28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[number8]

Pairing a leading black man with a female is hard? It's James Bond. Just have him fuck a rainbow of women and put all of them on the poster.

[baby doll]

Infernal Affairs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Departed

That's not saying much. Tight, unpretentious genre picture > bloated self parody.

[Rowland]

I've only seen a handful of To, which I'd rank as Exiled being the best followed closely by Mad Detective, with Vengeance being more problematic but still dazzlingly directed, and lastly Breaking News which left me kinda indifferent.

[Watashi]

I want to see Take Shelter so bad.

[Skitch]

Irish, you make me laugh. Mostly because I think you really believe what you're saying is true.

[Irish]

Pairing a leading black man with a female is hard? It's James Bond. Just have him fuck a rainbow of women and put all of them on the poster.

Then your movie becomes "too ethnic" and you risk alienating white audiences.

Did you think it was just happenstance that you never see white women paired with ethnic men in mainstream movies and tv shows?

Take something like Pelican Brief. Two of the best looking performers in the country in their prime, at the height of their careers, and they barely give each other a glance. Do you think that plays the same way with different racial dynamics? If the two leads had been white, do you think producers would have spun the story differently?

Take Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider. Middle age man and comely young woman ... Same thing. They behave like automatons.

But you look over at other movies with different dynamics, you see plenty middle aged guys sexing up younger women. The only difference is ... They're both white. (eg Sean Connery, Michael Douglas, and Jack Nicholson opposite Catherine Zeta Jones, Demi Moore, and Helen Hunt, respectively).

That's not an accident, and it's not because minority actors aren't capable or interested in performing those kind of roles.

Glover wants Spidey and I'm sure Elba would love to be Bond. They won't get the chance because nobody green lighting this shit is going to risk their job by taking a massive gamble on marketplace perceptions.

[Llopin]

Johnnie To film rankings? Yehey.

Exiled > The Mission > Election 2 > Mad Detective > Election > Running Out of Time > PTU > Breaking News > Justice, My Foot! > Vengeance > The Heroic Trio

I'd like to see more of his romcoms/HK extravaganzas. I didn't find Breaking News to be that compelling besides the first scene, which is expertly shot. It certainly isn't one of his most impressive efforts.

[Ezee E]

people either need to stop engaging irish in arguments or start kicking into my advil fund.

Strong point.

I apologize.

Also... Tyler Perry. :lol: And yes, Doubtfire was a success, but not for Brosnan's 12 minutes of screentime on it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Remington Steele is on Hulu. Watch 10 minutes of any episode and you'll see why everyone thinks "James Bond" as soon as Brosnon walks in the room. The show got middlin' ratings, but it was high profile and got a ton of press, mostly because Brosnan was a newcomer and managed to steal all the attention away from costar Stephanie Zimbalist, who was supposed to be the star.

Doubtfire was a huge success.

Your definition of the word "bankable" must be a lot different than mine. A TV show that received moderate ratings at best and a bit part as the foil (who spends the entire film being abused, completely against type for Bond) in a hugely successful movie doesn't translate into someone who can carry a $100-200 million movie.

Brosnan was successful because Bond is an established franchise. The first Dalton Bond, The Living Daylights (1987), cleared $50 million, which puts it right in the middle as far as Bond box office receipts, ahead of A View to Kill (1985) and just shy of For Your Eyes Only (1981) and Never Say Never Again (1983). When the public decided they didn't care for Dalton, they voiced that opinion by not showing up for his second go. Outside of Lazenby, once the franchise had been solidified by Connery, a new Bond's first film was successful every time, despite "bankability," which I still maintain you're stretching the definition of pretty thin.

You can argue race, and that's something I would probably agree would be a tough sell to the American public, but your assertion that Bond has to be played by a bankable star is incorrect.

[Russ]

Sterne / Stars (Konrad Wolf, 1959) ****

Masterpiece.

A great film that I'll be championing for quite some time: an East German/Bulgarian co-production that valiantly presents a humanized portrait of wartime relationships juxtaposed against the backdrop of Auschwitz-themed wartime atrocities. A compassionate look at the sympathizers (of all nationalities) involved in German occupied Bulgaria as Jews are being held for tansportation to Poland. A suppressed romance between a sensitive German corporal (Jürgen Frohriep) and a brave Jewish prisoner (terrific performance by Sasha Krusharska) is at the center of this devastating account of inhuman injustice. The evolution of Frohriep's character from indifferent participant to sympathetic confidant to willing conspirator is both courageous and remarkable. But here's the icing on the cake: this is an absolutely amazing job by East German director Konrad Wolf -- including some incredible long tracking shots, beautifully atmosperhic and poetic scenes, expert use of close-ups and deep focus -- why haven't I ever heard of this guy? And for his effort, Wolf was nominated for the 1959 Cannes Palme d'Or (he won the Grand Prize of the Jury).

