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
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » All About Trailers
All About Trailers [message #298338] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 19:48
WQ  
Well, I was going to make a comparison between the
old Bond trailers and the current lot, but it seems my
source, being a taped copy of a TV documentary titled
"The Total James Bond," only included the Connery and
Moore eras of trailers. There was brief background
material on the Dalton period but no trailers and only
selected clips from GoldenEye. The documentary was
produced and aired in '95, and for some reason EON
made a stink about it and made sure it got yanked from
any further circulation. So sue me for having a copy of it.

Anyway, I guess in reviewing the old trails I can still
weigh them out against the current batch just the same,
so here goes.

DR. NO
This is perhaps the most revolutionary of all Bond trailers
in that it uses Connery's voice as the narrator. As Bond,
he tells his Dr. No story to the audience in a very dry
delivery against which we see a nice mix of talky
moments and action scenes, but all in understated
fashion. Overall, we get a fairly good feel of the story or
plot that could be expected to be seen in the film, which
is further colored by the Jamaican locale to add exoticism
to it. It's totally unlike any of the other Bond trailers and
this is remarkable considering what a risk it must have
been for Cubby and Harry to adopt this approach to
introduce Bond. While there may have been the rare one
here and there, I don't recall having ever seen another
trailer in which the screen character voices details about
the story of the film and his involvement in it.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
This one starts in rip-roaring style with the smoke
canister exploding in Red Grant's face and the train
compartment fight scene that follows between him and
Bond. If one really wanted to call attention to the film, to
create a memorable impact, this was the way to do it. It
had such a visceral punch and, with the help of Barry's
powerful score supporting the scene, you can just feel the
adrenaline pumping through your system. I still get a kick
out of it. As with DN, this trailer also gave a fairly good
sense of the story of the film using an industry narrator this
time, who delivered his lines in somewhat campy fashion.
An air of exotic locales is also very evident.

GOLDFINGER
This one is probably the best of the Connery trailers. It
just has all the right ingredients in it in all the right doses,
from talky bits to action, from introducing the girls to
projecting Goldfinger's mania. The narrator is the same
as in FRWL and he camps up his delivery a bit more in
this one. It's easy to see how, from the perspective of
viewing this trailer in 1964, audiences could get sucked
into this film in great numbers.

THUNDERBALL
Surprisingly disappointing. Basically a poor selection of
scenes that don't accurately reflect what to really expect
from the movie. It didn't even have the jet pack scene nor
the motorcycle torpedo shot, nor the grandiose set scenes
of the conference room where Blofeld zaps one of his
cronies or the briefing room scene with M and all the Double
Os. Was this even the right trailer? Or an edited version?
The narrator maintains a campy tone in his delivery, but
there's a feeling of less story sense with this one.
Amazingly, however, it pulled in the most moviegoers to
date, so it seems that it didn't matter what kind of trailer
EON came out for TB, they were riding on a high wave.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
This one comes across as slicker in feel and look, as if
Bond has come of age. At the same time, the narrator
is different and uses a more serious and somber delivery.
Another interesting discovery with this one is that Sean
Connery doesn't say much in this trailer compared to the
first four. It's also evident that action scenes are stressed
more with this one, and this could be viewed as the
beginning of an emphasis on action over balance.

ON HER MAJESTY' SECRET SERVICE
I'm not sure what to make of this trailer. I think it could've
been done much better in introducing Lazenby as Bond.
For example, as a first shot for the trailer, I might've used
that shadowy shot of his face in which you only have a
clear view of his mouth and chin as he lights up a cigarette
while driving in his Aston, and maybe I might've even had
Lazenby narrate his story just as Connery did in DN.
Overall, this isn't a great trailer and maybe even falls short
of being a good trailer, it's more like a haphazard rush job.
Lazenby also has few words in it and there's no real sense
of what the story is about other than it takes place where
there are mountains and a lot of snow. The narrator is the
same serious and somber one from YOLT.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
The serious and somber narrator returns in this one too.
What's most noticeable here is that Connery mouths
more lines than were mouthed by Bond in the last two
trailers. It's a serviceable trailer for Connery's return but
that's about it. A telling sign of the direction of the series
was the moon buggy sequence, which gave an indication
that Bond was now going beyond and seriousness or camp
and slipping into the cartoon realm.

Summing up the Connery era, we see a unique start
followed by a pair of solid hitters, then some stumbling the
rest of the way. Barry's music is also interesting to note
as a different score is used in each trailer along with the
standard 007 theme. This not only enhances the flavour of
the trailers but also adds more individual character to each
one and distinctly separates the Bond action film trailers
from all the other action film trailers. I can attest to that
from personal viewing experience at the time at all those
Saturday matinees I sat through watching tons of films and
trailers for upcoming films of all sorts. Clearly, the earlier
Bond trailers were the best since they were the most
balanced and fun to watch. Now onto Moore.

For Moore, I'm going to have to lump all the trailers together
because there now seems to be very little variation in them.
LALD is distinguished only by bullet holes punctuating
across the screen every now and then with Moore striking
me as still being more of a TV actor than a movie Bond.
TMWTGG hardly shows what villain Bond is up against and
why, so that may've been one contributing factor to that
movie having done poorly. They snapped back to life with
TSWLM, but without the use of a narrator until the very end.
MR had no narrator at all. FYEO was the next best looking
trailer after TSWLM. OP was interesting in that it revisited
the campy narration style of the early 60s. And AVTAK
seemed to get back to telling more of a story and who the
villain was and what he wanted to do, which in turn made
the trailer look better than the film actually was, though I
still can't buy Christopher Walken as the villain.

Summing up the Moore era, one of the things that made
this period a bit more ho-hum than Connery's is that the
background music used for each of the trailers was the
same old 007 theme. There was no distinctive signature
theme for each trailer playing in the background as with the
60s trailers, so that alone made the Moore trailers look
more alike and run of the mill. However, even with all that
emphasis on action, which from Connery to Moore was
actually easily absorbed by one's eye and digested by
one's brain, the Moore era produced a few well-done trailers,
TSWLM and FYEO being the best, while MR and AVTAK
weren't too bad either.

One last trailer was Connery's Never Say Never Again.
This was another case of the trailer actually being better
than the movie as it spliced together practically all the
best scenes in the film, mostly in action terms. But again,
there was little sense of story with it as narrated by the
same voice as in YOLT-OHMSS-DAF.

Since I don't have ready access to the Dalton and
Brosnan trailers, having thought that I did with that
documetary, and am kind of too lazy to seek them out, I
think it'd be safe to say that less story and more action
has been still stressed in them, and likely increasingly
more so in each passing trailer. The difference now being
in the editing style. As I said, it's easier to grasp onto the
action stuff when looking at the older trailers. You'd see
some quick action scene or shot that would last 2 or 3
seconds in them, but now those same scenes would
probably be pared down to three-quarters of a second or
even half a second, but to really no effect other than a
screen flash or blur. And whereas the Bond trailers used
to stand out more from the action pack, and
individualistically from each other as well, they became
more imaginatively complacent and redundant throughout
the Moore era. I wish I could remember Dalton's trailers
but I don't, but I suspect they might not be too different
from Brosnan's. But I think it's with Brosnan's that things
speeded up on screen to the point where all the trailers
were about were hyperstunts and Brosnan's smirks, nothing
else.

A lot has been lost in Bond trailers over the decades. The
color of the different music for each one, the color of the
exotic locales, the quiet moments with dialogue, the awe
of the megalomanical threat and mastermind behind it, the
menacing nature of the henchmen, a Bond actor with a
presence that envelopes you from the screen and not just
someone who remains plastered to it, the almost mystical
aura of Bond babes, and even campy narration. It's as if
they've all been gradually stripped of all the things that
made the early trailers original and unique among all other
action trailers to the point where they are now just
mimicking the industry norm for what's considered to be
acceptable. Any deviation from the norm is too much of a
risk, which is ironical, considering that it was that very
deviation from the norm that put Bond on the map.

So in light of all that, what can we expect, or should
expect, from the trailer for CR? The teaser got off to a
good start with its black and white opening and I think the
trailer should retain that. Action scenes are fine, but let's
absorb them, don't frenetically slice them up rapidly or
jump-cut them to no real effect. Stand out from the pack
and inject some sort of identifiable musical theme in the
background, refrain from only relying on the same old 007
theme. Show more of Craig in his quieter moments, not
just always beating the crap out of people. Let's see
some real malevolency in the villain. Who is the villain?
What's his plan? At least give a sense of it. Show us his
babe, his henchmen. Maybe use some kind of split-screen
approach to shift from one scene to another, or alternate
from black and white to color, just to make it look different.
Babes in bikinis and underwear, the more the better.
Emphasize exotic locales. Give it all a richness and
lushness while projecting an air of sinisterism. Have Craig
narrate his own story a la Connery. In other words, let's
see a trailer that goes back to basics, just as this film
purportedly is supposed to be doing.
Re: All About Trailers [message #298356 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 04:28
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> DR. NO
> This is perhaps the most revolutionary of all Bond trailers
> in that it uses Connery's voice as the narrator.

Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?

> As Bond, he tells his Dr. No story to the audience in a very dry
> delivery against which we see a nice mix of talky
> moments and action scenes, but all in understated
> fashion.

'Dry' - well that's a matter of opinion. Cringeworthy and cliched,
undoubtedly. The tone of the narration is like a bad imitation of a
1960s Mad magazine parody of 1940s film noir.

