Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   Don't EVER let Wes Anderson direct a James Bond film   (theverge.com ) divider line 65
    More: Stupid, Wes Anderson, James Bond, Tilda Swinton, Owen Wilson  
•       •       •

5129 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Feb 2014 at 9:11 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 08:24:13 PM  
How quirky.
 
2014-02-28 08:55:04 PM  
I think Murray would be better as Blofeld.
 
2014-02-28 09:18:10 PM  
Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?
 
2014-02-28 09:21:05 PM  

juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?


Humor makes them funny.
 
2014-02-28 09:21:11 PM  
What Anderson described would make a fine opening scene. Hell, I'd even watch a short of an Anderson Bond film. Anything more than that... errr...
 
2014-02-28 09:23:44 PM  
I'm currently reading the Bond books (in order) and in Casino Royale NOTHING happens.  The first 100 pages are the Baccarat game.  Then like the movie he gets kidnapped and hit in the balls.  Then the last 90 pages he recovers from getting hit in the balls.

Seriously.

Live and Let Die is a little better, if not one of the most racist books I've ever read (see chapter 7).  He at least travels a little in that one.  But most of the book he's on a train.
 
2014-02-28 09:28:35 PM  
I thought Skyfall covered this idea pretty well.
 
2014-02-28 09:32:09 PM  
 
2014-02-28 09:32:22 PM  
Wow the admins must be drunk.........How the hell did this get greenlit?
 
2014-02-28 09:33:36 PM  

Mentat: I thought Skyfall covered this idea pretty well.


Came here to say pretty much this.
 
2014-02-28 09:36:17 PM  
The Espionage Agent and His Stirring Adventure.
 
2014-02-28 09:39:34 PM  
Wes is great at doing Wes films.  But I'd abandon the series if they ever let him get his hands on Bond.
 
2014-02-28 09:42:28 PM  
Wes Anderson's James Bond: Agent the Seventh Traipses after Demur Hipster who Divulged Adorable Secret (featuring Bond girl Ms. Ogyny S. Awkward).

Also with special cameo by BM as the landlord, Rikki Tikki Sir Pantsalot MacKenzie

And a soundtrack featuring bands you've never heard of except for that one song you might have heard once at your friend's parents' house
 
2014-02-28 09:42:36 PM  
.....except most of the Bond movies aren't even about the cold war.
 
2014-02-28 09:46:14 PM  

SoupGuru: juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?

Humor makes them funny.


his new movie looks good. I loved the Darjeeling limited and moonrise kingdom.
 
2014-02-28 09:51:54 PM  

coachwdb: Wes is great at doing Wes films.  But I'd abandon the series if they ever let him get his hands on Bond.


You understand that this was just a comedy bit he was doing for the interview. Right?

juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?


People who are very literal have a hard time with Anderson films. Not meaning this as any kind of insult ... it is just that Wes Anderson films require you to accept the reality that he defines in each movie. If you are concerned that characters or situations need to be realistic then his films may not be for you.

He is one of my favorite film makers.
 
2014-02-28 09:59:43 PM  
Now that Fry and Laurie are hot properties once again, opportunity knocks for the Bond franchise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flyNZJEVM60&feature=player_detailpage
 
2014-02-28 10:04:46 PM  
Now Wes Craven directing a Bond film..........
 
2014-02-28 10:09:24 PM  

Farking Canuck: People who are very literal have a hard time with Anderson films. Not meaning this as any kind of insult ... it is just that Wes Anderson films require you to accept the reality that he defines in each movie. If you are concerned that characters or situations need to be realistic then his films may not be for you.


None taken, but I don't see how this differs from any other movie.  All fiction requires you to accept a fictional reality to some extent.  To me, WA's films just come off as pretentious rather than humorous.  There is humor in some of the lines, but many, if not most, of the characters are just plain unlikeable.
 
2014-02-28 10:18:29 PM  

juvandy: Farking Canuck: People who are very literal have a hard time with Anderson films. Not meaning this as any kind of insult ... it is just that Wes Anderson films require you to accept the reality that he defines in each movie. If you are concerned that characters or situations need to be realistic then his films may not be for you.

