Author Topic: Bond v. Russell  (Read 3162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2011, 10:57:45 PM »
Okay. What if Russell was capable of and given the chance to direct the next Bond film. What might we get.

Like the Bond novel "Moonraker," we might finally get a film that is set entirely in the U.K. The good guys can have their HQ in Thor's Cave, and the bad guys can have their HQ at the bottom of Windermere.

We might get a film with better acting in it. Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance in "Women in Love," and Ann-Margret was nominated for an Oscar for her performance in "Tommy." I have never known anyone to win an Oscar for acting or even being nominated for their acting in any of the Bond films.

We might get a film with better writing. One of the best known features of the Bond films is Bond's double entendres. There was Roger Moore's, when he wanted a man to talk, pointing his gun at the man's groin and saying: "Speak now or forever hold your piece." Any others? That's what I thought. While just in "Lair of the White Worm" we have "'Do you have children? -- 'Only when there are no men around.'" and "'How do you rate the music?' -- 'I'm not really into headbanging.' -- 'Are you into any kind of banging?'"

Almost everyother aspect of the Bonds films should be about the same as Russell's previous films, except for . . .

The SFX, which have, for the most part, never been that good in any of Russell's films. And the opening credits, which for the most part have been more memorable in the Bond films than in Russell's films. But I would like to see what the opening credits would look like in a Bond film directed by Russell. We would have battalions of naked nuns marching across the screen. Though, how you would know they were nuns, when they were naked, is anybody's guess. We would have snakes shaping themselves into the numbers 007., etc.

And this concludes this thread. Next time: Russell's 10 Best Sex Scenes

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2011, 09:10:46 PM »
Reflections of the world as it existed vs. Reflections of the individualistic idiosyncrasies of the director

Bond
Once more as pointed out in Sinclair McKay's "The Man with the Golden Touch," the Bond films somewhat reflect the world at the time the films were made.

Russell
If you take his films that are set primarily in America, such as "Whore" (1991), "Crimes of Passion" (1984), "Altered States" (1980), and "Valentino" (1977), even though "Valentino" is somewhat historical, they reflect not so much an America that existed at such time that the films were made, but the individualistic idiosyncrasies of the director. And as audiences normally prefer a film that reflects a world that then exists, that's . . .

Bond 6 Russell 0

Sorry, Mr. Russell. Bond wins this one.

Excluding "Trapped Ashes," Russell did direct "Billion Dollar Brain," which has similiarities to the Bond films as it is set in contemporary times and features international locations and has reflections of the world that existed at the time it was made. Thus, what could we expect if Russell was offered and capable of directing the next Bond film. We'll take that up next time.

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2011, 08:31:49 PM »
Contemporary vs. historical

Bond: films set in contemporary times.

Russell . . . ? Historical

Gothic
Lisztomania
Mahler
Savage Messiah
The Devils
The Music Lovers
Women in Love

And we know that film audiences prefer contemporary films to historical films, that's . . .

Bond 5 Russell 0

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2011, 11:12:39 PM »
"Bond: The same guns, girls, gadgets, etc.

Russell: as for Ken, he seldom does the same film twice."

A cynic (and there are lots of Ken cynics) would say "Russell: the same nuns, crucifixes, priests etc".


Don't you just love cynics, as they're so cynical. But, there may be some truth to that, especially in regards to nuns. But how many of Ken's theatrical films feature nuns? I can only think of "French Dressing," "The Devils," and "Lair of the White Worm." Any others?

As for Bond: films set in international locations for the most part.

Ken: films set exclusively in the U.K.

"The Lair of the White Worm," "Salome's Last Dance," "Aria," Tommy,"
"French Dressing"

And as we know as audiences around the world probably prefer films set in international locations, as opposed to films set solely in the U.K. That's . . .

Bond 4 Russell 0

To be continued . . .

Offline Iain Fisher

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1519
    • Iain Fisher
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2011, 03:15:46 PM »
"Bond: The same guns, girls, gadgets, etc.

Russell: as for Ken, he seldom does the same film twice."

A cynic (and there are lots of Ken cynics) would say "Russell: the same nuns, crucifixes, priests etc".

Offline Iain Fisher

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1519
    • Iain Fisher
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2011, 01:46:51 AM »
"Bond: Well, as Sinclair McKay points out in his book "The Man with the Golden Touch," the Bond films are actually family films. Films, for the most part, you can take the whole family to see."

I agree with two exceptions, the begining and the end.  Sean Connery started the series and he had a cynicism much harsher than rival Harry Palmer (Ken destroyed the rival with his disastrous Billion Dollar Brain).  And the end (well the end so far) with Daniel Craig which takes the series to a new edge closer to the first novels.  His comment in Casino Royale "the bitch is dead" is the last line of the novel and shows how much his love for the girl, then her betrayal, affected him and destroyed his emotions.

In between Roger Moore turned the series into family fodder with the following Bonds not doing too much to change this (this invisble car!!).

Offline Iain Fisher

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1519
    • Iain Fisher
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2011, 10:04:41 PM »
The Rainbow shown at a childrens festival!!!

Ken should do a film about this.

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2011, 09:42:16 PM »
Bond: Well, as Sinclair McKay points out in his book "The Man with the Golden Touch," the Bond films are actually family films. Films, for the most part, you can take the whole family to see.

Russell: Ken on the other hand, except for "The Rainbow" which was confused with another film with the same title and shown at a children's film festival, the only film the whole family can see is probably "The Boy Friend,' and that's not really a family film.

And as you want as broad an audience you can for your film, that's . . .

Bond 3 Russell 0

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Bond v. Russell
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2011, 12:07:05 AM »
Bond: The same guns, girls, gadgets, etc.

Russell: as for Ken, he seldom does the same film twice.

And as we know audiences prefer something similiar to something different. That's . . .

Bond 2 Russell 0

To be continued . . .

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Bond v. Russell
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2011, 09:40:30 PM »
There are certain similiarities between the Bond films and the theatrical films directed by Ken Russell. The first Bond film came out in 1962. The first theatrical film directed by Ken Russell was released in 1964. To date, there have been 22 Bond films, and 20 theatrical films directed by Ken. And the last Bond film was in 2008, and the last theatrical film directed by Ken was in 2006. Therefore, why have the Bond films grossed so much more at the box office than Ken's films?

Well, as Sinclair McKay points out in his book "The Man with the Golden Touch," while the Bond films may seem smart, they are actually stupid. On the other hand, Ken's film may seem to be stupid, but they are actually smart. And as we know that audiences--for the most part--prefer something stupid to something smart, that's . . .

Bond 1 Russell 0

To be continued . , ,