"I thought it was always polite to knock first (dramatic pause) before
shooting."

> I don't recall having ever seen another
> trailer in which the screen character voices details about
> the story of the film and his involvement in it.

It happens in the TSWLM trailer, just to choose one of the Bond films.
There are scores of others besides.

> This one starts in rip-roaring style with the smoke
> canister exploding in Red Grant's face and the train
> compartment fight scene that follows between him and
> Bond.

Yep, and which featured some of the fastest cutting which had been seen
to date in an action movie. But - omigod, I just remembered -
hyperkinetic cutting is bad, isn't it?

> though I still can't buy Christopher Walken as the villain.

Yeah, well, that's one of AVTAK's biggest flaws. If you make a movie
in which Walken isn't wholly believable as a psycho, you must really be
doing something wrong.

> Summing up the Moore era, one of the things that made
> this period a bit more ho-hum than Connery's is that the
> background music used for each of the trailers was the
> same old 007 theme.

Well, it was cheaper and easier in those days to do so. Most of us
could knock out a trailer featuring a variety of moods, themes, and
soundscapes on our home PCs nowadays without a second's thought. With
four to eight tracks to play with, anybody putting together a
soundtrack for a Bond trailer in the '60s pretty well had to leave the
Bond theme playing throughout.

> A lot has been lost in Bond trailers over the decades. The
> color of the different music for each one

I'd argue this, and suspect that if you look again at the trailers
you've watched you'll see that this is a mistaken assumption. There's
been far more colour and variation in the music used since the 1960s,
when most Bond films used the familar Bond theme to back the majority
of scenes shown.

> It's as if
> they've all been gradually stripped of all the things that
> made the early trailers original and unique among all other
> action trailers to the point where they are now just
> mimicking the industry norm for what's considered to be
> acceptable.

Uh-uh. That's sleight of hand. What you're not demonstrating here is
how those trailers were different from the industry norm of their eras.
Where are the reviews of the other action film trailers from the eras
in question on the basis of which you're making that comparison?

Sure, the CR trailer looks like a lot of other action film trailers
circa 2006. You haven't in any way demonstrated that the DN trailer
was 'original and unique' among the action film trailers which came out
in 1962. Do *that*, and I might accept your criticisms.

Best

Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298365 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 07:24
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > DR. NO
> > This is perhaps the most revolutionary of all Bond trailers
> > in that it uses Connery's voice as the narrator.
>
> Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?

--- Whether it is or isn't is not the point. The narration is.

> > As Bond, he tells his Dr. No story to the audience in a very dry
> > delivery against which we see a nice mix of talky
> > moments and action scenes, but all in understated
> > fashion.
>
> 'Dry' - well that's a matter of opinion. Cringeworthy and cliched,
> undoubtedly. The tone of the narration is like a bad imitation of a
> 1960s Mad magazine parody of 1940s film noir.

--- Okay, dry blas=E9.

> "I thought it was always polite to knock first (dramatic pause) before
> shooting."

--- And a perfect example of dry blas=E9.

> > I don't recall having ever seen another
> > trailer in which the screen character voices details about
> > the story of the film and his involvement in it.
>
> It happens in the TSWLM trailer, just to choose one of the Bond films.
> There are scores of others besides.

--- Not in the version I have. Name the others.

> > This one starts in rip-roaring style with the smoke
> > canister exploding in Red Grant's face and the train
> > compartment fight scene that follows between him and
> > Bond.
>
> Yep, and which featured some of the fastest cutting which had been seen
> to date in an action movie. But - omigod, I just remembered -
> hyperkinetic cutting is bad, isn't it?

--- Remember absorption? Fast cutting, yes, but still absorbable and
digestable. An extra second per cut makes all the difference between
seeing something and seeing nothing. It also helps if a little more
time is spent in showing a particular action sequence. That's why the
Red Grant fight works and the single punch Craig gives the guy at the
top of the stairs doesn't. It works because it becomes almost a scene
onto itself within the trailer, but a single punch is kind of
meaningless and without any real context, amounting to little more than
cheap thrills as opposed to a palpable chill up one's spine that the
Grant fight delivers.

> > though I still can't buy Christopher Walken as the villain.
>
> Yeah, well, that's one of AVTAK's biggest flaws. If you make a movie
> in which Walken isn't wholly believable as a psycho, you must really be
> doing something wrong.
>
> > Summing up the Moore era, one of the things that made
> > this period a bit more ho-hum than Connery's is that the
> > background music used for each of the trailers was the
> > same old 007 theme.
>
> Well, it was cheaper and easier in those days to do so. Most of us
> could knock out a trailer featuring a variety of moods, themes, and
> soundscapes on our home PCs nowadays without a second's thought. With
> four to eight tracks to play with, anybody putting together a
> soundtrack for a Bond trailer in the '60s pretty well had to leave the
> Bond theme playing throughout.

--- It's the 70s era trailers that kept repeating the single 007 theme;
the 60s era trailers were individually distinct from each other with
multiple tracks.

> > A lot has been lost in Bond trailers over the decades. The
> > color of the different music for each one
>
> I'd argue this, and suspect that if you look again at the trailers
> you've watched you'll see that this is a mistaken assumption. There's
> been far more colour and variation in the music used since the 1960s,
> when most Bond films used the familar Bond theme to back the majority
> of scenes shown.

--- I don't know what version of trailers you're seeing, but the ones I
watched say otherwise. Each of the 60s trailers included extracts of
Barry's scoring of the films and, as we all know, Barry's scoring of
each of those early films was noticeably different from one film to the
next as to give each one its own character, and this was reflected in
the different background music heard in the trailers for each of those
films. The Moore era was uniformly the 007 theme only to be interrupted
on a few occasions by bits of the theme songs for LALD, FYEO and AVTAK.
I don't remember the Dalton trailers nor what background music was
used for them, but you can pretty well forget about Brosnan's trailers
as having any sort of memorable background themes since none of the
films had distinctive signature themes to them to begin with, being
instead largely formless and listless background noise.

> > It's as if
> > they've all been gradually stripped of all the things that
> > made the early trailers original and unique among all other
> > action trailers to the point where they are now just
> > mimicking the industry norm for what's considered to be
> > acceptable.
>
> Uh-uh. That's sleight of hand. What you're not demonstrating here is
> how those trailers were different from the industry norm of their eras.
> Where are the reviews of the other action film trailers from the eras
> in question on the basis of which you're making that comparison?

--- What you're forgetting, or maybe couldn't even possibly remember if
you weren't around at the time, is that when Bond came out, there were
NO spy films making regular appearances in theaters at the time. In
fact, there were hardly any cop films being made either. The law
enforcement/international intrigue genres was practically invisible
back then. Hollywood cinema was in a downward spiral producing fewer
and fewer films due to how TV had managed to steal most of its
audiences away. The year 1963 produced only about 150 Hollywood
titles, the fewest in history, and this explains why the early and
mid-60s period, especially in North America, saw cinemas embrace
European films en masse beginning with the New Wave of the late 50s to
fill the gap. What U.S. films were being made were mostly dramatic in
nature and often adaptations of successful stage plays. It was also
when the studio system, as it had been known for decades, pretty well
died out. All this and the fact that there wasn't even a spy film
series ever made prior to Bond, although some would claim Bulldog
Drummond could be considered as coming closest. But that's pre-dating
Bond by three decades, and it was quite neanderthal by comparison, as
well as old history by the time 007 arrived.

So, the Bond series had to invent a trailer style for itself, partly
explaining why the DN trailer looks the way it does. It couldn't copy
anything else because there was nothing to copy that was anywhere near
the same league as Bond at the time. Also, notice how the dry, or dry
blas=E9, delivery of the narration could be viewed as in keeping with
the almost world-weary tone of the first couple of paragraphs of Casino
Royale, which you mistake for a bad imitation of a 1960s Mad magazine
parody of 1940s film noir. I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to
set the same tone via the trailer for the film series by harkening back
to those first couple of paragraphs, so they probably looked for a
style that would capture that tone. Then FRWL took a great big leap
forward to stylize its trailer and GF finally perfected the Bond brand.


The first copycatting of the Bond style of trailers was with The 2nd
Best Secret Agent in the Whole Wide World in 1965, when the spy craze
began to kick in full steam, followed naturally by the Palmer and Flint
series and others - others being mostly cheap knock-offs. If any
accurate comparison can be made between the early Bond trailers and any
other film or series of that time, probably the closest one could come
to, and maybe the only one, is with Alfred's Hitchcock's North by
Northwest of 1959. I don't think I've ever seen its trailer, but I
would imagine that one to be the *only* one you could refer to within
that time frame. As I said, cop and spy films were far from being in
vogue in the early 60s, though other adventure-type films could be
found through westerns, war and other period pieces, along with the odd
sci-fi features, which themselves would have a different approach to
their trailers.

You might want to check a list to get and idea of what played in those
years of 1960 through 1962 through here:

http://www.scaruffi.com/cinema/chro960.html

> 1960s Mad magazine parody of 1940s film noir.

> Sure, the CR trailer looks like a lot of other action film trailers
> circa 2006. You haven't in any way demonstrated that the DN trailer
> was 'original and unique' among the action film trailers which came out
> in 1962. Do *that*, and I might accept your criticisms.

--- I think I just did with the preceding paragraphs.