None taken, but I don't see how this differs from any other movie.  All fiction requires you to accept a fictional reality to some extent.  To me, WA's films just come off as pretentious rather than humorous.  There is humor in some of the lines, but many, if not most, of the characters are just plain unlikeable.


I agree that you have to accept the rules that are established for any film (i.e. Superman is an alien that can fly). But I think that Anderson takes it a little further by putting twists on every day people/places/events that rubs people the wrong way.

That's my best thought as to why people have strong negative reactions to his films. I find them both brilliant and funny so maybe I'm not going to be able to answer this for you.
 
2014-02-28 10:22:05 PM  
I wikied him, and it turns out he's hardly even made any movies, I haven't seen any of them, and the only one I've even heard of is Rushmore.

Why has anyone heard of this guy? Is it a hipster thing?
 
2014-02-28 10:27:01 PM  
Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.
 
2014-02-28 10:29:37 PM  

CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.


I dunno. The Daniel Craig movies seem more true to the spirit of the original stories.

Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?
 
2014-02-28 10:37:30 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?


Nah, Brosnan was a fine Bond. That last movie sucked though. The video games with him doing the voice would have made good films.
 
2014-02-28 10:40:58 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.

I dunno. The Daniel Craig movies seem more true to the spirit of the original stories.

Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?


But the pure ridiculousness of the Moore and Brosnan films are what made them great IMO. Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.

I know other people enjoy the more serious approach to the concept but when I go to a bond movie I want to see unique over the top villains and invisible cars.

To each his own.
 
2014-02-28 10:44:36 PM  

CipollinaFan: Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.


I grew up on the Roger Moore films and I thought they were terrible for the most part. And the Bond from the novels is boring. That's why Craig is praised for being so close them. And Dalton before that.
 
2014-02-28 11:01:34 PM  

CipollinaFan: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.

I dunno. The Daniel Craig movies seem more true to the spirit of the original stories.

Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?

But the pure ridiculousness of the Moore and Brosnan films are what made them great IMO. Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.

I know other people enjoy the more serious approach to the concept but when I go to a bond movie I want to see unique over the top villains and invisible cars.

To each his own.


It was fun in the Roger Moore days, partly because nobody else was doing the witty smart-mouthed action hero with over-the-top action scenes.

Then along came Eddie Murphy, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and so on. Really, re-imagining Bond is more like a survival strategy.
 
2014-02-28 11:05:37 PM  
I'd rather have an Archer movie.
 
2014-02-28 11:08:58 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.

I dunno. The Daniel Craig movies seem more true to the spirit of the original stories.

Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?

But the pure ridiculousness of the Moore and Brosnan films are what made them great IMO. Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.

I know other people enjoy the more serious approach to the concept but when I go to a bond movie I want to see unique over the top villains and invisible cars.

To each his own.

It was fun in the Roger Moore days, partly because nobody else was doing the witty smart-mouthed action hero with over-the-top action scenes.

Then along came Eddie Murphy, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and so on. Really, re-imagining Bond is more like a survival strategy.


Roger Moore is a pacisfist and refused to work unless they lessened the violence.  Also, Moore had to always wear a girdle, or be hidden by a sheet.

I loved the Bond films as a kid, but I read the books and preferred the more realistic thug secret agent.  I like Craigs tortured Bond.
 
2014-02-28 11:14:26 PM  
If Bond's Walther PK doesn't have a bayonet, it's not a Wes Anderson James Bond movie

/obscure?
 
2014-02-28 11:18:15 PM  

Mugato: CipollinaFan: Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.

I grew up on the Roger Moore films and I thought they were terrible for the most part. And the Bond from the novels is boring. That's why Craig is praised for being so close them. And Dalton before that.


