Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[dirtybenny]

Rant 27
Brosnan and Craig two sides of the same coin

A lot of you good folks already started discussing this topic when I teased it the other day. While on the one side you all sort of stole a few of the teeth from my rant, however on the other side you brought up points I wasn’t even thinking of, which were truthfully better that what I had in mind but any way here it is.

Let me start off by saying this has nothing to do with the actors, so I would like you to take them right out of the equation. This is about the eras in which these men stared, I’m talking more about the production team at EON and their knee jerk style of film making or what I’ve dubbed the “Double Down Method”. In the Brosnan Era (BE) we start off with typical Bond but by the end we have what the Germans call uber Bond. The Craig Era (CE) starts with an origin story and never stops with origin after origin and childhood woes packed one on top of the other, until we know more about Bond’s past than we do of our own.

What do I mean well let’s start with the BE. The first film Goldeneye was an unqualified success, even the most ardent Brosnan basher will give that film at least a 5 out of 10 it’s a good solid Bond film. It isn’t too over the top, nor is it lacking any of the Bond “flavor”. The gadgets are there but subdued, a laser watch, and piton firing belt, a gadget laden car was alluded to but nothing came of it.

On to TND, a solid story, but EON starts “doubling down” now we get more gadgets in a multi-function cell phone, which controlled his gadget laden car, and a watch with a remote detonator. Plus more action, with two car (or in this case bike) chases, and two shootouts (at the newspaper office and onboard Carver’s ship) all and all a good movie but you can see EON trying (or not trying) a little harder on this one.

Now on to TWINE, again an interesting enough story, but EON felt the need to dump more “formula” in to the recipe. Even more gadgets, like a grappling hook watch, lock picking credit card, and even x-ray specs. Yet another gadget laden car and action sequences featuring saw blade welding helicopters, and parachute snowmobiles.

This brings us to the much maligned DAD containing a whole host of gadgets and references to the previous 19 films shoehorned in just because. Now I’ve stated numerous times this film is not as bad as it’s made out to be, but even I must admit it’s not the best. (I’ll save what’s wrong for a future rant)

So in short what we have is a rather solid and decent start with GE being doubled down until we’re left with what could be described as a cake with every type of baking ingredient dumped in to the bowl wither it belonged there or not.


Let’s compare that to the CE starting with CR. Stripped of all of the Bond trappings we start anew with a “clean slate” as EON would have us believe, but even the most red eyed Craig hater will call this one his best. (Not that, that’s saying much) Here we’re given Bond’s beginnings, we learn how he got his double 0 status, and supposedly see what he was like before becoming the Bond we all know and love. And it’s downright subtle compared to the following offerings.

QOS is basically CR part 2, here EON doubles down with the continued Bond beginnings, because some how he didn’t begin enough in the previous installment almost like a two part pilot episode of a T.V. melodrama.

SF doubles down with origin stories for all the ancillary characters. M, Q, and Moneypenny all get back stories, as if they needed them, also more back story for Bond, ancestral manse, orphaned, and childhood caretaker all very Batman but we’ve beat that dead horse almost as much as EON. Since melodrama worked so well in the previous two we double down again with the childhood trauma I just mentioned and Dame Judy M’s death.

SP promises more of the same showing how Blofeld begins as well as more Bond childhood drama with competition for foster father’s favorite with BROfeld.


All of this is a long winded way of saying when something works for EON they pile it on until unable to support it’s own weight. In the BE, EON heaped on the “Bond formula” most likely out of inexperience due to Cubby the patriarchs absence. By the time the CE started EON was comfortable enough to change the recipe but not their style of cooking, which is as said, dumping in ingredients in larger and larger amounts until the dish is ruined.

I find this ham fisted production style rather ironic considering EON does nothing else but make Bond films. One film every 2-4 years and they can’t take the time to sit down and flesh out a good proper movie? The big studios have an excuse to drop a few bombs when they make dozens of movies a year, but EON has time to hand craft quality films. Instead we get the “Double Down Method”.