>=20
> Best
>=20
> Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298366 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 08:22
David A McIntee  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote
> > DR. NO
> > This is perhaps the most revolutionary of all Bond trailers
> > in that it uses Connery's voice as the narrator.
>
> Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?

It is.


--
Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
http://www.smof.com/redemption

"If the murder of twelve innocent people can help to save one human life, it
will have been worth it!" [Dr Alfred Necessiter]

Book At Bedtime: Atlantis [David Gribbins]

http://www.livejournal.com/~lonemagpie
Re: All About Trailers [message #298369 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 14:15
Mac  
David A McIntee wrote:

> "phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote
>>> DR. NO
>>> This is perhaps the most revolutionary of all Bond trailers
>>> in that it uses Connery's voice as the narrator.
>>
>> Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?
>
> It is.

The one with "My orders were implicit" or whatever that line
happens to be is certainly Connery.
--
-- Mac

"But where the problem could lie between someone like Theron against
Craig is in bone structure. Who knows what went on with the
consideration process involving Theron, but I would bet that if there
was a film test of the two together, her bone structure may've
worked against his, making her look broader than she should be next
to him,"-- Self-proclaimed No.6 talking total No.2s 8/7/06

"Pascal was looking at Craig only from her own disturbed
genital perspective and not in saner universal terms." -- WQ, 19/1/06

"Barb's hots for him isn't too far off from the truth. You did see
that shot of those nippies of hers practically popping through her
T-shirt while standing next to him, didn't you?" -- WQ, 6/7/06

"It's called Barbara Broccoli's suspicious friendship with Daniel
Craig and her insistence on him for the role against everyone's wishes,
including Michael Wilson's, who finally had to give in and maybe even
got bribed into doing so." -- WQ, 3/1/06

"I think it's more like: "You don't agree with me? Okay, then tell
me otherwise and convince me." Anybody can hold opposite views to
mine, just make sure you can back up your views, otherwise I'll just
run you down to the ground till you do." -- WQ, 6/7/06
Re: All About Trailers [message #298370 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 14:37
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- Remember absorption? Fast cutting, yes, but still absorbable and
> digestable. An extra second per cut makes all the difference between
> seeing something and seeing nothing. It also helps if a little more
> time is spent in showing a particular action sequence. That's why the
> Red Grant fight works and the single punch Craig gives the guy at the
> top of the stairs doesn't. It works because it becomes almost a scene
> onto itself within the trailer, but a single punch is kind of
> meaningless and without any real context, amounting to little more
> than cheap thrills as opposed to a palpable chill up one's spine that
> the Grant fight delivers.

Jeez, you really do have to bring everything back to Craig. "Theron didn't
get the part because of Craig's bone structure," (despite the fact she
didn't even test because she reportedly turned it down flat) "Craig this,
Craig that" and now you post this nonsense. Craig doesn't beat the man
at the top of the stairs with a single punch; watch it again and pay
attention.

If it were Mark "who with his small role in DIE ANOTHER DAY obviously
stole the movie from Brosnan and is seared on the memory of movie
goers for time immemorial" Dymond I doubt you wouldn't be blathering
on half as much.

You're obviously traumatised by the casting of Craig and your willingness
to pooh-pooh every little thing about the upcoming film is clearly a
symptom. The fact that you will try and justify that pooh-poohing
with utter waffle filling endless (non)paragraphs that sometimes makes
one lose the will to live as one tries to read some sense into them is
beside the point.

You're not No.6, you're more like one the crew of the "Heart of Gold".


Marvin.
--
-- Mac

"But where the problem could lie between someone like Theron against
Craig is in bone structure. Who knows what went on with the
consideration process involving Theron, but I would bet that if there
was a film test of the two together, her bone structure may've
worked against his, making her look broader than she should be next
to him,"-- Self-proclaimed No.6 talking total No.2s 8/7/06

"Pascal was looking at Craig only from her own disturbed
genital perspective and not in saner universal terms." -- WQ, 19/1/06

"Barb's hots for him isn't too far off from the truth. You did see
that shot of those nippies of hers practically popping through her
T-shirt while standing next to him, didn't you?" -- WQ, 6/7/06

"It's called Barbara Broccoli's suspicious friendship with Daniel
Craig and her insistence on him for the role against everyone's wishes,
including Michael Wilson's, who finally had to give in and maybe even
got bribed into doing so." -- WQ, 3/1/06

"I think it's more like: "You don't agree with me? Okay, then tell
me otherwise and convince me." Anybody can hold opposite views to
mine, just make sure you can back up your views, otherwise I'll just
run you down to the ground till you do." -- WQ, 6/7/06
Re: All About Trailers [message #298376 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 17:54
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Remember absorption? Fast cutting, yes, but still absorbable and
> > digestable. An extra second per cut makes all the difference between
> > seeing something and seeing nothing. It also helps if a little more
> > time is spent in showing a particular action sequence. That's why the
> > Red Grant fight works and the single punch Craig gives the guy at the
> > top of the stairs doesn't. It works because it becomes almost a scene
> > onto itself within the trailer, but a single punch is kind of
> > meaningless and without any real context, amounting to little more
> > than cheap thrills as opposed to a palpable chill up one's spine that
> > the Grant fight delivers.
>
> Jeez, you really do have to bring everything back to Craig. "Theron didn't
> get the part because of Craig's bone structure," (despite the fact she
> didn't even test because she reportedly turned it down flat) "Craig this,
> Craig that" and now you post this nonsense. Craig doesn't beat the man
> at the top of the stairs with a single punch; watch it again and pay
> attention.

--- It's a bit tiresome when I have to keep repeating: READ what I
write and absorb it - I don't write in flash cuts or hyper-edited
style, so you have no excuse to misunderstand what I say - except a
shortfall in basic comprehension.

And yeah, like you really remembered what Craig actually did without
having to refer to the clip again. In what amounts to one second or a
second and a half tops by the counter, we see what could be three or
four strikes, and not very clearly either, because they're interrupted
by flash shots and hypercutting, and in one of the shots it's not even
clear if Bond punches the guy or if the guy punches Bond without haing
to stop the play to see for sure. And I'm still not sure. So when
somebody sees the clip and is asked afterwards to remember that
particular sequence, don't be surprised if most people, if not
everyone, would probably say 1 punch at the top of the stairs or that
they simply didn't know. And this is what I'm talking about:
absorption. One doesn't really absorb anything here - neither
information nor sensation - in that frenetic second or second and a
half. It's just superficial cheap thrills, nothing more, nothing less.

> If it were Mark "who with his small role in DIE ANOTHER DAY obviously
> stole the movie from Brosnan and is seared on the memory of movie
> goers for time immemorial" Dymond I doubt you wouldn't be blathering
> on half as much.

--- Unless he changed his hair color to blond. Or worse, become a
redhead.

> You're obviously traumatised by the casting of Craig and your willingness
> to pooh-pooh every little thing about the upcoming film is clearly a
> symptom. The fact that you will try and justify that pooh-poohing
> with utter waffle filling endless (non)paragraphs that sometimes makes
> one lose the will to live as one tries to read some sense into them is
> beside the point.

--- The sense is there in the paragraphs. The nonsense is in the
reader.

> You're not No.6, you're more like one the crew of the "Heart of Gold".

--- I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to.

>
>
> Marvin.
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "But where the problem could lie between someone like Theron against
> Craig is in bone structure. Who knows what went on with the
> consideration process involving Theron, but I would bet that if there
> was a film test of the two together, her bone structure may've
> worked against his, making her look broader than she should be next
> to him,"-- Self-proclaimed No.6 talking total No.2s 8/7/06
>
> "Pascal was looking at Craig only from her own disturbed
> genital perspective and not in saner universal terms." -- WQ, 19/1/06
>
> "Barb's hots for him isn't too far off from the truth. You did see
> that shot of those nippies of hers practically popping through her
> T-shirt while standing next to him, didn't you?" -- WQ, 6/7/06
>
> "It's called Barbara Broccoli's suspicious friendship with Daniel
> Craig and her insistence on him for the role against everyone's wishes,
> including Michael Wilson's, who finally had to give in and maybe even
> got bribed into doing so." -- WQ, 3/1/06
>
> "I think it's more like: "You don't agree with me? Okay, then tell
> me otherwise and convince me." Anybody can hold opposite views to
> mine, just make sure you can back up your views, otherwise I'll just
> run you down to the ground till you do." -- WQ, 6/7/06
Re: All About Trailers [message #298378 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 18:55
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- It's a bit tiresome when I have to keep repeating: READ what I
> write and absorb it - I don't write in flash cuts or hyper-edited
> style, so you have no excuse to misunderstand what I say - except a
> shortfall in basic comprehension.

I can comprehend when, "That's why the Red Grant fight works and
the single punch Craig gives the guy at the top of the stairs doesn't."

Is WRONG. Next.

> And yeah, like you really remembered what Craig actually did without
> having to refer to the clip again.

Yes I did, because I've watched it a few times. I certainly wouldn't
attempt a critique of it *without* studying it, as you did.

>> If it were Mark "who with his small role in DIE ANOTHER DAY obviously
>> stole the movie from Brosnan and is seared on the memory of movie
>> goers for time immemorial" Dymond I doubt you wouldn't be blathering
>> on half as much.
>
> --- Unless he changed his hair color to blond. Or worse, become a
> redhead.

And that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? Your whole argument is
based on Daniel Craig, that's Daniel Craig being *blonde*!

