MOVIES 2015

[LHoffman]

@frimmel:

There are some problems with things being more connected but a portion of that comes from the audience trying to be clever and snarky and all “look how cool I am cause I can point out a continuity error” that isn’t at all important and not just rolling with things. (My classic for that thinking is the Chekhov knowing Khan in Star Trek II “plot hole” that gets drug out. In the age of the reboot the retcon is now passe.)

I feel like complete continuity within a series is almost impossible to achieve, at least when you have multiple or multitudes of people writing and directing the stories over a span of time. If you are a total nerd about it, which I am for Trek, discontinuities are usually annoyances at the worst. For the general public, they don’t even register as anything to pay attention to.

[Private-Panic]

Saw Spectre, Hoff, and was disappointed. Average. For me, it lacked the relationships / storyline that powered Casino Royale or Skyfall.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

PS - Bourne Legacy was terrible. I don’t want to see another Bourne movie without Matt Damon as the main star and Paul Greengrass directing. Just not worth it.

A friend of mine once joked that the next Bourne movie should be titled “The Bourne Redundancy.”

[LHoffman]

@Private:

Saw Spectre, Hoff, and was disappointed. Average. For me, it lacked the relationships / storyline that powered Casino Royale or Skyfall.

Eh… I have heard that is the case. I am not enough of a Bond fan to go see it in the theater but I will when I can rent it. Too bad though, because I really liked Daniel Craig as James Bond. I assume it was more a case of shoddy writing than Craig’s performance?

[Private-Panic]

@LHoffman:

I assume it was more a case of shoddy writing than Craig’s performance?

Think it was just the difficulty of finding a relationship based storyline that did not too closely resemble recent successes. Bond does get the girl at the end and if the next film builds on that relationship, rather than replacing it, we might have something interesting.

[CWO Marc]

@Private:

Saw Spectre, Hoff, and was disappointed. Average. For me, it lacked the relationships / storyline that powered Casino Royale or Skyfall.

I saw it on the afternoon of November 13th – in a bizarre coincidence, right around the time the Paris attacks were taking place, which is creepy because the movie starts with a planned terror attack in a sports stadium (which Bond foils) and later depicts (as TV footage) the aftermath of another terror attack (which succeeds).

Anyway, I thought the movie was all right, though it has it problems.  To me, the most annoying thing was that the plot points don’t all connect very well; it’s not always clear how we get from event A to event B, or why things are happening. Could be a writing problem, or could be a problem that was created in the editing room.  Several elements of the film are formulaic Bond, though they’ve managed to present them in a way that feels somewhat fresh.  There are several references that seem to be aimed at Bond fans, since casual viewers or newcomers to the franchise might not pick them up; for example the torture scene is a high-tech upgrade of the one in the non-Fleming Bond novel Colonel Sun, written by “Robert Markham” (Kingsley Amis).  In fact, some parts of the dialogue in the obligatory preliminary lecture on the philosophy of torture are modeled so closely on the one in Colonel Sun that I was able to guess what the villain was going to do even before he announced it.  It was also pretty clear from an early point in the movie that its two ostensibly separate conflicts – Bond vs. Spectre and M vs. C – were connected by an Evil Master Plan (as indeed turned out to be the case).  But all in all it was an entertaining movie; sometimes confusing, but never boring.  To me, the funniest part – even though it wasn’t meant to be funny – was the fact that, once again, the villain has a huge and stylish secret headquarters complex which can be induced to completely and spectacularly self-destruct with minimal effort (in this case, by having Bond fire one pistol shot at what appears to be a natural gas regulator valve).  You’d think that an organization as rich as Spectre would be able to hire competent architects and engineers what it wants to construct a building.

[LHoffman]

@Private:

Think it was just the difficulty of finding a relationship based storyline that did not too closely resemble recent successes. Bond does get the girl at the end and if the next film builds on that relationship, rather than replacing it, we might have something interesting.

I thought Craig was done being Bond. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/entertainment/daniel-craig-james-bond-feat/) If so, does that mean that they have to start all over again? Do they have to get rid of Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Ralph Fiennes? I rather liked them all as a cast and the potential for the future, but it seems like the conventional Bond form is to have all new actors for a new series.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

it seems like the conventional Bond form is to have all new actors for a new series.

No, Judi Dench as M was carried over from the Pierce Brosnan era.

Incidentally, in the new movie Bond isn’t the only major action hero on the good-guy side: the new M himself, his chief of staff Bill Tanner, the rebooted Moneypenny (introduced in Skyfall), and Ben Wishaw’s Q are all out there in the field at the film’s climax, racing against time to defeat the villains in scenes involving car chases, gun battles and hand-to-hand combat.  Traditionally, these characters were pretty much confined to an office environment.

[LHoffman]

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

it seems like the conventional Bond form is to have all new actors for a new series.

No, Judi Dench as M was carried over from the Pierce Brosnan era.

Incidentally, in the new movie Bond isn’t the only major action hero on the good-guy side: the new M himself, his chief of staff Bill Tanner, the rebooted Moneypenny (introduced in Skyfall), and Ben Wishaw’s Q are all out there in the field at the film’s climax, racing against time to defeat the villains in scenes involving car chases, gun battles and hand-to-hand combat.  Traditionally, these characters were pretty much confined to an office environment.

Oh, I sort of just figured they cleaned house when a new Bond was cast. Man… having some actors the same, but the main guy different would really annoy me; being someone who likes continuity.  I hated it when Nolan had to use Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes instead of keeping Katie Holmes. Not even just because of the continuity but because Holmes is a far better actress and really fit the role. I hate scheduling conflicts.

Again, it just seems incredibly strange if Craig were to just be done and they continue on with a new actor for Bond as if absolutely nothing had changed. I would find that hard to deal with.

[Imperious Leader]

Sean Connery is signed up to do the next series of Bond movies while in his wheelchair. The good thing is it has lots of special gadgets. The bad thing is he can walk or run after criminals and gets pushed around by his caretaker on the streets.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Sir Connery was the best Bond for me.

I appreciate that they tried  some new things with Daniel Craig. But Sir Connery was the classy one.

[Private-Panic]

@LHoffman:

Again, it just seems incredibly strange if Craig were to just be done and they continue on with a new actor for Bond as if absolutely nothing had changed. I would find that hard to deal with.

It feels wrong I agree Hoff - but they’ve made it work time and again over however many changes of Bond across so many films. Bond is sufficiently fixed in the mind of the audience regardless of the actor playing him - a strength of the franchise - and a weakness.

Marc is right about the other characters getting involved in the action. It had not struck me that this is a change. A welcome one as it allows more complex finales.