[bjmdds]

You said a mouthful Benny

[The Saint 007]

There are times in the past where the series got a bit too outlandish with You Only Live Twice and Moonraker, or even a bit too dark with Licence To Kill. But overall, I think the Bond formula was better mixed/balanced in the classic films than the films from the Brosnan era and onward. Connery and Moore were in more films than Brosnan, yet Brosnan had more gadget-laden cars than them. The various elements of the Bond formula was milked a little too much, and many got tired of it. Then the reboot completely changed the tone and stripped away most of the formula elements to the point where you can barely recognize them as Bond films.

I know that with Skyfall and even Spectre, the filmmakers add a bit more of the formula, but it just doesn't work for me with all the soap opera shenanigans mixed in. Hopefully, people will get tired of it soon.

[Veronica]

I once read the following comment:"Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies are a great combo. GE dismantled the character and TND picked him from the ground up"
That's a good point. Now,the thing is-the pre-production of TND began before even Goldeneye was released because they were veru confident about it.And why wouldn't they be,right? It really is a great movie and well...people's choice for Bond was here. One would think with that amount of time they would have a finished script when the shooting began...but no. On the day shooting began they was no complete script and cast.
Anthony Hopkins was first cast as Eliot Carver but then left because everything was hectict. Teri Hatcher was cast after the shooting began(I think MGM had a lot of influence on what actresses are going to be cast since in three Brosnan movies they were all chosen because of popularity in America and were Americans)..The final product is solid but they concluded there was too much action(I thought so too) so they wanted something more "character driven". Thing is I feel they wanted to test some uncharted waters(and they did) but then again they weren't 100% confident about that so we kinda have...akward ending that kinda makes the movie like a Shakespears play. And I feel most of the action was like shoehorned in the movie. The caviar factory being the best example. There was this one comment that I think exaplains things really well IMO":It feels like Apted is interested in working with some actors-especially Brosnan and Marceau-but isn't really interested in movie around them."
And the we have DAD-okay the beginning is great I have to tell. I really like things up to Cuba where the cracks start to show-a.k.a among other things Halle Berry opens her mouth. It feels like for 40th anniversary everything needs to be bigger. The set pieces have to be bigger,the action needs to be lauder,and the plot has to be more outrageous as well...I have to say I really love the title sequence(not Maddona song) the element of opposites-fire and ice is fantastic IMO.
Plus there the whole theory that we watch Bond's halucinations under torture. But the beginning ends up going nowhere and that "revenge" factor is forgotten once the billionare "Gustav Graves" enters the picture. I like the idea that the villain created his new "image" by basicaly copying Bond. That makes two of them more similar and the idea that our "hero" is actually somehow simillar with the antagonist is exciting.
Also the fact that the bad guy at the beginning said he despises the West and how it's pathetic that British still think they rule the world-he actually becomes a perfect example of a West oriented guy. I kinda felt the movie missed the irony of it maybe it was there but not expressly stated...because the script was dealing with uneccesary lasers(who looked way worse than the one in 1964) and that CGI(surfing?! They one at the beginning was actually real!) I don't know whats the point of speed ups and slow downs and and I don't get the whats and whys of villains plan...
Anyhow this led to (unecessary)"rebooting" the franchise becaise in Babs mind DAD flopped on the box office or something(say what you want about the movie but it did not flop on the box office) and three movies after that show one thing-Broccoli doesn't really know how to do this. When people complained about the lack of Bondness in QOS she brought some one liners,and Q and Moneypenny except they were of course different just like everything in the reboot.
She is just constantly rocking the boat...not really being confident what to do next.
She says EVERY SINGLE TIME how they are going back to Fleming...she is just constantly saying but I feel she just goes on a long cruise and leaves Purvis and Wade to write another "we are going back to Fleming this time" script and pays the people to propagand Craig as the best thing since Einstein.

P.S. and I really like Rosamund Pike's Miranda Frost. Several people said they moaned when she died instead of Jinx. I would like to join that group.