>> You're obviously traumatised by the casting of Craig and your
>> willingness to pooh-pooh every little thing about the upcoming film
>> is clearly a symptom. The fact that you will try and justify that
>> pooh-poohing
>> with utter waffle filling endless (non)paragraphs that sometimes
>> makes one lose the will to live as one tries to read some sense into
>> them is beside the point.
>
> --- The sense is there in the paragraphs. The nonsense is in the
> reader.

Right. We've all seen examples of your "sense."
--
--Mac

"Allow me to send you on an all-expenses paid trip to
the country.... the UNDISCOVERED country!"

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298379 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 19:12
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- It's a bit tiresome when I have to keep repeating: READ what I
> > write and absorb it - I don't write in flash cuts or hyper-edited
> > style, so you have no excuse to misunderstand what I say - except a
> > shortfall in basic comprehension.
>
> I can comprehend when, "That's why the Red Grant fight works and
> the single punch Craig gives the guy at the top of the stairs doesn't."
>
> Is WRONG. Next.
>
> > And yeah, like you really remembered what Craig actually did without
> > having to refer to the clip again.
>
> Yes I did, because I've watched it a few times. I certainly wouldn't
> attempt a critique of it *without* studying it, as you did.

--- But if you had only watched it once or even twice, there's no way
you could tell beyond the first punch how many others there were or if
it was just the other guy tumbling down the stairs. It's too fast for
that to be remembered by anyone after the first or even second viewing.
I've only seen the trailer twice myself, a third time just today to
see what you were referring to, and beyond the first punch, everything
else was a blur in my memory of what happened next in that sequence.
And I'm still not sure about one of those punches after the third
viewing. So that's where that sequence in this trailer fails and the
Red Grant one succeeds. You may not remember the number of punches in
the Grant trailer, but you certainly remembered the impact it
delivered, and somewhat relentlessly compared to just the merely
hit-and-go Craig one.

> >> If it were Mark "who with his small role in DIE ANOTHER DAY obviously
> >> stole the movie from Brosnan and is seared on the memory of movie
> >> goers for time immemorial" Dymond I doubt you wouldn't be blathering
> >> on half as much.
> >
> > --- Unless he changed his hair color to blond. Or worse, become a
> > redhead.
>
> And that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? Your whole argument is
> based on Daniel Craig, that's Daniel Craig being *blonde*!
>
> >> You're obviously traumatised by the casting of Craig and your
> >> willingness to pooh-pooh every little thing about the upcoming film
> >> is clearly a symptom. The fact that you will try and justify that
> >> pooh-poohing
> >> with utter waffle filling endless (non)paragraphs that sometimes
> >> makes one lose the will to live as one tries to read some sense into
> >> them is beside the point.
> >
> > --- The sense is there in the paragraphs. The nonsense is in the
> > reader.
>
> Right. We've all seen examples of your "sense."

--- Sense to those without nonsense.


> --
> --Mac
>
> "Allow me to send you on an all-expenses paid trip to
> the country.... the UNDISCOVERED country!"
>=20
> SniperGuy=99 in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298380 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 20:18
Mac  
WQ wrote:

>> Yes I did, because I've watched it a few times. I certainly wouldn't
>> attempt a critique of it *without* studying it, as you did.
>
> --- But if you had only watched it once or even twice, there's no way
> you could tell beyond the first punch how many others there were or if
> it was just the other guy tumbling down the stairs. It's too fast for
> that to be remembered by anyone after the first or even second
> viewing.

No it isn't. Besides, I've watched it many times. That's how I knew
you were wrong.

> --- Sense to those without nonsense.

You know, if I were still quoting you for my sig, this would go right at the
top
of the other slices of wisdom....
--
--Mac

"I have a weapon of mass seduction."

SniperGuyT in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298381 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 21:00
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> >> Yes I did, because I've watched it a few times. I certainly wouldn't
> >> attempt a critique of it *without* studying it, as you did.
> >
> > --- But if you had only watched it once or even twice, there's no way
> > you could tell beyond the first punch how many others there were or if
> > it was just the other guy tumbling down the stairs. It's too fast for
> > that to be remembered by anyone after the first or even second
> > viewing.
>
> No it isn't. Besides, I've watched it many times. That's how I knew
> you were wrong.

--- I think there's a portal closed in your comprehension skills of
what I explained. Clue: Read the math. Hopefully you passed basic
math, otherwise this is just hopeless.

> > --- Sense to those without nonsense.
>
> You know, if I were still quoting you for my sig, this would go right at the
> top
> of the other slices of wisdom....

--- Learn from it all, then maybe you'll just begin to get it.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "I have a weapon of mass seduction."
>
> SniperGuyT in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298383 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 21:12
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- I think there's a portal closed in your comprehension skills of
> what I explained.

You didn't explain anything. You tried to tell me what *I* can and can't
see. You don't seem to understand that I'm not as visually impaired
as you. I could tell from first viewing that Craig gave more than a single
punch at the top of the stairs. Perhaps it's not just your vision that's
impaired?

>>> --- Sense to those without nonsense.
>>
>> You know, if I were still quoting you for my sig, this would go
>> right at the top of the other slices of wisdom....
>
> --- Learn from it all, then maybe you'll just begin to get it.

Thing is, from what I've read, I don't want it.
--
--Mac

"Would you like to try fanning my pistol?"

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298385 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 21:50
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- I think there's a portal closed in your comprehension skills of
> > what I explained.
>
> You didn't explain anything. You tried to tell me what *I* can and can't
> see. You don't seem to understand that I'm not as visually impaired
> as you. I could tell from first viewing that Craig gave more than a single
> punch at the top of the stairs. Perhaps it's not just your vision that's
> impaired?

--- Read this again, and this time I'll emphasize the important words
in CAPS so that you get what you so obviously missed:

"But if you had only watched it ONCE or EVEN TWICE, there's NO way
you could tell beyond the first punch how many others there were or if
it was just the other guy tumbling down the stairs. It's too fast for
that to be remembered by anyone AFTER THE FIRST or EVEN
SECOND VIEWING."

You may have seen it numerous times and of course you'll remember it
much better and more clearly once you've brainwashed yourself enough
with it, but I'm talking about only the first viewing or even the first
two viewings of the trailer, not the 46th viewing of it. There's a
difference. Just stick to the math to keep it all on a level playing
field.

> >>> --- Sense to those without nonsense.
> >>
> >> You know, if I were still quoting you for my sig, this would go
> >> right at the top of the other slices of wisdom....
> >
> > --- Learn from it all, then maybe you'll just begin to get it.
>
> Thing is, from what I've read, I don't want it.

--- Thing is, the way you read, you'll never get it even if you did
want it.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "Would you like to try fanning my pistol?"
>=20
> SniperGuy=99 in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298386 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 22:02
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- Read this again, and this time I'll emphasize the important words
> in CAPS so that you get what you so obviously missed:
>
> "But if you had only watched it ONCE or EVEN TWICE, there's NO way
> you could tell beyond the first punch how many others there were or if
> it was just the other guy tumbling down the stairs. It's too fast for
> that to be remembered by anyone AFTER THE FIRST or EVEN
> SECOND VIEWING."

Allow me to add an emphasis of my own:

What you don't understand is that *I* could see it on the first or
second viewing. You're not in a position to tell ME what *I* see
or do do not see.

You're going off at a tangent to disguise the fact you starting
lecturing about the difference between trailers when you didn't
actually know what you were talking about to begin with.

> --- Thing is, the way you read, you'll never get it even if you did
> want it.

Thing is, the way you write, is it any wonder?
--
--Mac

"Allow me to slip my bullet into your chamber."

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298387 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 22:48
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Read this again, and this time I'll emphasize the important words
> > in CAPS so that you get what you so obviously missed:
> >
> > "But if you had only watched it ONCE or EVEN TWICE, there's NO way
> > you could tell beyond the first punch how many others there were or if
> > it was just the other guy tumbling down the stairs. It's too fast for
> > that to be remembered by anyone AFTER THE FIRST or EVEN
> > SECOND VIEWING."
>
> Allow me to add an emphasis of my own:
>
> What you don't understand is that *I* could see it on the first or
> second viewing. You're not in a position to tell ME what *I* see
> or do do not see.

--- How do you know that? Did you actually expect to count the punches
and thus became so alert in your FIRST viewing of the teaser to see how
many there would be? And how would you have known that scene would be
in it to anticipate counting the punches in the first place? How would
you know what shots would even be used in the teaser before ever seeing
it?

The first viewing is always the face value view, one can't possibly
notice all that there is to notice in a first viewing, nor can one ever
say without a doubt what one actually saw in that first viewing,
especially if the teaser is put together in breakneck speed.

In another thread just the other day there was a discussion as to
whether the word was "while" or "well" that Craig said when talking
about the short life expectancy of 00s. It took ME, with the help of
the CR script of course, to put that discussion to rest. So if there
was an absence of clarity of just which word it was, and who knows
after how many viewings for just that alone, how could you have counted
or captured ALL the punches beyond the first one in a second-and-a-half
sequence when: a] you didn't know that that sequence would appear on
your first viewing of it to prepare to register it in your mind, and b]
once it did appear, you wouldn't've had time to even think about
counting the punches because by the time you did, the sequence would be
over, and by the time it was over, the only punch that really
registered for you was the first one because what followed after that
was too frantic and swift.