Dalton doesn't get enough credit for that, either. You could easily think of The Living Daylights as the first attempt to give the franchise grit, a proto-Casino Royale.  Think about it, The Spy who love Me and Moonraker were sooo over the top, ridiculous. So you get two more grounded movies in For Your Eyes Only (my favorite Moore film) and Octopussy. Two solid flicks. Then they did another over the top meglomaniac out to destroy the world angle in A View to a Kill. Between it being a stupid freaking movie, the worst acting Bond girl and poor Rodger looking too damn old, it was time to change.
And Dalton was a good Bond for what they were doing, he wasn't a glib or flippant, he came across as a guy with a dirty job and he didn't much want to do. Looking back, I think Brosnan was too young and too....lightweight....do be Bond if he'd kept the role in 87.
But by 95, Brosnan was weathered enough looking, had a better presence about him and Goldeneye is my favorite Bond flick. It's not Brosnan's fault he had some really poor scripts.
So after we get the invisible car and CGI windsurfing in Die Another Day, it was the 2002 version of the space battle in Moonraker. Time to change. They went was further in altering the tone and feel than they did back in 81 or 87, but I'd say it was something that could be seen coming. Each time they changed it more.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.

I dunno. The Daniel Craig movies seem more true to the spirit of the original stories.

Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?

But the pure ridiculousness of the Moore and Brosnan films are what made them great IMO. Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.

I know other people enjoy the more serious approach to the concept but when I go to a bond movie I want to see unique over the top villains and invisible cars.

To each his own.

It was fun in the Roger Moore days, partly because nobody else was doing the witty smart-mouthed action hero with over-the-top action scenes.

Then along came Eddie Murphy, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and so on. Really, re-imagining Bond is more like a survival strategy.


The Bourne movies had as much influence on the Craig Bond films as anything.
 
2014-02-28 11:24:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: juvandy: Farking Canuck: People who are very literal have a hard time with Anderson films. Not meaning this as any kind of insult ... it is just that Wes Anderson films require you to accept the reality that he defines in each movie. If you are concerned that characters or situations need to be realistic then his films may not be for you.

None taken, but I don't see how this differs from any other movie.  All fiction requires you to accept a fictional reality to some extent.  To me, WA's films just come off as pretentious rather than humorous.  There is humor in some of the lines, but many, if not most, of the characters are just plain unlikeable.

I agree that you have to accept the rules that are established for any film (i.e. Superman is an alien that can fly). But I think that Anderson takes it a little further by putting twists on every day people/places/events that rubs people the wrong way.

That's my best thought as to why people have strong negative reactions to his films. I find them both brilliant and funny so maybe I'm not going to be able to answer this for you.


My wife and I enjoy the films. Well, at least moonrise kingdom. They may be too twee for some.
 
2014-02-28 11:25:38 PM  

theflatline: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.

I dunno. The Daniel Craig movies seem more true to the spirit of the original stories.

Besides, we've already suffered through Roger Moore AND Pierce Brosnan. What's next? Hugh Laurie as Bond?

But the pure ridiculousness of the Moore and Brosnan films are what made them great IMO. Yeah the new films might be more of what Fleming was going for but it is not the Bond movies I grew up watching.

I know other people enjoy the more serious approach to the concept but when I go to a bond movie I want to see unique over the top villains and invisible cars.

To each his own.

It was fun in the Roger Moore days, partly because nobody else was doing the witty smart-mouthed action hero with over-the-top action scenes.

Then along came Eddie Murphy, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and so on. Really, re-imagining Bond is more like a survival strategy.

Roger Moore is a pacisfist and refused to work unless they lessened the violence.  Also, Moore had to always wear a girdle, or be hidden by a sheet.

I loved the Bond films as a kid, but I read the books and preferred the more realistic thug secret agent.  I like Craigs tortured Bond.


Moore reminded me of a poor sod's William Shatner.

and they should have gotten BRIAN BLESSED instead of Timothy Dalton
 
2014-02-28 11:38:54 PM  
Did anyone noticed that whenever Roger Moore pulled the trigger, he blinked because he was scared of the blanks?
 
2014-03-01 12:05:34 AM  
Schwarzenegger does that too.
 
2014-03-01 12:12:13 AM  

juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?