[ml94]

There are times in the past where the series got a bit too outlandish with You Only Live Twice and Moonraker, or even a bit too dark with Licence To Kill. But overall, I think the Bond formula was better mixed/balanced in the classic films than the films from the Brosnan era and onward. Connery and Moore were in more films than Brosnan, yet Brosnan had more gadget-laden cars than them. The various elements of the Bond formula was milked a little too much, and many got tired of it. Then the reboot completely changed the tone and stripped away most of the formula elements to the point where you can barely recognize them as Bond films.

I know that with Skyfall and even Spectre, the filmmakers add a bit more of the formula, but it just doesn't work for me with all the soap opera shenanigans mixed in. Hopefully, people will get tired of it soon.

Yeah, NO MORE cregg...

[Count_Lippe]

Re the Brosnan era, we've talked before about how these films had more action, explosions, gadget cars, other gadgets etc but lacked good scripts and the feel of the previous Bonds.

To make each new film bigger and more spectacular was what the producers did many times before as well though, so this aspect is in itself nothing new.

And I must say that the car chase in TND with the remote controlled BMW was actually very good, better and more Bondian than any other action scene of the Brosnan era.

[dirtybenny]

Re the Brosnan era, we've talked before about how these films had more action, explosions, gadget cars, other gadgets etc but lacked good scripts and the feel of the previous Bonds.

To make each new film bigger and more spectacular was what the producers did many times before as well though, so this aspect is in itself nothing new.

And I must say that the car chase in TND with the remote controlled BMW was actually very good, better and more Bondian than any other action scene of the Brosnan era.

Count, I'm certainly not bashing the Brosnan Era, there are many good, iconic scenes throughout the films, and your right the old guard at EON also built up each successive film to be bigger and better, I imagine this is where MGW and Babzy learned that. However they must have been absent the day class was given on how to properly do it and not just dump a whole pound of sugar in the cake batter because if a cup is good then...

[Count_Lippe]

Yes the new producers didn't have any feel at all for proper proportions.

[dirtybenny]

Rant 28

Lazy Days at EON

I couldn't sleep this evening so I banged together this addendum rant to the last one, where I spoke of the “Double Down” movie making method employed by EON, and as I said the “Double Down” method is to take a concept and continue to double it down until it can no longer support its own weight and the wheels fall off. This got me thinking what a lazy way to make films, and there are other lazy things that at least in my opinion they do.

Now I of course am only on the outside looking in, but from what I see, based on EON’s own press releases and documentaries is a slip shot production style of making a film, sitting on their hands awhile then getting around to the next one when absolutely necessary. I don’t know it seems pretty lackadaisical to me, I mean here I am, an ignorant fool, writing these stupid little rants for free and yet, I generally have 3-4 rolling around my head at all times ready for when I make time to put them in to black and white, meanwhile EON makes one product every odd year or so and can’t be bothered to have some ideas on standby.

They also stripped away the Bond formula, claiming it didn’t work anymore. I say they felt the collar was a little too tight having to come up with new ideas that fit the Bond mold, so they freed themselves of the constraint to fit in elements of the formula. It’s much easier to slap together any old story when it doesn’t need to fit a particular narrative.

For instance, the new guard at EON has been quoted as saying, “It’s harder and harder to come up with new gadgets when there are so many smartphone apps out there that can do what Bond gadgets used to.” Really? Because all espionage gadgets are phone based? Bond existed 30 years before the cellphone, and the prop department had no problems coming up with “analogue” gadgets, why are you? Cause it’s hard? With all the equipment and gadgets available to today’s Military, Law Enforcement, and Clandestine communities you can’t figure out something?

As I said before, EON does nothing else but make Bond films. Shouldn’t you have a technical advisor or two on the payroll to help you come up with these things? I’m sure there’s no shortage of retired spies, military officers, or heck even traffic cops who would love to earn a few bucks telling you all about even just the out dated, obsolete equipment they used to use, which would put the “gun and radio” from SF to shame!