This only goes to show that while you think it may be one thing you
saw, it could be entirely something different you saw or something not
even noticed at all, more so on the first viewing than any other. So
there's absolutely NO WAY that you could've KNOWN to have seen more
than one punch on the first viewing. It's your MULTIPLE viewings after
that first one that makes you believe that that's what you did see.

> You're going off at a tangent to disguise the fact you starting
> lecturing about the difference between trailers when you didn't
> actually know what you were talking about to begin with.
>
> > --- Thing is, the way you read, you'll never get it even if you did
> > want it.
>
> Thing is, the way you write, is it any wonder?

--- Thing is, it's a wonder you continue to respond to anything I
write.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "Allow me to slip my bullet into your chamber."
>=20
> SniperGuy=99 in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298388 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 23:06
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- How do you know that? Did you actually expect to count the
> punches and thus became so alert in your FIRST viewing of the teaser
> to see how many there would be? And how would you have known that
> scene would be in it to anticipate counting the punches in the first
> place? How would you know what shots would even be used in the
> teaser before ever seeing it?
>
> The first viewing is always the face value view, one can't possibly
> notice all that there is to notice in a first viewing, nor can one
> ever say without a doubt what one actually saw in that first viewing,
> especially if the teaser is put together in breakneck speed.
>
> In another thread just the other day there was a discussion as to
> whether the word was "while" or "well" that Craig said when talking
> about the short life expectancy of 00s. It took ME, with the help of
> the CR script of course, to put that discussion to rest. So if there
> was an absence of clarity of just which word it was, and who knows
> after how many viewings for just that alone, how could you have
> counted or captured ALL the punches beyond the first one in a
> second-and-a-half sequence when: a] you didn't know that that
> sequence would appear on your first viewing of it to prepare to
> register it in your mind, and b] once it did appear, you wouldn't've
> had time to even think about counting the punches because by the time
> you did, the sequence would be over, and by the time it was over, the
> only punch that really registered for you was the first one because
> what followed after that was too frantic and swift.
>
> This only goes to show that while you think it may be one thing you
> saw, it could be entirely something different you saw or something not
> even noticed at all, more so on the first viewing than any other. So
> there's absolutely NO WAY that you could've KNOWN to have seen more
> than one punch on the first viewing. It's your MULTIPLE viewings
> after that first one that makes you believe that that's what you did
> see.

More deflection. You were wrong, I called you on it. Get over it.

*Cheers*
--
--Mac

"Poe talked of little slices of death... I bring a LOAF!"


SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298389 ] So, 09 Juli 2006 23:12
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- How do you know that? Did you actually expect to count the
> > punches and thus became so alert in your FIRST viewing of the teaser
> > to see how many there would be? And how would you have known that
> > scene would be in it to anticipate counting the punches in the first
> > place? How would you know what shots would even be used in the
> > teaser before ever seeing it?
> >
> > The first viewing is always the face value view, one can't possibly
> > notice all that there is to notice in a first viewing, nor can one
> > ever say without a doubt what one actually saw in that first viewing,
> > especially if the teaser is put together in breakneck speed.
> >
> > In another thread just the other day there was a discussion as to
> > whether the word was "while" or "well" that Craig said when talking
> > about the short life expectancy of 00s. It took ME, with the help of
> > the CR script of course, to put that discussion to rest. So if there
> > was an absence of clarity of just which word it was, and who knows
> > after how many viewings for just that alone, how could you have
> > counted or captured ALL the punches beyond the first one in a
> > second-and-a-half sequence when: a] you didn't know that that
> > sequence would appear on your first viewing of it to prepare to
> > register it in your mind, and b] once it did appear, you wouldn't've
> > had time to even think about counting the punches because by the time
> > you did, the sequence would be over, and by the time it was over, the
> > only punch that really registered for you was the first one because
> > what followed after that was too frantic and swift.
> >
> > This only goes to show that while you think it may be one thing you
> > saw, it could be entirely something different you saw or something not
> > even noticed at all, more so on the first viewing than any other. So
> > there's absolutely NO WAY that you could've KNOWN to have seen more
> > than one punch on the first viewing. It's your MULTIPLE viewings
> > after that first one that makes you believe that that's what you did
> > see.
>
> More deflection. You were wrong, I called you on it. Get over it.

--- In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his
limitations." I guess you know yours.

>
> *Cheers*
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Poe talked of little slices of death... I bring a LOAF!"
>=20
>=20
> SniperGuy=99 in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298390 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 00:33
Mac  
WQ wrote:

>> More deflection. You were wrong, I called you on it. Get over it.
>
> --- In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his
> limitations." I guess you know yours.

"There are few people who are more often in the wrong than
those who cannot endure to be so."
--Francois De La Rochefoucald
--
--Mac

"You just aim and squeeze.... That also works for shooting."

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298391 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 00:49
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> >> More deflection. You were wrong, I called you on it. Get over it.
> >
> > --- In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his
> > limitations." I guess you know yours.
>
> "There are few people who are more often in the wrong than
> those who cannot endure to be so."
> --Francois De La Rochefoucald

--- That's why you just had to throw that in, huh?

> --
> --Mac
>
> "You just aim and squeeze.... That also works for shooting."
>=20
> SniperGuy=99 in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298392 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 00:51
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>>> More deflection. You were wrong, I called you on it. Get over it.
>>>
>>> --- In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his
>>> limitations." I guess you know yours.
>>
>> "There are few people who are more often in the wrong than
>> those who cannot endure to be so."
>> --Francois De La Rochefoucald
>
> --- That's why you just had to throw that in, huh?

How old are you? You made a mistake and were called on it. What
is the problem?
--
--Mac

"Death is my great, great, great great, great grandfather."

SniperGuyT in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298393 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 01:11
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Mac wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >>
> >>>> More deflection. You were wrong, I called you on it. Get over it.
> >>>
> >>> --- In the immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his
> >>> limitations." I guess you know yours.
> >>
> >> "There are few people who are more often in the wrong than
> >> those who cannot endure to be so."
> >> --Francois De La Rochefoucald
> >
> > --- That's why you just had to throw that in, huh?
>
> How old are you? You made a mistake and were called on it. What
> is the problem?

--- You called nothing. I'm the one who called your bluff. You lost.
Face it, accept it, live with it, move on, be happy. Don't believe me?
Read the entire thread over again, and absorb it this time, don't just
look for ways to make snappy remarks.


> --
> --Mac
>
> "Death is my great, great, great great, great grandfather."
>
> SniperGuyT in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298395 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 01:19
phil.gerrard1  
David wrote:

> > Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?
>
> It is.

Thanks David, and I stand corrected. (To me it sounded like a slightly
'off' impersonation, but I think that demonstrates that I might need to
invest in a new sound system - or a hearing aid.)

Two points if you want them, WQ.

Best

Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298396 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 01:25
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> > > Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?
> >
> > It is.
>
> Thanks David, and I stand corrected. (To me it sounded like a slightly
> 'off' impersonation, but I think that demonstrates that I might need to
> invest in a new sound system - or a hearing aid.)
>
> Two points if you want them, WQ.

--- Naa, thanks. I'm holding on to too many of them as it is with just
not enough earners to pass them around to.

>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298398 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 01:31
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- You called nothing. I'm the one who called your bluff. You lost.
> Face it, accept it, live with it, move on, be happy. Don't believe
> me? Read the entire thread over again, and absorb it this time,
> don't just look for ways to make snappy remarks.

You proceeded to lecture about trailers without doing your
homework and this was pointed out to you.

"That's why the Red Grant fight works and the single punch
Craig gives the guy at the top of the stairs doesn't."

He doesn't give a single punch. You're wrong. End of.

Now you're simply embarrassing yourself.
--
--Mac
Re: All About Trailers [message #298400 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 02:05
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- You called nothing. I'm the one who called your bluff. You lost.
> > Face it, accept it, live with it, move on, be happy. Don't believe
> > me? Read the entire thread over again, and absorb it this time,
> > don't just look for ways to make snappy remarks.
>
> You proceeded to lecture about trailers without doing your
> homework and this was pointed out to you.
>
> "That's why the Red Grant fight works and the single punch
> Craig gives the guy at the top of the stairs doesn't."
>
> He doesn't give a single punch. You're wrong. End of.
>
> Now you're simply embarrassing yourself.

--- You've got that right. I keep trying to knock sense into you and
it's not working. What an embarrassment.

> --
> --Mac
Re: All About Trailers [message #298401 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 02:16
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> --- You've got that right. I keep trying to knock sense into you and
> it's not working. What an embarrassment.

Snappy comeback.
--
--Mac

"I put bodies in graves like Nigerians put spam in your mailbox"

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'

(better give you a sig lest you accuse me of ungentlemanly conduct...)
Re: All About Trailers [message #298402 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 02:19
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- You've got that right. I keep trying to knock sense into you and
> > it's not working. What an embarrassment.
>
> Snappy comeback.

--- I should've stepped out today, it was a nice one too.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "I put bodies in graves like Nigerians put spam in your mailbox"
>
> SniperGuy=99 in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
>
> (better give you a sig lest you accuse me of ungentlemanly conduct...)
Re: All About Trailers [message #298403 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 02:27
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>> --- You've got that right. I keep trying to knock sense into you
>>> and it's not working. What an embarrassment.
>>
>> Snappy comeback.
>
> --- I should've stepped out today, it was a nice one too.