[Irish]

Your definition of the word "bankable" must be a lot different than mine. A TV show that received moderate ratings at best and a bit part as the foil (who spends the entire film being abused, completely against type for Bond) in a hugely successful movie doesn't translate into someone who can carry a $100-200 million movie.

Brosnan was successful because Bond is an established franchise. The first Dalton Bond, The Living Daylights (1987), cleared $50 million, which puts it right in the middle as far as Bond box office receipts, ahead of A View to Kill (1985) and just shy of For Your Eyes Only (1981) and Never Say Never Again (1983). When the public decided they didn't care for Dalton, they voiced that opinion by not showing up for his second go. Outside of Lazenby, once the franchise had been solidified by Connery, a new Bond's first film was successful every time, despite "bankability," which I still maintain you're stretching the definition of pretty thin.

You can argue race, and that's something I would probably agree would be a tough sell to the American public, but your assertion that Bond has to be played by a bankable star is incorrect.

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B...office_results

The series was in decline when Dalton was hired (Moore was pushing 60 toward the end of his run). He got a small bump from being the new guy, but then it declined again with his second outing. Lazenby's turn was the worst performing Bond up to that time.

I'm using bankable to mean someone who's known to the public and has got a proven track record as a lead in and out of the industry. Elba doesn't have that at all. His biggest American project was as a supporting player with less than 10 minutes of screen time and mostly notable because he was a black guy playing a Norse god.

Were any Bonds as bankable (in terms of guaranteed return) as a Will Smith or a Tom Cruise? No, but that's not what I've been arguing. The guys who succeeded in the role all had strong public visibility and some kind of track record as leads. Elba doesn't. Even if you reduce "bankable" to mean pure name recognition, Elba doesn't meet the criteria.

On top of that there's the racial issue, which exists even if people don't want to acknowledge it. It's not an accident that a majority of the leads on tv cop shows and action movies are white (and male).

PS: Never Say Never wasn't technically a Bond film, not being produced by Eon.

PPS: Still eagerly waiting for your list, ETM.

[Rowland]

Speaking of Bond, I just rewatched Dr. No a few weeks ago. I still don't care for it too much, but it is admittedly charming in its lo-fi way, and for its relative innocence in that everyone involved is obviously still fumbling to capture what would become the Bond formula. The pacing is abysmal however, and it's hilariously racist.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B...office_results

The series was in decline when Dalton was hired (Moore was pushing 60 toward the end of his run). He got a small bump from being the new guy, but then it declined again with his second outing. Lazenby's turn was the worst performing Bond up to that time.

This is exactly what I said in my post. Did you read my post? The point of it was that a new Bond almost always (Lazenby excepted) puts up solid numbers because it's Bond. Elba could do the same, despite not being "bankable." If the audience then thinks you make a good Bond (Dalton didn't), they'll keep showing up, a lá Moore, Brosnan, Craig, and Connery. This refutes your claim that the actor playing Bond has to be a bankable star in order for the franchise to make money.

I'm using bankable to mean someone who's known to the public and has got a proven track record as a lead in and out of the industry. Elba doesn't have that at all. His biggest American project was as a supporting player with less than 10 minutes of screen time and mostly notable because he was a black guy playing a Norse god.

Were any Bonds as bankable (in terms of guaranteed return) as a Will Smith or a Tom Cruise? No, but that's not what I've been arguing. The guys who succeeded in the role all had strong public visibility and some kind of track record as leads. Elba doesn't. Even if you reduce "bankable" to mean pure name recognition, Elba doesn't meet the criteria.

MY argument is that Bond doesn't need a "bankable" actor in order to pull in BO numbers. Brosnan wasn't bankable, if we're using the bolded definition above. He hadn't carried any film, and considering this is film, that's what matters. Television success doesn't translate into box office success. He carried Remmington Steele to mediocre ratings. Just because there was some clamoring for him to take the role doesn't mean the general public showed up because it was Brosnan. There's clamoring for Nathan Fillion to play Nathan Drake. If they give him the role, they haven't given it to a "bankable" star just because a particular audience wants him and he is the lead on Castle. Audiences showed up for Brosnan because it was Bond, same as they did for Dalton's first go. They liked Brosnan in the role (and not Dalton), so they kept coming back. Craig wasn't a "bankable" star, again by your definition. He hadn't carried anything noteworthy as a lead prior to Casino Royale. Audiences showed up for Bond, liked him in the role, and they came back a second time. Elba could see the same result if given the chance (and again, this isn't taking into account the racial element, something I'm not arguing against, because unfortunately I'm inclined to agree that it would hurt the BO numbers).

On top of that there's the racial issue, which exists even if people don't want to acknowledge it. It's not an accident that a majority of the leads on tv cop shows and action movies are white (and male).

And again, sadly, I'm not arguing this. That would most probably be a hurdle, and a difficult one.

PS: Never Say Never wasn't technically a Bond film, not being produced by Eon.

You're arguing semantics. It's considered by just about everyone who doesn't care about producing (which is 99% of filmgoers) as a Bond film.