OK, so gadgets are only a small part of what Bond used to be. What about the fun and adventure Bond used to represent? Well it’s hard to walk that balancing act between adventure and story, but it’s much easier to be angry and drab. I was watching an old episode of Top Gear, where Jeremy Clarkson was talking to his guest Michael Gambon about acting and conveying emotions. Clarkson said he could do angry but struggled with the others, to which he came to the sudden realization that “He could be Bond!” First off when was there a time previous to the reboot that your first thought of Bond would have been “angry man”? Bond has been described as suave, debonair, classy, and maybe even dangerous, but angry? It’s hard to convey those things in story, so it’s far easier to just have your star stomp around all “gloomy gus” and scowl at everyone while crying about his parental abandonment issues, rather than strike a balance of fun, adventure and story.

What should they be doing? As I said all they do is make Bond films, so in my humble opinion they need to do exactly what the old guard did, and assemble a permanent team at EON. Hire a capable journeyman director, who has no problem signing on for 5-10 or more years and give the series a narrative into the future, also a head writer who like Richard Maibaum, will provide an anchor and vision of where the franchise is going and guide any assisting writers who may come and go from the writing team.

I do know what’s not working is this lazy, lackluster, “come as you are” production style of bringing aboard whatever cinematic mercenary or “artistic” gun for hire to bodge together some unintelligible, gloom and doom, plot hole infested, suicide note.

[The Saint 007]

The filmmakers are too concerned with exploring Bond more than the world of Bond. It's almost like reading fan fiction from some web comic site. I know some people feel it's necessary to get deeper into Bond's character, especially with the new trend of film heroes being more emotional and whatnot, but how far can you go with this? Unlike soap operas that come weekly or even daily, the Bond films are made at least every three years, making the whole character exploration thing even more tedious. It's not a very good strategy for the long-term, and I think it's about time we get back to the adventurous style of the Connery and Moore films.

I agree with you in regards to the gadgets and the old film crew. Some of the gadgets now are just poor versions of the older ones, and the old filmmakers were more like a family unit who understood the Bond formula better, in my opinion.

[Veronica]

The filmmakers are too concerned with exploring Bond more than the world of Bond. It's almost like reading fan fiction from some web comic site. I know some people feel it's necessary to get deeper into Bond's character, especially with the new trend of film heroes being more emotional and whatnot, but how far can you go with this? Unlike soap operas that come weekly or even daily, the Bond films are made at least every three years, making the whole character exploration thing even more tedious. It's not a very good strategy for the long-term, and I think it's about time we get back to the adventurous style of the Connery and Moore films.

I agree with you in regards to the gadgets and the old film crew. Some of the gadgets now are just poor versions of the older ones, and the old filmmakers were more like a family unit who understood the Bond formula better, in my opinion.

As you said Saint,I think it's much harder for Babs and Co. to make traditional Bond movie than these mish-mashes of Bourne and Batman.This way they even get the praise for "creativity" with Bond character even though that's not James Bond anymore at all.It's visible that they struggled after GE,not really sure where to go next.Just watch the line of "TND-TWINE-DAD." When they thought TND was too action heavy they wanted to make something more character driven.They tested uncharted waters and yet weren't confident enough.I don't know what they were trying to do with DAD.The only theory I have that it was a big,loud 40th anniversary party for Bond.What angers me is that they use that single movie as a reason for a reboot and that's to say at least moronic and ridiculous.

[Kristatos]

Yes, I think I've said before that the Craig films are films about James Bond, not James Bond films. Although even that doesn't quite work, because they've changed the character of Bond, to make him a psychopath.

[The Saint 007]

As you said Saint,I think it's much harder for Babs and Co. to make traditional Bond movie than these mish-mashes of Bourne and Batman.This way they even get the praise for "creativity" with Bond character even though that's not James Bond anymore at all.It's visible that they struggled after GE,not really sure where to go next.Just watch the line of "TND-TWINE-DAD." When they thought TND was too action heavy they wanted to make something more character driven.They tested uncharted waters and yet weren't confident enough.I don't know what they were trying to do with DAD.The only theory I have that it was a big,loud 40th anniversary party for Bond.What angers me is that they use that single movie as a reason for a reboot and that's to say at least moronic and ridiculous.

As I mentioned previously, it's very much like fan fiction, and not very good either. I feel that there's still so much that could be done with Bond, but the filmmakers seem to lack the interest and creativity to do anything exciting. But from their perspective, why go back to the old formula that you found difficult to work with, when you can just make fan fiction soap operas and get more money and praise for it?