I'm inclined to agree with you.
--
--Mac

"Everybody wants to rule the world, but we don't all need
a mullet to sing it."

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298404 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 02:39
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> > > This is perhaps the most revolutionary of all Bond trailers
> > > in that it uses Connery's voice as the narrator.
> >
> > Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?
>
> --- Whether it is or isn't is not the point. The narration is.

First point addressed elsewhere. Two points if you want to claim them.

> > 'Dry' - well that's a matter of opinion. Cringeworthy and cliched,
> > undoubtedly. The tone of the narration is like a bad imitation of a
> > 1960s Mad magazine parody of 1940s film noir.
>
> --- Okay, dry blas=E9.
>
> > "I thought it was always polite to knock first (dramatic pause) before
> > shooting."
>
> --- And a perfect example of dry blas=E9.

To be addressed a little later.

> > > I don't recall having ever seen another
> > > trailer in which the screen character voices details about
> > > the story of the film and his involvement in it.
> >
> > It happens in the TSWLM trailer, just to choose one of the Bond films.
> > There are scores of others besides.
>
> --- Not in the version I have. Name the others.

Check the full set of TSWLM trailers on the DVD. Moore steps forward
after the opening gunbarrel sequence, addresses the audience directly,
and begins a spiel about his latest mission, and voices 'details about
the story of the film and his involvement in it'.

As for the 'scores of others', I would hope it was clear that I was
referring to films outside the Bond canon, and if that wasn't obvious
then I apologise. However, I've seen trailers for earlier films such
as 'Rebecca', 'The Big Sleep', 'The Third Man', and 'Kiss Me Deadly' in
which the narration has been in the voice of the lead character. Now,
here's where you have me at a disadvantage, because I'm doing this from
memory and don't have those trailers to hand, so I can't prove whether
those trailers were from the initial release or a later re-release.
Give yourself two points if you want. (I'm being generous tonight
because my girlfriend is second-generation London Italian.)

However, I think you're really making a meal of the first-person
narration on the DN trailer, since by 1962 it was a very
well-established cinematic device to have a lead character provide a
voice-over for their actions, so much so that Billy Wilder and Robert
Montgomery could subvert the idea. Do you think that anybody in 1962
would really be shocked or surprised by the idea of a lead character
providing a voice-over for a trailer?

> --- Remember absorption? Fast cutting, yes, but still absorbable and
> digestable. An extra second per cut makes all the difference between
> seeing something and seeing nothing. It also helps if a little more
> time is spent in showing a particular action sequence. That's why the
> Red Grant fight works and the single punch Craig gives the guy at the
> top of the stairs doesn't. It works because it becomes almost a scene
> onto itself within the trailer, but a single punch is kind of
> meaningless and without any real context, amounting to little more than
> cheap thrills as opposed to a palpable chill up one's spine that the
> Grant fight delivers.

Mac's addressed these points better than I ever could, for which many
thanks.

> --- I don't know what version of trailers you're seeing

Several, in fact, and many trailers for each movie, ranging from the
teasers to the full release trailer. You're reaching your conclusions
on the basis of one trailer per film, and judging the CR teaser on that
basis, having also admitted you haven't had the Dalton or Brosnan
trailers from which to make such a judgement.

> Also, notice how the dry, or dry
> blas=E9, delivery of the narration could be viewed as in keeping with
> the almost world-weary tone of the first couple of paragraphs of Casino
> Royale, which you mistake for a bad imitation of a 1960s Mad magazine
> parody of 1940s film noir

I'm not mistaking anything here. I understand perfectly that
Connery's monologue in the trailer is *aiming* for that tone. The
point is that it fails miserably, because the lines he's given to
read are so downright bad. I find it hard to believe that you could
mention such hackneyed and generic dialogue in the same sentence as
Fleming's CR. Rather, it's like a precocious twelve-year-old's
attempt to imitate Fleming's style, and Connery sounds positively
uninspired, even bored, when being made to deliver such nonsense.

As for the paragraphs about not being able to compare the trailers for
early Bond films to other trailers of the era, well, that strikes me as
a cop-out for these reasons:

(1) You haven't provided examples of any contemporary trailers in order
that the rest of us could make our own judgements.

(2) You argue that as the Bond films were an entirely new phenomenon,
there's no basis on which to make such comparisons, yet you have
grudgingly admitted that 'the trailer is not the film'.

(3) You've yet to demonstrate that trailers are especially
genre-specific, ie that the construction of a trailer for a western or
war movie is substantially different from that of a trailer for a
thriller.

Sorry, WQ, but I think your notion that even the trailers for the early
Bond films were classier, smarter, more radical, and more sophisticated
than the modern equivalent is serioudly misguided, and further evidence
that you have a mental block about the idea that EON could do anything
right after 1969. The films themselves come up as fresh as daisies,
but the trailers are hideously dated by comparison.

Theee words: rose-tinted glasses.

Best

Phil

PS For those who are haven't heard it, here's a transcript of the
Connery voice-over for the DN trailer:

'My name is Bond, James Bond. My instructions were implicit. I was to
leave for Jamaica in two hours, licensed to kill.'

'Her directions were easy to follow, and she sent a few of her friends
to make sure I didn't get lost.'

'She thought I was dead - but I proceeded to prove her wrong.'

'I thought it was always polite to knock first... before shooting.'

'Honey, from our very first meeting, was everything her name implied.
She clung to me like a wet bathing suit, but business as usual came
first. The pace was killing.'

'Maybe it was my luck. Up to my neck in hot water, or something
blowing up in my face.'

'Some people will go to any extremes for a little privacy.'

(Apart from the fact that whoever wrote these lines didn't even
understand the meaning of the word 'implicit', am I wrong in thinking
that this is pretty poor dialogue compared to that of Fleming, Maibaum,
Purvis and Wade, or even Jeffrey Archer, yet you describe it as if it's
on a par with Fleming's prose in CR?)
Re: All About Trailers [message #298405 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 02:56
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> David wrote:
>
>>> Listen again. Are you sure that's Connery?
>>
>> It is.
>
> Thanks David, and I stand corrected. (To me it sounded like a
> slightly 'off' impersonation, but I think that demonstrates that I
> might need to invest in a new sound system - or a hearing aid.)

Connery is really trying to lose his accent in that voice over. That
might explain why it sounds off.
--
--Mac

"My instructions were explicit, I was to bring the KY."

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298406 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 03:06
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Connery is really trying to lose his accent in that voice over. That
> might explain why it sounds off.

Yeah, but IMHO within the Bond films he doesn't completely stop trying
to lose or disguise his accent until YOLT - not coincidentally the
point where he was ready to quit. Listening again to the DN V/O
tonight I could hear that the basic vocal quality, one of the hardest
things for an actor to alter convincingly, was Connery's.

Best

Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298407 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 03:11
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> Connery is really trying to lose his accent in that voice over. That
>> might explain why it sounds off.
>
> Yeah, but IMHO within the Bond films he doesn't completely stop trying
> to lose or disguise his accent until YOLT - not coincidentally the
> point where he was ready to quit. Listening again to the DN V/O
> tonight I could hear that the basic vocal quality, one of the hardest
> things for an actor to alter convincingly, was Connery's.

I agree he doesn't stop until late in the films, but in that trailer VO it
sounds horribly forced and strained. Glad he didn't use it in the film!
--
--Mac

"Happy?! I'm trigger DELIRIOUS!"

SniperGuy™ in 'ZERO WINDCHILL 3: TYPHOON MARY'
Re: All About Trailers [message #298412 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 04:09
Rich Handley  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>--- You called nothing. I'm the one who called your bluff. You lost.
>Face it, accept it, live with it, move on, be happy. Don't believe me?
> Read the entire thread over again, and absorb it this time, don't just
>look for ways to make snappy remarks.

You know, I used to think you were a troll. But I was wrong. You're no
trol. You're just a pompous, hypocritical, inconsequential, cretinous
windbag with penis envy, and it's a shame any of us are even taking the
time responding to your witless and pointless drivel. It's filling the
newsgroup with poison, and I regret even being a part of it. I can't speak
for anyone else, but I, for one, am done acknowledging your existence. For
the sake of this group's continued quality, I urge others to do the same
until such a time as you can learn how to deal with people.
Re: All About Trailers [message #298413 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 04:22
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > > > I don't recall having ever seen another
> > > > trailer in which the screen character voices details about
> > > > the story of the film and his involvement in it.
> > >
> > > It happens in the TSWLM trailer, just to choose one of the Bond films.
> > > There are scores of others besides.
> >
> > --- Not in the version I have. Name the others.
>
> Check the full set of TSWLM trailers on the DVD. Moore steps forward
> after the opening gunbarrel sequence, addresses the audience directly,
> and begins a spiel about his latest mission, and voices 'details about
> the story of the film and his involvement in it'.

--- It seems that most of the trailers I have on tape are the ones I
saw in the theaters, at least they strike a chord with me and tug at
the old memory cells as being very familiar. If TSWLM showed the
narrated version in North America, I believe that's something I
would've remembered, especially as a "steal" from Dr. No. But I don't
recall that version playing here. So you may be seeing many more
versions than I have seen, but the ones I have are most of the ones
that actually played in the cinemas at the time I saw them. But it's
quite possible there may've been another version that came along during
the promotion period that I missed out on at the theater, and I
wouldn't know that unless I had seen them. So, as far as my viewing
experience goes, the ones I viewed on tape are the ones that were used
as the actual trailers here. The only trailers I missed out on during
their original runs were OHMSS, MR and OP, while I can't be sure of
TMWTGG as being the version that played here. I also recall seeing DN
and FRWL, but in their second runs.