I don't think that it is so much that his films are, or are trying to be, "funny". If you can get over your impression that they are trying to be "funny" you may be able to better appreciate them for what they are. Wes is a perfectionist, and you can see it in every fabric of every costume and every prop and every inch of the placement of each of them in every scene. The very fact that he can do this (successfully) and get away with it (Budgets, movie studio execs, etc.) is amazing. But he does it, and he, as I've read recently, creates a "family atmosphere" among his cast. That alone can be valued. To some viewers his movies might seem a bit "frigid" (the acting, etc.), but if you can realize that he has essentially created a moving 1.5 hour piece of moving art in which the viewer can occasionally and organically recognize the humor and drama that is sort of subliminally placed throughout each film....then you, as the viewer, has accomplished something pretty special: You do not need obvious and generic, dumbed-down Hollywood bullshiat movies to be entertained. Congratulations, you've suddenly become a thinking human being and you didn't even know it. I know, that concept is still very scary to some.
 
2014-03-01 12:15:08 AM  

Cog Spinner: juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?

I don't think that it is so much that his films are, or are trying to be, "funny". If you can get over your impression that they are trying to be "funny" you may be able to better appreciate them for what they are. Wes is a perfectionist, and you can see it in every fabric of every costume and every prop and every inch of the placement of each of them in every scene. The very fact that he can do this (successfully) and get away with it (Budgets, movie studio execs, etc.) is amazing. But he does it, and he, as I've read recently, creates a "family atmosphere" among his cast. That alone can be valued. To some viewers his movies might seem a bit "frigid" (the acting, etc.), but if you can realize that he has essentially created a moving 1.5 hour piece of moving art in which the viewer can occasionally and organically recognize the humor and drama that is sort of subliminally placed throughout each film....then you, as the viewer, has accomplished something pretty special: You do not need obvious and generic, dumbed-down Hollywood bullshiat movies to be entertained. Congratulations, you've suddenly become a thinking human being and you didn't even know it. I know, that concept is still very scary to some.


*have*
 
2014-03-01 12:20:12 AM  
I have clicked on a lot of Fark links that turned out to be links to, oh, approximately 4 minutes of video and then, after watching 10-15 seconds, closed them.

I just clicked on a Fark link to a video that seemed to run almost as long as Moonlight Kingdom itself and watched it all the way through.

And I enjoyed it.

Thanks.
 
2014-03-01 12:30:06 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: I wikied him, and it turns out he's hardly even made any movies, I haven't seen any of them, and the only one I've even heard of is Rushmore.

Why has anyone heard of this guy? Is it a hipster thing?


Most of the time on this site I forget the age/microculture divide that exists. Honestly not saying that's good or bad. It just is. I watched Rushmore with my brother in high school. I think every single one of my college friends had seen Royal Tebenbaums.

My boyfriend shaved his beard he's been growing all winter yesterday. I hear "snip","agh! Forgot the soundtrack!"

Then Needle in the Hay.

I would've picked Pavement - cut your hair but that's me.
 
2014-03-01 12:35:25 AM  
The edgiest thing this guy ever put on film was Jason Schwarzman getting punched in the face. Stick to the indie crap, Wes. Leave action to people with experience.
 
2014-03-01 02:56:03 AM  
Anderson makes movies about people like an Alien would that doesn't quite understand humans.
 
2014-03-01 03:53:47 AM  

juvandy: Farking Canuck: People who are very literal have a hard time with Anderson films. Not meaning this as any kind of insult ... it is just that Wes Anderson films require you to accept the reality that he defines in each movie. If you are concerned that characters or situations need to be realistic then his films may not be for you.

None taken, but I don't see how this differs from any other movie.  All fiction requires you to accept a fictional reality to some extent.  To me, WA's films just come off as pretentious rather than humorous.  There is humor in some of the lines, but many, if not most, of the characters are just plain unlikeable.



I hear you. I stay away from his films now after finally concluding that it was pointless exercise watching The Royal Tennenbaums to its conclusion. His previous films I watched but never enjoyed. They weren't funny, entertaining, thought-provoking, clever and so, and were merely endured to see if there was any viewing reward. There were none. Ever. And they have been absolutely forgettable - apart from that Seu Jorge guy singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese.