As for Die Another Day, even though it's my least favourite of the first twenty films, I still don't think it was so bad that a massive reboot was needed. Since it was the last film before the reboot, it's naturally the one that people will most of the time refer to in regards to the classic Bond formula and why it's so bad and dated. But it's really the filmmakers who are the problem here, not the formula. I actually read a comment the other day where someone also said how the Bond formula was better balanced and mixed in the older films, and that the various elements of the formula feel tacked on in the new films.

[shaken not stirred]

Saint007: True bond did not need a reboot after die another day, it was forced and uneeded (still is, bond is not a comic book hero he has one timeline and it should've been respected and left alone).

Back on this when bad films came out they just got better writers instead of the horrible term reboot that's used in almost soddin everything today, when Cubby was around they didn't reboot bond after diamonds are forever, moonraker, octopussy, etc so why do it now, I think it was simply done to get on the bourne (I spend most of my time jumping rooftops (or rooftop man) trilogy which after the original is about as exciting as hearing that stupid I'm batman meme again that's used too much now (ie he can survive space..cause he's batman).

Also yeah the filmmakers just don't know or want to make bond fun anymore, serious, serious, quick bad quip, then serious, bloody hell I mean spooks has more lightheartedness than todays bond.

The irony is when you see Roger Moore as the clown in octopussy looking sad instead of himself that's exactly what you see in todays one a character who pretty much has that one expression that pretty much says kill Me written all over his face.

[dirtybenny]

The irony is when you see Roger Moore as the clown in octopussy looking sad instead of himself that's exactly what you see in todays one a character who pretty much has that one expression that pretty much says kill Me written all over his face.

Yes Craig is most definitely a Sad Clown!

[dirtybenny]

Rant 29

Teaser Poster





Much has been said about Craig’s outfit in this poster throughout the internet, many compare it to Roger Moore’s similar look in LALD, and there is a strong resemblance. However the really telling thing though, is it’s similarity to Steve McQueen’s turtleneck and holster look from Bullitt. Yet I haven’t seen too many comparisons to him, whereas 4-5 years ago cyberspace would have been awash with exclamations, exalting Craig as the new “King of Cool” as McQueen is known.

But I’m not really concerned with Craig’s apparent loss of McQueen swagger here; no it’s the other details that have me intrigued/perturbed.

Let us start with the smallest and yet maybe the most aggravating one to me, personally. The watch, or should I say the watch band, on the one hand (sorry pun intended) it’s a perfect tribute. It’s similarity to the one Connery wears in GF and TB is very close. Its details like this, that EON should have been making all along, if they simply must make nods and homages to past installments, rather than recreate whole scenes and set pieces from older and far superior films. My problem with it is it’s executed in such a forced, staged manner. Look at it, so perfectly exposed from under the sleeve. Who wears their watch like that? Placed just so, sleeve barely touching it so we can all get an eyeful. A more natural way to show it off would have been to have the sleeves pushed up exposing the forearms; it would also help with the “rough and tumble” image Craig fans are so rabid for.

Then there’s the outfit itself, who goes into combat in a cashmere sweater and gabardine slacks? Well, James Bond would I suppose, but it, like the watch seems too “forced”. It’s so out of place in front of that nondescript background, not offering any context as to why he’s so dapperly dressed. By the way, can you find a lazier, more uninspired, setting? Just the color gray, what’s the matter, misplace the white one? Where’d you find this photographer the Sears department store portrait studio, or Glamor Shots? No they couldn’t have, cause those guys have a lot more talent!


That unsettling, creepy, legs akimbo stance, as if to say “Hey ladies, and certain gentlemen, here it is, check it out, it’s right there” combined with the blank thousand yard, stares right through your soul, expression doesn’t do much to help the cause either.

Speaking of touched up photos, the eyes have definitely been “brightened” and his skin looks out of place too, almost the sort of gray pallor one might find more at home in a morgue rather than a non-zombie movie poster. The hands also don’t quite match up, especially the left one; it stands out next to the pants as if placed there digitally. I can’t decide if this is all the result of poor Photoshop or extremely awful photography.

