|
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
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Belated reaction to the trailer / poster / clips / photos / script reviews / recent news
| Belated reaction to the trailer / poster / clips / photos / script reviews / recent news [message #283660] |
Do, 08 Juni 2006 02:10 |
|
Hope you folks don't mind my doing this so long after the event, but I
just thought I'd note down a few reactions / discussion points:
- Craig *moves* damn well in the trailer, and that's pretty important
(it was a key factor in Connery getting the job, after all. For me,
part of the battle for any actor playing Bond is that he can convince
me that he is physically capable of doing what Bond does, and at the
very least the glimpses of hand-to-hand combat - often a difficult sell
in movies - look and feel good to me.
- His voice is right. Not too far into the realms of Flemingesque
clipped diction, which might have worked in the '50s, but simply
wouldn't in this day and age, when only members of the British royal
family speak that way. Just a basic, solid, well-spoken middle-class
English accent.
- The gunbarrel thing may be a gimmick too far. I know it's a 'Bond
Begins' story, and on rereading Fleming's CR I've realised there may be
more justification for that than I'd initially realised, but AFAIC the
gunbarrel was a piece of pop art which was never intended for literal
interpretation, and to give it an origin story strikes me as a little
contrived.
- The final speed-ramped shot of Craig is bloody awful, and thankfully
I think Mac is right in suggesting it was done simply for the purposes
of the trailer (the look to camera gives it away). Does it not also
look like it was shot at a different time from the rest of the trailer?
Craig looks markedly different in this one shot than he does
elsewhere.
- Craig's looks. Two-thirds of the pics and clips I've seen have left
me more than happy, and think he's got himself into a shape where he's
very credible as Bond IMHO. About one-third of the clips and photos
have made me furrow my brow more than somewhat, but since for the most
part they've been fleeting or unofficial off-set pics I'm hoping that
his performance will help me get over whatever reservations I have
left.
- The one photo including Giannini shows Bond, Mathis, and Lynd meeting
at a table outside a cafe. A reversion to Fleming's original from the
script report published a few months ago? Or a later scene in the film
which can at least be taken as a reference back to the book?
- There's something very European about the feel of the project, not
least in terms of the casting: after all, the biggest American name is
Jeffrey Wright. Fine by me, and I don't mean that at all
chauvinistically: it's just that that approach led to some great Bond
movies in the past.
- The reported climax of the film is a disappointment to me. I agree
wholeheartedly that Fleming's ending is not at all satisfactory in
filmic terms, and I'm scratching my head to think of a better way in
which the movie could be wrapped up, but for whatever reason I'm not
sold on what's being suggested. I'll be happy to see how it plays
on-screen, but at the moment I'm sceptical.
- How seamlessly is the essence Fleming's low-key original going to be
worked in amongst the crash-bang action which viewers (including
myself) come to expect from a modern Bond film or novel? I mean, even
Fleming's CR is markedly different from (and much more subdued tha) his
other Bond novels, let alone the subsequent movies, and he rarely again
let more than a couple of chapters go by without some big action
setpiece. Will the contrast work or will the film feel disjointed when
it slows down significantly?
I don't expect another OHMSS or FRWL - those days are long gone anyway,
and there's a certain element of freshness and surprise one could never
recapture. If it's a FYEO or TLD (and with apologies to my favourite
Bond, Mr Dalton*, I think CR may turn out to be better still) I'll be
happy enough, and hope EON will be emboldened enough to push the next
film a little further in the same direction. I liked DAD a lot more
than MR, but once again it was as far as the films could go in the
direction of outlandishness, and I'd hate to see EON chicken out and
make DAD part II next time around. Fleming knew that the way to keep
the Bond series alive was to shake up the formula on a regular basis,
and I'm hoping that EON will do the same.
Best
Phil
* Yes, even despite that clip...
|
|
|
| Re: Belated reaction to the trailer / poster / clips / photos / script reviews / recent news [message #283669 ] |
Do, 08 Juni 2006 20:27 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Hope you folks don't mind my doing this so long after the event, but I
> just thought I'd note down a few reactions / discussion points:
>
> - Craig *moves* damn well in the trailer, and that's pretty important
> (it was a key factor in Connery getting the job, after all. For me,
> part of the battle for any actor playing Bond is that he can convince
> me that he is physically capable of doing what Bond does, and at the
> very least the glimpses of hand-to-hand combat - often a difficult sell
> in movies - look and feel good to me.
>
Spot on. Craig looks like perhaps the most physically convincing Bond
ever.
> - His voice is right. Not too far into the realms of Flemingesque
> clipped diction, which might have worked in the '50s, but simply
> wouldn't in this day and age, when only members of the British royal
> family speak that way. Just a basic, solid, well-spoken middle-class
> English accent.
>
> - The gunbarrel thing may be a gimmick too far. I know it's a 'Bond
> Begins' story, and on rereading Fleming's CR I've realised there may be
> more justification for that than I'd initially realised, but AFAIC the
> gunbarrel was a piece of pop art which was never intended for literal
> interpretation, and to give it an origin story strikes me as a little
> contrived.
>
I'm not convinced that it's meant to be taken literally here, either.
I just think the filmmakers thought it would be clever and different.
I really get the sense that they want this film to have substantial (if
not substantive) differences from what's gone before.