Meh.
 
2014-03-01 04:46:15 AM  
I still say let Tarantino direct a Bond film.
 
2014-03-01 05:25:18 AM  

Farking Canuck: People who are very literal have a hard time with Anderson films. Not meaning this as any kind of insult ... it is just that Wes Anderson films require you to accept the reality that he defines in each movie. If you are concerned that characters or situations need to be realistic then his films may not be for you.


It's not so much about being "very literal", it's that the way he writes characters is nothing like real people in places that neither exist in real life, nor are very interesting places.
 
2014-03-01 05:52:27 AM  
I think it goes without saying that he shouldn't touch Bond, but I'd like to see his take on the spy genre. It would be entertaining.
 
2014-03-01 06:29:46 AM  

CipollinaFan: Bond movies should be campy over the top, and include cringe worthy puns.

I am not a fan of this new style of bond.

/The man with the golden gun is the best bond movie.


You came to the Bond films later than other people did. The early ones were very much like the Dalton and Craig movies and thrillers and not action films. Go back and watch Dr No/From Russia With Love/Goldfinger and then A View to a Kill or Casino Royale and you will see they are much closer to each other than Moonraker ot Die Another Day.
 
2014-03-01 06:41:10 AM  

FarkingReading: Wes Anderson's James Bond: Agent the Seventh Traipses after Demur Hipster who Divulged Adorable Secret (featuring Bond girl Ms. Ogyny S. Awkward).

Also with special cameo by BM as the landlord, Rikki Tikki Sir Pantsalot MacKenzie

And a soundtrack featuring bands you've never heard of except for that one song you might have heard once at your friend's parents' house


You mean bands like The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Ramones, The Velvet underground, Bob Dylan, etc. etc.

You either:

A) Have never seen a Wes Anderson movie
B) Never listen to music
or
C) Both A and B
 
2014-03-01 07:28:34 AM  

Cog Spinner: juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?

I don't think that it is so much that his films are, or are trying to be, "funny". If you can get over your impression that they are trying to be "funny" you may be able to better appreciate them for what they are. Wes is a perfectionist, and you can see it in every fabric of every costume and every prop and every inch of the placement of each of them in every scene. The very fact that he can do this (successfully) and get away with it (Budgets, movie studio execs, etc.) is amazing. But he does it, and he, as I've read recently, creates a "family atmosphere" among his cast. That alone can be valued. To some viewers his movies might seem a bit "frigid" (the acting, etc.), but if you can realize that he has essentially created a moving 1.5 hour piece of moving art in which the viewer can occasionally and organically recognize the humor and drama that is sort of subliminally placed throughout each film....then you, as the viewer, has accomplished something pretty special: You do not need obvious and generic, dumbed-down Hollywood bullshiat movies to be entertained. Congratulations, you've suddenly become a thinking human being and you didn't even know it. I know, that concept is still very scary to some.


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Wes Anderson's Fark account.
 
2014-03-01 08:28:36 AM  

juvandy: Can someone explain the appeal of Wes Anderson films?  I've never found one funny and the hype bewilders me.  What makes them funny?


Well, explaining the joke obviously would make it not funny anymore anyhow, but OK:

Typically the vast majority of the jokes are the basic subversion of "character probably should be significantly upset by something, but is relatively unfazed instead".  There's also a very strong element of pandering to the hipster aesthetic of disaffected irony (and the stylistic visual elements of the hipster stuff), which isn't  funny per se but it's a good way to get young middle-class people with absurdly small life experience and professional art critics and people that think they're 'artistic' (i.e. they've dedicated a lot of effort to never obtaining any life experience) to watch your movie.  Why that is, I'm not sure, but it's pretty surefire, once Woody Allen worked it out his films started becoming less genuinely interesting but more and more profitable.
 
2014-03-01 08:32:56 AM  
Wes Anderson's films are always about the same thing: the relationships between parents and their children (and mostly between fathers and sons). They take place in worlds similar to ours, but more artificial, like a living play. They aren't traditional comedies, they're more dramas where funny things often happen.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report