MOVIES 2015

Hey Hoff - thanks for agreeing with me! But I feel more positive about the Martian than you seem to and agree with JWW. Loved all those films!

I thought The Martian was well worth seeing and enjoyed it a lot. But if you are going to let scientific quibbles interfere then you’d be better with science fact than with science fiction. The story is a compelling one and for me that is the purpose of the film, not to explore scientific theory.

@Private:

Hey Hoff - thanks for agreeing with me! But I feel more positive about the Martian than you seem to and agree with JWW. Loved all those films!

I thought The Martian was well worth seeing and enjoyed it a lot. But if you are going to let scientific quibbles interfere then you’d be better with science fact than with science fiction. The story is a compelling one and for me that is the purpose of the film, not to explore scientific theory.

No worries man. I like the scientific premise in films, but I am not a nitpicker for “scientific accuracy” that seems to be all the rage nowadays. If that is the be-all end-all of a film it would probably be boring. Science fact is what documentaries are for.

Sigh, it’s already time to hit the reset button on Bond after the Craig era limps to the finish line with SPECTRE. Plodding pace, poor chemistry and lousy Blofeld payoff.

Since all the source material of Fleming’s is gone I don’t see why the next Bond can’t start a little younger than normal to make his cavalier attitude more justified and provide more mojo with the ladies (the big age gaps were tolerable for a long time, but just don’t work now).

Right Justin Beaver should be the next bond.

@Imperious:

Right Justin Beaver should be the next bond.

Ha… Beaver, get it?.. he’s Canadian. I would love to see the Indiana Jones franchise get the revolving door treatment in lead actors the way Bond does it. Also, who will play the next Indiana Jones seems like a much more interesting conversation that who will play the next 007. BTW, I think Chris Pine would make an excellent Indiana.

@Young:

Ha… Beaver, get it?.. he’s Canadian. I would love to see the Indiana Jones franchise get the revolving door treatment in lead actors the way Bond does it. Also, who will play the next Indiana Jones seems like a much more interesting conversation that who will play the next 007. BTW, I think Chris Pine would make an excellent Indiana.

Personally I disagree. I know it is inevitable at this point, but I would love to leave Indiana Jones where it should have ended: Riding into the sunset in The Last Crusade.

That ship has certainly sailed and a reboot is a foregone conclusion after probably one more Harrison Ford movie.

I think Chris Pratt has the best shot at being the next Indy, he had a liiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit of that Harrison Ford swagger and detachment in Jurassic World (haven’t seen Guardians of the Galaxy) that could translate well.

For Bond I’d have no qualms with Idris Elba. If they ever wanted to be sacrilegious and cast an American Chris Pine would actually be a decent choice, especially since he has some spy movie experience as Jack Ryan.

@General:

I think Chris Pratt has the best shot at being the next Indy, he had a liiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit of that Harrison Ford swagger and detachment in Jurassic World (haven’t seen Guardians of the Galaxy) that could translate well.

In GG he was more of the goofy, wise-cracker who was simultaneously very adept. In terms of the scruffy yet charming adventurer type, like in Jurassic World, I think he could fit the Indy role well.

@General:

For Bond I’d have no qualms with Idris Elba. If they ever wanted to be sacrilegious and cast an American Chris Pine would actually be a decent choice, especially since he has some spy movie experience as Jack Ryan.

Idris Elba would be an excellent Bond. I am not a legacy Bond film guy, nor would I at all consider myself invested in the franchise, so I don’t know all the taboos that prevent directors/writers from changing the formula. I have seen the first three Daniel Craig Bond films, but even with such a limited sampling the overuse of the formula just smacks you in the face. IMO they could do with something a little different that will really grow the franchise. Idris Elba would be one step in that direction. Heck, I read that people were upset because Daniel Craig was not traditional enough when he was first cast (didn’t have the tall, dark haired, refined manner of previous Bonds). How many times do Bond fans want to watch the exact same movie???

I didn’t bother with Bond until Daniel Craig came along. But I have watched all of his - albeit not yet Spectre. For me he has made the concept more believable because of the ruggedness he brings to the role, plus his ability to actually act.

So, if he is to be replaced, my willingness to see more would depend on retaining those qualities. Tried to think of someone better for the role than Idris Elba and couldn’t - so a great suggestion!

Disagree with Hoff that the 3 Craig Bonds I have seen have been “samey”, or at least no more so than other franchises (such as Bourne and I’m warm to seeing Matt Damon in the role again). Two of the three had strong stories, relegating the usual Bond elements to part of that story, rather than an end in themselves. That was not true in the past. Perhaps I will feel differently about Spectre?

@Private:

Disagree with Hoff that the 3 Craig Bonds I have seen have been “samey”, or at least no more so than other franchises (such as Bourne and I’m warm to seeing Matt Damon in the role again). Two of the three had strong stories, relegating the usual Bond elements to part of that story, rather than an end in themselves. That was not true in the past. Perhaps I will feel differently about Spectre?

I haven’t seen any other than Craig Bond films, so I can only make that statement based on my general understanding of the franchise. They are formulaic in the sense that they contain mostly the same elements (shared with many, if not all) previous Bond films: Aston Martin, gadgets, car chase, girl, evil individual, gun barrel and other stylistic imagery, famous musician writing the theme song for the film… It’s all there, pretty much all the time.

