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
;)
Was it more epic than the live jump from 40 stories up in Die Hard? They did that LIVE, no wires. TO me, that stunt is more impressive than the stuff you just mentioned, though the stuff in CR is really impressive.
The tank chase in GE starts off great, then they do the gag with the horse statue and it just undercuts the tone completely.
The sheriff in MWTGG makes that jump ridicuolus, especially since you cut to his arse over the camera either in the middle or the end of that stunt.
TO be specific, we were contrasting the 80's stuff, though i see you have to go out of the decade to provide competition. Were the 80's actionstuffs that mediocre? Some...nice stuff in a few of the Bond films, but nothing like Die Hard, Predator, and I haven't even mentioned the Indy films yet.
:))
If that's your only means of reply, you've clearly lost the debate and have no other choice but to resort to insults
:)
:)
TLD is a cold war thriller. Die Hard is a fun action movie. Sure they were made in the same era but they're not comparable. Sorry but if you classify TLD as the same type of movie as Die Hard or Predator, I don't know which version of TLD you saw. As I said, show TLD to a huge fan of Die Hard that doesn't know Bond, and he wouldn't classify them in the same category.
100% agreed @DaltonCraig007. If anyone relegates any Bond film to a 100% action film, then you do not know Bond. This is, doubleohdad, where you are irrefutably wrong.
Oh, and have a bit of RottenTomatoes treatment yourself!
RottenTomatoes lists the genre of the 80s and 90s Bond films as "Mystery, suspense, adventure AND action". Or there's about, with some variation ;)
- Roger Ebert
Nice quote.
As others have said, and as is quite obvious, I think they really were subsequently shook up in the early 00's by the success of the Bourne films, and it made them realize that there really is an audience out there for an old fashioned, hard hitting, spy like franchise with mature acting performances & some danger.
Prior to that, they were caught up in their own success. The Brosnan films were increasingly more successful, and particularly after the somewhat lackluster 80s (commercially speaking for Bond rather than critically) they were stuck in a box, trying harder to make XXX style action movies rather than spy thrillers, since that catered to the masses. Bourne woke them up to all that, and made them realize that there was an intelligent audience out there that could be appealed to. We owe that franchise a great debt for bringing EON to their senses and for stopping them from chasing to the bottom.
If I can simplify : Indy/Bond = action + adventure ( + spy/thriller for Bond), Die Hard = action. Die Hard 1 takes place in 1 location (a building) thus significantly reducing the pararells to Bond films which are much broader in scope and scale.
Funny how you will state that Rotten Tomatoes and critics in general are not acknowledged or respected on these threads- yet you run to them and pull them out when you need them.
So, to be clear, are critics and Rotten Tomatoes-like sites to be used in debates here or not?
Kind of contradictory, is it not?
Just look at this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4960/skyfall-vs-casino-royale-on-rotten-tomatoes-metacritic-imdb-update-11-9-2014#latest . You'll find that many Bond fans in here (forum members in here, not general movie lovers) actually don't acknowledge critics' site like Rotten Tomatoes, nor even it's "people's choice voting button" (so much about democracy). And respect? Well, just read a few posts in that topic :-).
That quote certainly would not apply to the Connery Bind films, whose violence is abundant.
Either not knowledgeable or contradictory.
TLD is a better than average James Bond film, Die Hard is one of hte best action films ever made. The Early Bond films were on the cutting edge of violence in cinema, and while I get the point of stating that Bond is 'not just an action hero', to say that TLD or any of the '80's Bonds compare to Die Hard even as just film, that film blew any of the 80's Bonds out of the water, story-wise and action-wise
Die Hard 92%
TLD 75 %
LTK 76%
VTAK 36 % lol
OP 42 %
FYEO 73 %
You can do whatever math you want, Die Hard and the Indy films flat-out are better pictures than the 80's Bond films. Predator as well.
What rating are you looking at really. Prof. Reviewers rating? Or the Public Vote rating?
Also, you obviously can't just flat out compare these film without seeing things into perspective.
You're only stating that because the films are simply not as good as Die Hard.
No, because if you cared to grasp the tone of my comment, you can see that I was being sarcastic and poking fun at your desire to use rating websites as a source of fact.
But I think it is pretty obvious that anyone with knowledge of film recognises that Bond films are a little more than your average action film.
It's funny how you think that film critics and reviewers are connoisseurs when it comes to Bond films, but immediately rebuke them when they prove you wrong.
Kind of contradictory, is it not?
As for the Connery films being "abundant in violence", you may want to visit the "most violent Bond film" thread, where you will find that it is the Craig films and Dalton's two that are recognised as the most violent. Licence to Kill even has a '15' rating (in the UK, that is, which I suppose is equivalent to US 'R' rating).
Anyhow; what Roger Ebert said, in fact, is that Bond (any Bond) does not revel or particularly enjoy the violence that he experiences. This is a fundamental characteristic of the James Bond character.
I'm sorry, but if you're using that as a basis for your argument, then it is you who have well and truly "lost this argument".
Better, yes. The only Bond that would come close to any of them would be TLD. But "killed the franchise"?
Die Hard is a fun action movie, but that's it. TLD, and the other Bond films of the 1980's were not just action movies, they were cold war thrillers, adventures and testatments of their time.
That's what you think. I don't care if "DVD remaster trailers" are saying that to us. For every Bond fan a Bond film is foremost a joyous ride of recognition.
In my opinion Bond films are not stuck to one particular genre. And it really depends on the timeframe they have been produced.
In the rather "economically safe and peaceful" nineties, the Bond films were more action oriented and had quite some entertainment value.
The Bond films of the last two decades (2006 - now) are slightly more intelligent, have more drama and romance, and don't shy away for more grittier, cold-blooded action.
Bond movies in particular tend to take trends from the eras that they are made in.
Martial arts - TMWTGG (apeing Bruce Lee)
Space - MR (apeing Star Wars & Trek)
Gritty Violence - CR/QoS (apeing Bourne)
Jungle Adventure - OP (apeing recent Indy success including Moore's jackets)
Action - DAD (apeing XXX & other 90's hits)
Blaxploitation - LALD (apeing numerous movies from that time)
TDK - SF (arguably)
Drugs - LTK (drugs were a staple of the 80s with Reagan's war on drugs)
Whether Bond should have been influenced by the above is questionable. There's no denying that they were however.
Die Hard is one of the seminal movies made. It moved the action era forward in many ways (including its very fast-for the time pacing & action combat scenes) and forced all franchises to move with it. In this way it was very similar to Bourne that had a similar impact.
Die Hard & Bond are two entirely different animals. Where action is concerned, Die Hard did influence directors. I noticed some of Die Hard's pacing in some of the action scenes in LTK, the first time I saw that movie in the theatre. Michael Kamen did LTK's score, and it's no coincidence that he was just coming off Lethal Weapon/Die Hard.
They are two entirely different kinds of movies though.