[Irish]

KF, it comes down to this: Nobody knows who Elba is. If it makes you feel better, we can throw out my use of "bankable" completely, and still no one knows who Elba is.

Brosnan had the lead in six movies, two tv miniseries, and a supporting role in a smash hit before he got Bond. This on top of Steele. Craig had Layer Cake and supporting roles in two Spielberg movies, among others, going back half a decade. He might not have had the visibility of Brosnan, but people still knew who he was. These were guys with track records and name recognition.

Your other points are well taken, but again nobody is going to put a half billion dollar franchise into the hands of an unknown. They've tried that before and it didn't work. Introducing a new Bond is a risky venture. They want someone who can carry the series for a least 4 movies or more. You're sure as hell not to going to gamble on an invisible actor pushing 40, especially in the current market environment.

If you want to think about it in the starkest way possible, Bond is one of the best jobs Eon and MGM has to offer. Why would you give your best position to an employee with zero experience?

PS: I wasn't really trying to argue semantics about Never Say Never, but it's essentially professionally done fan fic. It only got made because of a legal loophole around the name "James Bond" and is a remake of Thunderball. On several levels, it's not really a Bond film, just a fun bit of trivia.

[Ezee E]

I'll still venture to say that people at least recognize Idris Elba. The Wire has a significant amount of people that have at least seen it at some point. He's had significant roles since 2007, both TV and film. Let's talk The Office, Luther, Takers, Thor, and the upcoming Ghost Rider, Prometheus, and Guillermo Del Toro's next film. By the time the Bond movie would come out, he WOULD be recognizable.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Irish, I'm not arguing that Elba should or will get the gig. I agree that he won't. I just think you're severely overrating Brosnan and Craig's status with the general populace before they became Bond, and disagree with the assertion by you that someone without established status could bring in an audience. Bond is the established status.

[Qrazy]

I'll still venture to say that people at least recognize Idris Elba. The Wire has a significant amount of people that have at least seen it at some point. He's had significant roles since 2007, both TV and film. Let's talk The Office, Luther, Takers, Thor, and the upcoming Ghost Rider, Prometheus, and Guillermo Del Toro's next film. By the time the Bond movie would come out, he WOULD be recognizable.

He was in American Gangster as well.

[Kurosawa Fan]

He was in American Gangster as well.

28 Weeks Later, as well as a Tyler Perry movie, in which he was the lead. Certainly more recognizable than Daniel Craig when he became Bond.

[Sycophant]

Infernal Affairs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Departed

Very much agreed. Lau directed a tight, personal-feeling thriller. Scorsese made a tone-deaf chunk of bloat.

[Irish]

28 Weeks Later, as well as a Tyler Perry movie, in which he was the lead. Certainly more recognizable than Daniel Craig when he became Bond.

I was with you on your last post, but not this. If I'm overreaching in arguing the visibility of Brosnan, you've just lept over the Grand Canyon with this post here.

Elba has done no significant, mainstream film work. Afaik, he's only been cast as the lead in Luther. He's entirely obscure outside a small cabal of BBC and Wire fans (like the people on this board).

I can guarantee you that if you randomly walked around and asked 50 people who he was, first by name and then by showing them a picture, about 3 would recognize him. The general public doesn't keep crazy track of this stuff like we do. (When Elba is on the cover of Entertainment Weekly or heading up his own Jason Statham style actioners, then it's a different story).

(Also, the existence of Tyler Perry is sad commentary on what I was talking about a few pages back. I don't begrudge him the success, but he's essentially succeeding by specifically marketing movies to a segregated audience. Unfortunately, the more money he makes the more that sort of media and self-segregation continues.)

[Derek]

I can guarantee you that if you randomly walked around and asked 50 people who he was, first by name and then by showing them a picture, about 3 would recognize him.

Hey, just like Daniel Craig before he was Bond!

[Bosco B Thug]

I've only skim-read the current argument, but I think I'm with Irish here. Having not watched The Wire, I have very little idea of Idris Elba. Surely Daniel Craig had a celebrity presence when he became Bond, he was in so many high-profile movies.

[Qrazy]

I've only skim-read the current argument, but I think I'm with Irish here. Having not watched The Wire, I have very little idea of Idris Elba. Surely Daniel Craig had a celebrity presence when he became Bond, he was in so many high-profile movies.

Get your life in order.

[Qrazy]

I can guarantee you that if you randomly walked around and asked 50 people who he was, first by name and then by showing them a picture, about 3 would recognize him. The general public doesn't keep crazy track of this stuff like we do. (When Elba is on the cover of Entertainment Weekly or heading up his own Jason Statham style actioners, then it's a different story).

Statistics don't work because the researcher guarantees their hypothesis to be the case. Go do that and then we'll see, not that it matters because even if you're right about his obscurity as has been pointed out the other Bond actors were also fairly obscure.

[Ezee E]

Funny that my post was ignored about how he's getting top billing in three big budget Hollywood movies next year.

And also being a temp boss on one of the biggest sitcoms of America.

But it's okay.