In the end I’m left with the question, why? Why did the studio waste the minutes it took to slap this thing together? I don’t know if it piques anyone’s interest in seeing the movie, if it does, I can’t honestly see why!

[The Saint 007]

Even some of the most hardcore Craig fans would agree with you on this subject, Benny. Yes, it's just a teaser poster, but when comparing it to some of the teaser posters from the past, especially the illustrated ones, it's very uninspired to put it mildly. The Spectre posters I've seen created by the non-paid fans are far more creative. This again just shows how pretty much every aspect of the Craig Bond era lacks the old magic the series once had. But as long as they show off a few classic Bond references in the trailers, people will still get excited enough to go see the film anyway.

[Veronica]

Even some of the most hardcore Craig fans would agree with you on this subject, Benny. Yes, it's just a teaser poster, but when comparing it to some of the teaser posters from the past, especially the illustrated ones, it's very uninspired to put it mildly. The Spectre posters I've seen created by the non-paid fans are far more creative. This again just shows how pretty much every aspect of the Craig Bond era lacks the old magic the series once had. But as long as they show off a few classic Bond references in the trailers, people will still get excited enough to go see the film anyway.

You are spot on Saint!

[shaken not stirred]

That spectre poster looks more like bond is trying to sell an after shave funnily enough called spectre: an after shave by blofelt, perfume deu evile.

[dirtybenny]

Rant 30

The Bond “Theme”

I remember a time not too long ago when the Bond theme was a piece of music played over an action sequence. (Or in the case of FRWL while Bond checks in to a hotel. ) However that all changed when ‘Bond fan number 1” Sam Mendes took over the reins.

When Mendes made SF he said the theme of the film was “the old ways are the best ways”. That’s something I find highly ironic considering how EON spent the previous six years putting as much distance between them and “old” Bond. The movie was bloated with the sort of hit you over the head tropes employed by first year film school students. Bond shaves with a “traditional” straight razor while being referred to an “old dog” with “new tricks”, MI6 is considered “old fashioned”, just to name but a few, they even go so far as to say it verbatim when Alfred, err, I mean Kinkaid produces a knife while the group evaluate their weapons before the Home Alone, A-Team, MacGyveresque finale.

That was bad enough, but in SP the theme is Bond needs to “get a life”. WOW! REALLY!?!? If James Bond, suave, debonair, globetrotting super spy who travels to far off exotic locals, where he beds gorgeous women, all the while subverting an evil megalomaniac’s plan for world destruction, needs to “get a life” by contrast I suppose with my absolutely dull dreary existence, I should just pack it all in, cause life ain’t getting any better then.

Look I get it; as much as I love the “Bond lifestyle” I would never trade away my personal Bond girl, my “partner in crime” Mrs. Benny for it. Bond’s bouncing from one bed to another is fine when one is young but isn’t conducive to lasting happiness when you grow older. I know living like Bond would be an ultimately lonely endeavor. I’m sure in Spectre we’ll be exposed to the prospects that Bond, through his jet setting ways is destined to die alone, a broken and bitter man because he never slowed down long enough to “find true love”. But Bond is fantasy.

A few rants ago I likened Bond films to high quality cheese burgers, today I’ll make another analogy, and forgive me for being a bit vulgar, but I think it particularly fits here. Bond is like pornography. That is to say its sole purpose is to entertain and fulfill a fantasy. The audience doesn’t care about the failed, loveless marriage causing the lonely house wife to stray, nor do they care about the possibility that the cable repairman may become despondent over the fact that, due to whatever circumstances, she won’t leave her husband and they can never truly be together. While watching they simply want to spend the next few minutes projecting themselves on to the well-endowed young man making love to the buxom beauty before their eyes or vice versa. They don’t want to contemplate how completely empty an existence the characters are leading. And that is what Bond is, I want to project myself on to the man who “every man wants to be, and every woman wants to be with” not ponder the consequences of leading such a gaudy and bawdy existence.