> - The final speed-ramped shot of Craig is bloody awful, and thankfully
> I think Mac is right in suggesting it was done simply for the purposes
> of the trailer (the look to camera gives it away). Does it not also
> look like it was shot at a different time from the rest of the trailer?
> Craig looks markedly different in this one shot than he does
> elsewhere.
>
He looks pretty ugly there, for sure. He tends to photograph better
fom his right side.
>
> - There's something very European about the feel of the project, not
> least in terms of the casting: after all, the biggest American name is
> Jeffrey Wright. Fine by me, and I don't mean that at all
> chauvinistically: it's just that that approach led to some great Bond
> movies in the past.
>
> - The reported climax of the film is a disappointment to me. I agree
> wholeheartedly that Fleming's ending is not at all satisfactory in
> filmic terms, and I'm scratching my head to think of a better way in
> which the movie could be wrapped up, but for whatever reason I'm not
> sold on what's being suggested. I'll be happy to see how it plays
> on-screen, but at the moment I'm sceptical.
>
> - How seamlessly is the essence Fleming's low-key original going to be
> worked in amongst the crash-bang action which viewers (including
> myself) come to expect from a modern Bond film or novel? I mean, even
> Fleming's CR is markedly different from (and much more subdued tha) his
> other Bond novels, let alone the subsequent movies, and he rarely again
> let more than a couple of chapters go by without some big action
> setpiece. Will the contrast work or will the film feel disjointed when
> it slows down significantly?
>
> I don't expect another OHMSS or FRWL - those days are long gone anyway,
> and there's a certain element of freshness and surprise one could never
> recapture. If it's a FYEO or TLD (and with apologies to my favourite
> Bond, Mr Dalton*, I think CR may turn out to be better still) I'll be
> happy enough, and hope EON will be emboldened enough to push the next
> film a little further in the same direction. I liked DAD a lot more
> than MR, but once again it was as far as the films could go in the
> direction of outlandishness, and I'd hate to see EON chicken out and
> make DAD part II next time around. Fleming knew that the way to keep
> the Bond series alive was to shake up the formula on a regular basis,
> and I'm hoping that EON will do the same.
Like I said, it looks like they're trying hard to reinvent Bond, at a
fundamental level. Darker and more violent and without a prettyboy
lead. I'm not sure that it will work on a commercial level, and, given
the "close, but no cigar" script reviews I've read, it's probably not
all there on an artistic level, either. But what I think it all really
comes down to is Craig. Audiences don't seem to care whether a Bond
film is all that good or not (otherwise "Die Another Day" and
"Moonraker" wouldn't have made a dime); all they really seem to care
about is (a) whether the film meets their preconceptions regarding
action and spectacle and (b) whether they like the actor who plays
Bond. Lazenby and Dalton were the least successful Bonds overall
because they were liked the least, as actors, by the audience. And
note that Roger Moore's first, modestly budgeted efforts did not win
public approval to the extent his later, much more elaborately mounted
films did.
|
|
|
| Re: Belated reaction to the trailer / poster / clips / photos / script reviews / recent news [message #283670 ] |
Do, 08 Juni 2006 21:53 |
|
Will wrote:
> He looks pretty ugly there, for sure. He tends to photograph better
> fom his right side.
It looks to me like a rushed job, and a bad idea in retrospect: if the
final shot of your trailer is going to be of your leading man,
shouldn't you take the trouble to make him up and light him properly?
I mean, Craig looks better even in the amateur candid shots which have
been cropping up over the past few months. Still, as it's almost
certainly not part of the film proper, it won't really matter in a few
months.
> Like I said, it looks like they're trying hard to reinvent Bond, at a
> fundamental level. Darker and more violent and without a prettyboy
> lead. I'm not sure that it will work on a commercial level, and, given
> the "close, but no cigar" script reviews I've read, it's probably not
> all there on an artistic level, either.
We'll see. The script that's been reviewed will almost certainly have
undergone revision, and in any case scripts, read baldly, aren't always
reliable guides to the quality of the finished product (a favourite
case in point for me is that so many scenes in 'LA Takedown' and 'Heat'
would have been near-as-dammit identical on the printed page, yet the
latter film is vastly superior to the former).
> But what I think it all really
> comes down to is Craig. Audiences don't seem to care whether a Bond
> film is all that good or not (otherwise "Die Another Day" and
> "Moonraker" wouldn't have made a dime); all they really seem to care
> about is (a) whether the film meets their preconceptions regarding
> action and spectacle and (b) whether they like the actor who plays
> Bond. Lazenby and Dalton were the least successful Bonds overall
> because they were liked the least, as actors, by the audience.
Of course, there's something hugely unfair about this in that both
actors ended up getting blamed (a) for the content of their films and
(b) merely for not being the actors who had preceded them in the role.
Craig is going to take more flak, I'm sure, but he says he's prepared
for that, and I'm sure EON and Sony wouldn't have been so naive as to
imagine that he or they would be in for an easy ride after losing
Brosnan and making a decision to shake up the formula. Now that the
hubbub is dying down a little - although I'm sure it'll start up again
as the film gets closer to release - it strikes me that we should all
really have anticipated it. Whoever followed Brosnan was going to be
in for a rough ride, especially given the circumstances of his
departure, and whether the controversy was worse because it happened to
be Craig who got the job is an academic and unanswerable question. (I
suspect the answer would be yes, but it's hardly a point worth debating
now.) The question is how determined EON and Sony are to press ahead
regardless.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:46:24 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,01981 Sekunden |
