around him to which he reacts as best he can,
> given his lack of self-knowledge, which isn't quite how the Bond films
> have ever worked IMHO. Bourne is always a victim of events, which
> seems to me to be very different to Bond.
>

To me, that's what makes Bourne compelling: You slowly learn a bit more
about his past as time goes on, and so does he. So in that respect, its a
bit of a different way to establish character. In the Bourne films you never
lose sight of what is going on and what he is trying to accomplish. I don't
think the same can be said for the Bond films. For example, in DAD, the
whole concept of Bond's torture and abandonment by MI6 is completely lost by
the second half of the film. That was an interesting concept that did not
play itself out. You can say he got revenge on the villain, but he does that
in every film, lol

> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224886 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 03:12

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>I'm not 100% sure here, and I'd be willing to bet you could point me
> to examples to the contrary, but I always thought that when Callan was
> dealing with a target as nasty as some of those Bond had to deal with,
> he didn't feel a great deal of self-loathing. In 'Breakout', to
> choose just one example, Callan shows no remorse about what has
> happened and even praises Cross for his cold-bloodedness. Neither
> man is happy with killing amateurs or people who've been caught up in
> the whirlwind of Cold War politics, but when it comes to the really
> nasty villains, I don't think either lets it bother their consciences
> particularly. It's just that Bond deals with far more cases where
> good and bad are easily defined than Callan does.

Excellent point. Although Callan's attitude to Cross and Meers is
often laced with that same revulsion for much of the time. Yes,
there are instances when Callan shows little remorse but, as
you've pointed out, the difference is that Bond's universe is black
and white, whereas Callan is a grey man in a grey world. The
nature of his assignments, and they didn't all involve killing,
tended to affect him on a greater level than Bond because he
wasn't always doing the decent thing.

What I am basically saying is: Bond doesn't get Callan's messy
end of the stick.

> (Keen to re-read some Len Deighton as a result of this discussion...)

Bernie Samson or unnamed (Palmer)?
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas likes Deighton's trilogy WIPE, FLUSH and SEAT-DOWN."

Re: DAD on CBS tonite [message #224894 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 09:33

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> > (Keen to re-read some Len Deighton as a result of this discussion...)
>
> Bernie Samson or unnamed (Palmer)?

Both, ASAP - not least to refresh my memory as to whether some
character in the 'unnamed' novels does or doesn't give away either the
main character's christian name or surname at some point. I have a
nagging feeling that it happens somewhere.

> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.

In England at least Vargas (and Bond) will soon not be able to smoke.
Time to give up...

Best

Phil

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	OT: this guy is a baaaaaad mutha.
Nächstes Thema:	Depressing news story...

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 21:30:04 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08841 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.