Even so, I found the Craig films to be enjoyable and interesting for the most part. I thought Skyfall was particularly good bordering on excellent. I think it rises to that level because it delves into the character of James Bond more; why he is who he is. The characters were a little more complex and Craig really filled out his role.

Bourne is a good comparison to Craig’s Bond films, as I think they took a cue from the Bourne movies, particularly on action. I much prefer Jason Bourne to James Bond, but that is just me. The Bourne films had similarly common or repetitive elements, but they never grew stale or over-utilized. One thing that the Bourne movies did was offer creative riffs on the standard elements of the series. I think they were more able to do so because the writers didn’t have to deal with 40+ years of cultural expectation of who the character was and how the films were structured. I also prefer an extended story line between films. Bourne did this, but it isn’t really in the nature of James Bond, which to me seems predominantly episodic.

To my point above:  http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/spectre-how-the-multiverse-era-killed-james-bond-20151109?page=3

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the Craig series. The author takes the opposite position from mine, that Bond films shouldn’t be serialized into a continuing narrative. However, it seems that he comes to this conclusion only because the Craig series tried to do so in the middle (or at the very end) of four films and because it is the current trend in cinema. He implies that Bond should stick to being a bunch of one-off movies that aren’t interrelated, but I question if that is because Bond films fundamentally shouldn’t be or because this attempt at it has been less-than-successful.

Hey Hoff

Well 3 Bourne films vs 21 Bond ones (according to the article you posted) does make it easier for Bourne to retain its formula without it getting stale. Perhaps Bourne will get stale eventually!? I’ll check again with you after another eighteen!

Has any other film franchise ever delivered 21 films with such an ongoing fan base as Bond? I doubt it. Over the years many have predicted its demise, but it continues to adapt to changing times while retaining the elements that make it Bond. Those stable elements are by definition “formulaic”, but it is that ability to combine change with stability that will determine the continuing longevity of the franchise.

For myself I thought Bond with Roger Moore was terrible and assumed its impending doom. Pierce Brosnan only seemed better because his predecessor was so poor. I bumped into the odd instalment when having nothing better to do and always thought “never again”. Yet here it is. Stronger, better and more commercially successful than ever.

The episodic rather than continuous story helps when there is a need to change actor. For that reason Bond will always be strongly episodic, with any carry over story strands carefully managed. Bourne tried a change of actor and felt a need to change the character as well as the actor. It did not go well! And that is despite the wonderful Rachel Weisz being there to keep me engaged. (Did you ever see Agora?)

The money-men have made so much from it over the years that they will persevere through any future “blips” in an attempt to rediscover whatever is “movie magic” for tomorrow’s audience. Bond has a number of films left in it even after it begins to falter.

Cheers
PP

I agree on all fronts. I am just rather surprised that Bond films have strayed away from continuing stories within each era. You can start all over again when you have a new actor, but it seems perfectly reasonable to have interconnected elements within the same series. Maybe that is just a modern notion though… one which Bond is only recently trying to imitate. For me at least, such a thing would make Bond films much more interesting and worth watching. Without a greater story arc (within a series), it feels like you have to constantly define who this Bond is and why what he is doing this time around is meaningful or even difficult for him. Without that struggle for growth, all you have is a veneer of explosions, guns, women, cars, one dimensional evil geniuses and exotic locales. In my opinion, the writers should try less to modernize the items within the formula; these will take care of themselves. Rather I think it would be much more interesting to explore the facets of Bond himself: his motivations, history, pains and fears.

Bourne is quite different from Bond in many respects; some of which make it unfair to compare the two franchises. Bourne is less of a pop culture icon and has a more limited story line, not to mention a much smaller screen history as you pointed out. Even so, the original three Ludlum Bourne novels have virtually no similarity to the films other than the basic premise. The movie writers and directors adapted the Bourne story in an extremely compelling and well-executed story for a modern audience. Bond does this with every new iteration, but seems only recently has the Bond franchise incorporated the story arc element. At least from what I have read and seen. - Again, I am no Bond fan and have only seen the last three, minus Spectre.

I don’t know that Bond will ever drop the formula elements. It is what defines Bond at this point and maybe it is wrong to think that they should. I wouldn’t want some know-nothing coming into my franchise and changing the very fabric of it (Star Trek… JJ Abrams). However, a greater focus on the story telling aspect doesn’t have to mean the classic features are dropped. It is just one more way to modernize the franchise.

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.

@LHoffman:

To my point above:  http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/spectre-how-the-multiverse-era-killed-james-bond-20151109?page=3

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the Craig series. The author takes the opposite position from mine, that Bond films shouldn’t be serialized into a continuing narrative. However, it seems that he comes to this conclusion only because the Craig series tried to do so in the middle (or at the very end) of four films and because it is the current trend in cinema. He implies that Bond should stick to being a bunch of one-off movies that aren’t interrelated, but I question if that is because Bond films fundamentally shouldn’t be or because this attempt at it has been less-than-successful.

Well the Bond films have in the past been at least at a cursory level sequels. Particularly OHMSS to DAF. The Craig Bonds have very much been direct sequels. This has not been a bad thing. However they tried to shoehorn three films into a even larger continuity  with “Spectre” and did it poorly. That the execution was off in this case does not invalidate the idea that the films should be more connected than in the past. The author did not make his point that they shouldn’t particularly well.

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.)

@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.

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

@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.”

@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?

@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.

@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.