It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
There is a severe difference between logical thought and emotional opinion.
I just raise an eyebrow in amused disdain.
;)
I use outside sources to document and back up my opinions, and the opposing viewpoint says, "Nuh-uh?" and my opinion is not logical?
Huh?
Thanks, sir.
Doubleohdad is harsh at times but I think he at least has a bit of a point.
Personally I just don't believe Moore IS Bond in a film like Moonraker.
That said I don't think OP is all that bad at all. Ok I don't consider it the virtual masterpiece some on here do but neither is it anywhere near as bad as its reputation seems to dictate. It at least tries to have a bit of class and suspense mixed with humour. Louis Jourdon is brilliant too.
Don't put words in my mouth and pull the "I'm not allowed to express my opinion?" rubbish.
I don't see how using reviews and such from a website that Bond fans take no interest in in any way makes your argument any more valid (as if a rating of 42% from 36 reviews indicates that the entire world abhors the film). As @Birdleson said a few posts back, we are true Bond fans whose opinions and reflections of the films are greater than ANY reviewer, whether it be Roger Ebert or Empire Magazine, and we recognise the faults of the films, but manage to find light in every film.
...and he worked on the early films
Everyone has an opinion
I dont see how one can empirically quantify creative arts as being good or bad as so much is in the eye of the beholder and to pinpoint why you think something is good is a very ephemeral thing to attempt.
However I can say with some degree of certainty that just dredging up some quotes from a website to back up your point of view neither constitutes logic nor proof.
I'm sorry to be the one to break it you but Rotten Tomatoes is not the fount of all human knowledge. You may think that having a body of reviews backing up your point (whatever that is - so far all I can discern is that you think OP is shit. Discuss) means you have won the argument but I dont regard a random selection of critics and members of the public as experts on Bond.
The people on these forums with thousands of posts whose opinions I have grown to respect (sorry old chap that does not include you at present, nor, I daresay, the future) constitute experts on Bond films and if you had a large consensus from people here backing you up it would be worth a million times the opinion of some jobbing film reviewer working on a local rag who thinks he knows Bond films just because he has seen GF (the best obviously), has heard of George Lazenby (a disaster in the worst film of the series which was a box office disaster) and knows for sure that Daniel Craig's gritty reboot is exactly like the books, none of which he has read.
Heres an idea - why dont you actually offer a thought of your own that we can discuss instead of hiding behind people who are, at best, dubiously qualified to comment and at worst are just the general public for whom Bond films are all the same: gadgets, villains stroking cats and cheesy one liners?
I like this bloke! :)>-
So you're basically saying that only your opinions matter?
Uh-huh.
Sorry, but I think I make my points fairly and you seem to simply object to my opinion. I feel like I can discuss a film's merits and shortcomings. That's what these threads are for, not just to cheerlead.
Not sure where this came from. Where, in any of my posts, have a said this? Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
You haven't discussed, once, the merits of the film at hand. What shortcomings have you identified without playing the "Rotten Tomatoes" card? I recognise that Octopussy has its faults, but I don't resort to using faceless reviewers opinions on the film as evidence.
:)) Sorry old man, couldn't resist, you set it up. =))
Seriously though, I could post a thousand word essay stating the reasons why OP is a well made & entertaining film, or gather 50 deliriously positive reviews, but in the end all I can say is that it's a well-structured film with good pacing & excellent music. If you want it to be like FRWL, you'll obviously hate it. If you accept different takes on Bond (the way I accept different takes on the Batman) there is much fun to be had.
Mileage varies; says so on a tee shirt.
Yes, I want it to be like FRWL, a good movie.
I prefer a tough, thug-like gentleman. That's Bond.
Not some old guy with more gags, winks and tickles than guns and fistfights.
Gimme a two-fisted Bond any day of the week.
Keep the silliness.
This is Bond to you is it? Just a bloke who goes round punching people?
Maybe you fancy Steven Seagal as the next Bond?
(See the caps here; you must pay attention)
It's more FUN to talk about the good bits than to go over & over what you see as the bad bits IMO.
Of course he does.
That's not my point. Why do you think he has to be JUST "tough"?
Of course there's another side to Bond, the gentleman, world traveler, but yeah, I'd expect the world's best spy to be tough.
IN the end, I think that's what happened with the Moore films, where clearly he was not of the same snuff as the two pervious actors, and actually quite honestly from what I've read about sean and las they clearly were of a rather prickly personality, so perhaps the producers were tired of dealign with bigger than lifer personalities or in George's case, fragile insecurities and wanted another type of personality and so they focused more on the suave Bond than the tough guy.
@TheWizardofIce hit the nail on the head with his analysis.
We can debate what we liked or disliked about a film, the film in general, but to try to prove one way or another that a film is empirically bad, seems fruitless. Sometimes I feel like the conversation evolves into:
A: I like this film!
B: You can't like this film, it's bad!
A: But... I enjoy it.
B: Well you have a bad taste in movies then.
Even if you were able to quantify what a good or bad film was and how good or bad it was; moreover, if everyone based their opinions and personal enjoyment based on this, then everyone would have the same thoughts about the movie. Sounds boring to me.
Although I'm not to sure about why you think the producers took a different direction (and I do believe that Moore could be tough!), I agree.
=))
I went back a page in the thread to find his name and came back to type and my mind made the incorrect jump. Whoops! Sorry Wiz :p
Well, as I've pointed out before, this is a forum for all opinions, not just those that you agree with, not just to talk about good bits.
He simply repeats his opinions (typically about Moore) in various different threads in a (usually) negative manner as to instigate. He knows most of us here like Roger so he just continually pulls out the "I h8 Rog" card.
So maybe he's not a troll, but he seems to be treading a thin line as a member on a Bond fanforum. You and I can disagree all day long about Octopussy but still remain on excellent terms. His posts feel more like attacks.
Also
10/10.
Well Leslie Charteris did refer to James Bond in a 1965 article as "Mike Hammer in a tie" Wiz. But I get your point of course! :)