> As for the 'scores of others', I would hope it was clear that I was
> referring to films outside the Bond canon, and if that wasn't obvious
> then I apologise. However, I've seen trailers for earlier films such
> as 'Rebecca', 'The Big Sleep', 'The Third Man', and 'Kiss Me Deadly' in
> which the narration has been in the voice of the lead character. Now,
> here's where you have me at a disadvantage, because I'm doing this from
> memory and don't have those trailers to hand, so I can't prove whether
> those trailers were from the initial release or a later re-release.
> Give yourself two points if you want. (I'm being generous tonight
> because my girlfriend is second-generation London Italian.)

--- I know what you meant by scores of others. And while I don't deny
that the narration technique has been used before, it's something that
I believe has been used very rarely. Dating back to the early and
mid-60s when I was but a wee tyke burying myself in bi-weekly Saturday
matinees at a local theater, I was exposed to tons of trailers,
half-a-dozen with each visit, that showed previews of every kind of
upcoming recent films as well as a fair lot going back to the mid and
late 50s, both U.S. and Brit style - loved the Hammer stuff. I can
tell you that the norm of trailers back then was to be melodramatic as
large print splashed across the screen over virtually every scene, such
as "You Won't Believe Your Eyes!" or "Never Before Seen Non-Stop
Action" or "The Thrill Ride of Your Life!" Almost invariably the
narrator would bellow out his lines in excited fashion as he explained
what the movie was all about and who was in it and what you could
expect from it. It was all very cartoonish, in fact. Only the most
serious films escaped that treatment, and even then the narrator
sounded like he was still getting a bit carried away with himself.
That said, I don't remember a single other trailer of all that I've
seen in that period that used that personal form of narration. And if
there had been, then that again says how few there were, otherwise I
would've remembered a trend of some sort or at least just one other
such trailer besides DN at the time. You may have provided a few
references as to which other films did do it, but as about a couple of
hundred films were released on average each year between 1940 and 1955,
the years in which those referred trailers appeared, then that's only 4
such trailers out of about 3,000 films, and that's just the U.S. ones.
Hardly a norm, I'd say.

> However, I think you're really making a meal of the first-person
> narration on the DN trailer, since by 1962 it was a very
> well-established cinematic device to have a lead character provide a
> voice-over for their actions, so much so that Billy Wilder and Robert
> Montgomery could subvert the idea. Do you think that anybody in 1962
> would really be shocked or surprised by the idea of a lead character
> providing a voice-over for a trailer?

--- Again, you're citing the rare few films that used the personal
narration form. This was not something that was in vogue back then,
and once more, I sat through a lot of Saturday matineee triple features
and I can tell you there were very, very, very few films with personal
narration, fewer still of such trailers. By not being there at the
time and only relying on what limited number of films of that era that
you have been exposed to outside of that time frame, you're assuming
something that wasn't happening at all. And nobody would've been
shocked or surprised by a lead character's voiceover in a trailer for
DN, they simply would've found the trailer itself as promoting
something a bit different from what was generally playing in theaters
at the time. Without that 1962 mindset and perspective - or 1965 in my
case when I first saw the DN and FRWL trailers - you can only
erroneously conclude as to what it must've been like.

> > --- Remember absorption? Fast cutting, yes, but still absorbable and
> > digestable. An extra second per cut makes all the difference between
> > seeing something and seeing nothing. It also helps if a little more
> > time is spent in showing a particular action sequence. That's why the
> > Red Grant fight works and the single punch Craig gives the guy at the
> > top of the stairs doesn't. It works because it becomes almost a scene
> > onto itself within the trailer, but a single punch is kind of
> > meaningless and without any real context, amounting to little more than
> > cheap thrills as opposed to a palpable chill up one's spine that the
> > Grant fight delivers.
>
> Mac's addressed these points better than I ever could, for which many
> thanks.

--- He never got it. And if you agree with him, you don't get it
either.

> > --- I don't know what version of trailers you're seeing
>
> Several, in fact, and many trailers for each movie, ranging from the
> teasers to the full release trailer. You're reaching your conclusions
> on the basis of one trailer per film, and judging the CR teaser on that
> basis, having also admitted you haven't had the Dalton or Brosnan
> trailers from which to make such a judgement.

--- As I said, the trailers I viewed were the ones that actually played
in the theaters here. I would've liked to have compared the Daltons
for sure, believing that they were included on the tape along with some
of the Brosnans, but I forgot that it was only a '95 production, and I
don't know why they didn't include the Daltons when they certainly
could've. I don't think I ever saw either Dalton trailer in the
theater. I remember seeing clips of them in TV ads, but that's not the
same and I can't really remember what I saw of them, except for maybe
Bond parachuting on the yacht with the bikini-clad girl on board in TLD
and the oil tanker chase in LTK. So yeah, I would've liked to have
made that comparison, since that was the whole point of this thread,
but unfortunately it's not to be. Still, can I remember anything of
Brosnan's trailers? Nope. But that could very well be because I
may've not seen them in the theaters at all, except for DAD, which I
have since deliberately washed out of my memory. If I could see them
again, then I'd know if GE, TND and TWINE were actually viewed. And if
they had been viewed and I just can't remember them, then what does
that say about how memorable those trailers were?

> > Also, notice how the dry, or dry
> > blas=E9, delivery of the narration could be viewed as in keeping with
> > the almost world-weary tone of the first couple of paragraphs of Casino
> > Royale, which you mistake for a bad imitation of a 1960s Mad magazine
> > parody of 1940s film noir
>
> I'm not mistaking anything here. I understand perfectly that
> Connery's monologue in the trailer is *aiming* for that tone. The
> point is that it fails miserably, because the lines he's given to
> read are so downright bad. I find it hard to believe that you could
> mention such hackneyed and generic dialogue in the same sentence as
> Fleming's CR. Rather, it's like a precocious twelve-year-old's
> attempt to imitate Fleming's style, and Connery sounds positively
> uninspired, even bored, when being made to deliver such nonsense.

--- You want Fleming, I'll give you Fleming.

"So," continued Bond, warming to his argument, "Le Chiffre was serving
a wonderful purpose, a really vital purpose, perhaps the best and
highest purpose of all. By his evil existence, which I have foolishly
helped to destroy, he was creating a norm of badness by which, and by
which alone, an opposite norm of goodness could exist. We were
privileged, in our short knowledge of him, to see and estimate his
wickedness and we emerge from the acquaintanceship better and more
virtuous men."

Now, who the hell talks like that? Bond does, via Fleming. Very silly
stuff, if you ask me. Sort of places Connery's little monologue on a
classic pedestal as far as I'm concerned. If Fleming was weak at
anything in his writing, it was half the time with his dialogue,
especially with women. That's where he does fall into writing like a
precocious 12-year-old himself.

> As for the paragraphs about not being able to compare the trailers for
> early Bond films to other trailers of the era, well, that strikes me as
> a cop-out for these reasons:
>
> (1) You haven't provided examples of any contemporary trailers in order
> that the rest of us could make our own judgements.

--- And I told you why. Accept it. Unless you want to dig deep
yourself on the net for them and clue me into where to find them,
there's no way I'm going to bother renting a set of DVDs just to watch
them. If I did see the Daltons and Brosnans [only DAD for sure] and I
can't remember having seen them, then they're failures and I guess that
should suffice right there. But I won't know for sure till I see them
again.

> (2) You argue that as the Bond films were an entirely new phenomenon,
> there's no basis on which to make such comparisons, yet you have
> grudgingly admitted that 'the trailer is not the film'.

--- I'm trying to make a connection in your train of thought there in
that statement but I'm a bit beat from the mud-slinging with Mac all
day to attempt it for now.

> (3) You've yet to demonstrate that trailers are especially
> genre-specific, ie that the construction of a trailer for a western or
> war movie is substantially different from that of a trailer for a
> thriller.

--- That's another thread, don't expect me to start that one.

> Sorry, WQ, but I think your notion that even the trailers for the early
> Bond films were classier, smarter, more radical, and more sophisticated
> than the modern equivalent is serioudly misguided, and further evidence
> that you have a mental block about the idea that EON could do anything
> right after 1969. The films themselves come up as fresh as daisies,
> but the trailers are hideously dated by comparison.

--- I guess you just had to be there, because it's all in relation to
the times. I'm looking at them from the perspective of when they
appeared, not against 2006 standards. You keep putting a 2006 spin on
things past, and that's your failing in being able to understand the
past.

> Theee words: rose-tinted glasses.

--- Three more appropriate words: Under No Delusions.

> Best
>
> Phil
>
> PS For those who are haven't heard it, here's a transcript of the
> Connery voice-over for the DN trailer:
>
> 'My name is Bond, James Bond. My instructions were implicit. I was to
> leave for Jamaica in two hours, licensed to kill.'
>
> 'Her directions were easy to follow, and she sent a few of her friends
> to make sure I didn't get lost.'
>
> 'She thought I was dead - but I proceeded to prove her wrong.'
>
> 'I thought it was always polite to knock first... before shooting.'
>
> 'Honey, from our very first meeting, was everything her name implied.
> She clung to me like a wet bathing suit, but business as usual came
> first. The pace was killing.'
>
> 'Maybe it was my luck. Up to my neck in hot water, or something
> blowing up in my face.'
>
> 'Some people will go to any extremes for a little privacy.'
>
> (Apart from the fact that whoever wrote these lines didn't even
> understand the meaning of the word 'implicit', am I wrong in thinking
> that this is pretty poor dialogue compared to that of Fleming, Maibaum,
> Purvis and Wade, or even Jeffrey Archer, yet you describe it as if it's
> on a par with Fleming's prose in CR?)

--- Actually, it's a helluva lot better than the Fleming extract I
provided above. Almost like Mickey Spillane.
Re: All About Trailers [message #298414 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 04:38
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >--- You called nothing. I'm the one who called your bluff. You lost.
> >Face it, accept it, live with it, move on, be happy. Don't believe me?
> > Read the entire thread over again, and absorb it this time, don't just
> >look for ways to make snappy remarks.
>
> You know, I used to think you were a troll. But I was wrong. You're no
> trol. You're just a pompous, hypocritical, inconsequential, cretinous
> windbag with penis envy, and it's a shame any of us are even taking the
> time responding to your witless and pointless drivel. It's filling the
> newsgroup with poison, and I regret even being a part of it. I can't speak
> for anyone else, but I, for one, am done acknowledging your existence. For
> the sake of this group's continued quality, I urge others to do the same
> until such a time as you can learn how to deal with people.

--- It's about time someone's taking a stand against me! I am not a
number, I am a Free Thinker!! Unmutual. Unmutual. Unmutual....
Re: All About Trailers [message #298428 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 14:04
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- You want Fleming, I'll give you Fleming.
>
> "So," continued Bond, warming to his argument, "Le Chiffre was serving
> a wonderful purpose, a really vital purpose, perhaps the best and
> highest purpose of all. By his evil existence, which I have foolishly
> helped to destroy, he was creating a norm of badness by which, and by
> which alone, an opposite norm of goodness could exist. We were
> privileged, in our short knowledge of him, to see and estimate his
> wickedness and we emerge from the acquaintanceship better and more
> virtuous men."
>
> Now, who the hell talks like that? Bond does, via Fleming. Very silly
> stuff, if you ask me. Sort of places Connery's little monologue on a
> classic pedestal as far as I'm concerned. If Fleming was weak at
> anything in his writing, it was half the time with his dialogue,
> especially with women. That's where he does fall into writing like a
> precocious 12-year-old himself.

Dramatic licence. Nobody talks in blank verse either, yet when we
listen to Shakespeare we buy it. Nobody in real life talks as snappily
and wittily as Bond does in Maibaum's scripts, but the context carries
it. Nobody even talks like the people in David Mamet's plays and
films: it sounds naturalistic, but when you examine it closely it's far
more heightened and perversely poetic than real speech.

The 'nature of evil' chapter, as awkward as some of the dialogue is,
remains one of my favourite pieces of Fleming, showing Bond grappling
with the serious philosophical issues of his job. It's one of many
things which lifts CR out of the realms of cheap pulp fiction. The DN
voiceover, conversely, makes the film look far more cheap, pulpy, and
B-grade than it actually is.

> --- Actually, it's a helluva lot better than the Fleming extract I
> provided above. Almost like Mickey Spillane.

Spillane is an entertainingly bad writer, and he was a self-parody from
the day he started. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same
breath as Fleming.

*Juno was a man!*

Best

Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298435 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 16:39
Paul Clarke  
WQ wrote:

> --- The sense is there in the paragraphs. The nonsense is in the
> reader.

OK, this is patent nonsense. I'm a writer/researcher and I live by the
guidelines of plain language to make my writing readable. Your writing,
IMHO, is overstuffed and meandering--your posts need some judicious
editing to make them sharp, to the point, and readable. The sense may be
there in the paragraphs somewhere, but it's buried in flabby writing. It
is absurd to blame it on the readers.

--
==007===
“My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.”
Re: All About Trailers [message #298436 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 16:44
Paul Clarke  
WQ wrote:
> --- Remember absorption? Fast cutting, yes, but still absorbable and
> digestable. An extra second per cut makes all the difference between
> seeing something and seeing nothing. It also helps if a little more
> time is spent in showing a particular action sequence.

I actually agree with the core sentiment, and find many modern action
films to be overedited into the realm of incomprehensibility. I'm not a
neuroscientist, but I bet there is some hardwired limit to the number of
images per second a human brain can reasonably absorb, and I think that
many contemporary Hollywood action sequences step over this (though I
have no hard evidence to support this assertion).

I prefer the clarity of the Eastern approach, where there are more long
shots of action, rather than hyperactive cutting of bits of close ups.

However, this is a trailer, and it remains to be seen if the final film
is edited using the hyperactive editing style.


--
==007===
“My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.”
Re: All About Trailers [message #298438 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 16:56
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- You want Fleming, I'll give you Fleming.
> >
> > "So," continued Bond, warming to his argument, "Le Chiffre was serving
> > a wonderful purpose, a really vital purpose, perhaps the best and
> > highest purpose of all. By his evil existence, which I have foolishly
> > helped to destroy, he was creating a norm of badness by which, and by
> > which alone, an opposite norm of goodness could exist. We were
> > privileged, in our short knowledge of him, to see and estimate his
> > wickedness and we emerge from the acquaintanceship better and more
> > virtuous men."
> >
> > Now, who the hell talks like that? Bond does, via Fleming. Very silly
> > stuff, if you ask me. Sort of places Connery's little monologue on a
> > classic pedestal as far as I'm concerned. If Fleming was weak at
> > anything in his writing, it was half the time with his dialogue,
> > especially with women. That's where he does fall into writing like a
> > precocious 12-year-old himself.
>
> Dramatic licence. Nobody talks in blank verse either, yet when we
> listen to Shakespeare we buy it. Nobody in real life talks as snappily
> and wittily as Bond does in Maibaum's scripts, but the context carries
> it. Nobody even talks like the people in David Mamet's plays and
> films: it sounds naturalistic, but when you examine it closely it's far
> more heightened and perversely poetic than real speech.

--- Oh, I see. You give dramatic licence to Fleming and everybody
else, but not to who wrote the Connery monologue.

> The 'nature of evil' chapter, as awkward as some of the dialogue is,
> remains one of my favourite pieces of Fleming, showing Bond grappling
> with the serious philosophical issues of his job. It's one of many
> things which lifts CR out of the realms of cheap pulp fiction. The DN
> voiceover, conversely, makes the film look far more cheap, pulpy, and
> B-grade than it actually is.

--- Again, you're erroneously viewing it from a 2006 perspective. In
1962 - or '65 when I saw the DN trailer - there wasn't that cheap,
pulpy feel to it which, yes, one can see in it now. But then, one can
see a lot of trailers of the time as looking cheap and pulpy now. At
the time, however, I remember being struck by a certain odd
sophistication about it. So in relation to the times, the DN trailer
looked pretty good and the narration piqued one's interest in it
because it added more of a difference to it. It's only in retrospect,
and after the term "pulp" came into wider recognition as a literary or
film form in the '70s, when pulp fiction, in its truest sense, was
pretty much dead, could one begin to see elements of pulp in things
that may've not been viewed as such when they first appeared in the era
of pulp. In other words, the DN trailer hasn't weathered age well in
terms of looking and sounding as sophisticated now as it did four and a
half decades ago, but then neither do a lot of other things.

> > --- Actually, it's a helluva lot better than the Fleming extract I
> > provided above. Almost like Mickey Spillane.
>
> Spillane is an entertainingly bad writer, and he was a self-parody from
> the day he started. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same
> breath as Fleming.

--- I was mentioning him in the same breath of whoever wrote the
Connery monologue.


>
> *Juno was a man!*
>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: All About Trailers [message #298442 ] Mo, 10 Juli 2006 17:20
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- Oh, I see. You give dramatic licence to Fleming and everybody
> else, but not to who wrote the Connery monologue.

Fleming's dialogue may not be 'realistic' but unlike the Connery
monologue it's not poorly expressed, cliched, and utterly out of
character for Bond. There's dramatic licence and there's also quality
of writing, and it is possible to make judgements about a piece of
prose using more than one of these criteria, not to mention many others
besides.

> In other words, the DN trailer hasn't weathered age well in
> terms of looking and sounding as sophisticated now as it did four and a
> half decades ago, but then neither do a lot of other things.

The films themselves have weathered pretty well in those respects.

Going back to the CR trailer, which is where this conversation started,
you've now added so many caveats and qualifiers which we have to bear
in mind when judging it against the other Bond trailers that any
serious attempt at direct comparison is all but impossible. Basically,
you've played the 'You had to be there' card again, and of course that
denies those of us who didn't see this stuff the first time around any
means of arguing on terms you'd find acceptable.

> > > --- Actually, it's a helluva lot better than the Fleming extract I
> > > provided above. Almost like Mickey Spillane.
> >
> > Spillane is an entertainingly bad writer, and he was a self-parody from
> > the day he started. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same
> > breath as Fleming.
>
> --- I was mentioning him in the same breath of whoever wrote the
> Connery monologue.

Re-read the first two sentences of that quoted segment.

Best

Phil
Vorheriges Thema:Ultimate Editions R1 News
Nächstes Thema:The real "skinny" about trailers...
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:29:52 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03959 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered