Things you never want to see in a Bond film again

12324252628

Comments

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187

    peter wrote: »
    Fleming didn't have Q; and the aforementioned films didn't suffer by not having him in it.

    Some had a Quartermaster.

    CR and QOS aren't good films. Anything is better than the garbage that we got in 2006 and 2008.
    Are you high?

  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    vzok wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    No more Judi Dench's M or Vesper, please! I loved them both but enough is enough.


    Could you please go back in time about two years and shout that loudly and repeatedly outside of EON headquarters.

    Yes I wonder how many more videos M made before her death...

    Week by week this will build into a beautiful collection. Part 1 just 1.99, out now.
    I bet we'll see Bond listen to M's weekly podcast in the next one!

    :))
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @MrKissKissBangBang, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not trying to rile people up... I'd love to know why you called these films vacuous? And what are some examples of great Bond films that aren't so empty?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @MrKissKissBangBang, your tone is awfully curt, but once again giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to continue the conversation, and I may be reading into tone.

    I think you have excellent taste in most of the 007 adventures... so... what makes CR and QOS so vapid?
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    peter wrote: »
    @MrKissKissBangBang, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not trying to rile people up... I'd love to know why you called these films vacuous? And what are some examples of great Bond films that aren't so empty?

    I've got better things to do than rile up a bunch of people, especially people I don't know.

    My thoughts on QOS and especially CR are well documented on these forums, so check out my posts if you're that way inclined.

    Some examples of great Bond films? DN, FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, GE and SF spring to mind immediately. Possibly GF, TB, FYEO and TWINE too.

    Lol you like skyfall but not qos and casino
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.

    How and why
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.

    How and why
    In some cases, there is no how and why, because the answers might very well be differing from the common opinion or the way another person sees it.

    For example, I like Casino Royale. Very great spy thriller. And in a way, does manage to adapt Fleming's storyline in fair content to the spirit of the 21st century post-9/11 setting. But, I will also say it that it does not have the escapism of the more fun-oriented Bond films where our hero himself was that know-it-all colourful super-spy rather than the realistically grounded down-to-earth MI-6 operative. Craig's Bond was very different from the previous incarnations of the character in his first two, as was his tenure.

    Casino Royale borrows the concept and the characters from Fleming's novel, but otherwise disowns everything the previous films have come to set... Maybe other than the existence of The James Bond Theme and the main title sequence, but that's a different thing. Quantum of Solace follows the same path as its predecessor, but the main issue the majority of the audience have with it is the editing as well as the irritating shaky cam aspect derived from The Bourne Supremacy and its following volumes. That's the problem with the second, which otherwise I think is a brilliant spy thriller, and for me, certainly more watchable than the one that came before.

    One way of putting it. That's why myself and the others alike don't fancy them as James Bond films. But, I do love them as magnificent spy thrillers.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    How does CR and QOS disown "everything the previous films have come to set"? I'm sincerely unsure of what you mean.

    When I saw CR, I thought it was the most Fleming, and the most film-Bond I had seen since the Connery era.

    And although QoS was different in tone (as was FRWL, YOLT, OHMSS, LALD, MR), I knew it was Mr. Bond on screen, and no other.

    And I'd still like to hear @MrKissKissBangBang on why he deems Craig's first two films vacuous. Seems like a very sweeping statement.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Am I in a drunken dream here ,where members are saying CR and QoS are crap ???!!!!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I'm with you @barryt007... Not only crap, but vacuous!
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    CR is as close to a masterpiece as you'll find with a Bond film. The idea that it disowns what has come before is nonsense. It takes what matters and then creates a new world, which simultaneously harnesses the essence of Fleming and the embraces the cinematic legacy. Hot women, fast cars, beautiful locations, inventive action, tension, intrigue, richly drawn villains, a sweeping score... the list goes on. So it doesn't have Q and MP, who gives a fuck. It's a work of bloody art in the genre.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Well said chaps,couldnt agree more !
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    @peter, it's clear as day that Craig's Bond in the first two films was tonally different from the previous five actors. The way he delivered his literal vocabulary was a lot more grounded and civilian than the upperclass behaviour of the first five.

    In his first two, Craig was utmost different from the film Bonds. Perhaps closer to the Fleming Bond since Lazenby had some of the bearing of his literary counterpart. He didn't quite become the Bond we've known (the cinematic Bond of the first 40 years) until Skyfall to a small extent, and a full transformation to that Classic Bond template some members address to here in Spectre, using the quips, one-liners and witticism that was lacking when he first started nine years prior.

    Craig's Bond in CR seemed straight out of a Chris Ryan book, a former SAS/SBS recruited by the MI-6 who was just introduced to tailored suits. The previous Bonds were those suits if I make sense. His behavioral methods also showed that he didn't employ over the top delivery of vocabulary and decided to stick with a more normal average joe way of talking/interacting rather than being a know-it-all scoundrel that the cinematic Bond is known for.

    Mind you, I'm not bashing Craig's Bond here in any way, but he was more of an "inspired-by" conceptual character rather than a faithful adaptation of the Fleming character. Of course, the outline remains the same. Two kills to earn the 00-status and whatnot... But, his outline isn't the same as the template of the film-Bond. Just because his physicality is of brilliance doesn't make him similar to Connery or the superior Bond in terms of fisticuffs that is Lazenby. Those two shared common things in personality like taking almost nothing seriously unless they were at the brink of survival (A few instances would be the sewers scene in Dr. No, the laser beam in Goldfinger, the shark evasion in Thunderball, the alpine escape in OHMSS in which Bond was clearly frightened, etc). They even went to mock the villains in an Etonian/Oxford-graduate clever sophisticate type of a way rather than having a more grounded talk like Craig did. The latter didn't have any formality. Just a muscle in a suit.

    However, by the time we had Skyfall, there was a transition that I noticed in Craig become very much like the generally known cinematic Bond. By no means I'm a fan of the film but it didn't just jettison the formula of the first 20 films the way CR and QoS did. It tried to win them back. Even Craig admitted it while comparing the product to the likes of The Spy Who Loved Me and if I remember correctly, the general depiction of Roger Moore's Bond. The "put it all on red, it's a circle of life" line was pure movie Bond whereas the previous two entries didn't have any kind of formally clever lines as such. But, there was something about the train scene in Royale that I loved, where Bond and Vesper were tying to outwit one another. That scene felt like Bond to me whereas the rest of the escapade did not.

    While Spectre fails to hold relevance to what it tried to represent, as I've always been repeating it before, Craig was totally Bond there. The cinematic Bond. Not the Fleming Bond.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    CR redefined what a Bond movie could be, while being respectful of the legacy. To achieve that is an incredible feat.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    thanks to @ClarkDevlin for a thoughtful response. I don't agree, but absolutely respect your thinking. For me, I'm more of a similar mind to @RC7; that the filmmakers took both Fleming and the film legacy and created something that respected the history while making it all feel fresh. Like I said earlier, CR felt, to me, like the most film-Bond since the Connery era.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    No worries, mate. Glad I could be of service. I just put out there how some of the fans see Bond, including me. I've no problem with differentiation of opinions for they all vary. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

    Nevertheless, I prefer CR and QoS over SF and SP as films.
  • Posts: 19,339
    No worries, mate. Glad I could be of service. I just put out there how some of the fans see Bond, including me. I've no problem with differentiation of opinions for they all vary. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

    Nevertheless, I prefer CR and QoS over SF and SP as films.

    So do I @ClarkDevlin .
    I have CR at #3 at the moment (always fighting with OHMSS and FRWL for top spot,always rotating !) ,QoS at #4 ,SF at #7 , and SP at #13.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @ClarkDevlin and @barryt007: Mendes hasta go
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Definitely agreed, @peter. Mendes has to go and take Thomas Newman with him.
  • Posts: 19,339
    @ClarkDevlin @peter totally agree...Mendes and Newman have to go ,Blofeld needs to be rested until BOND26 and ,whether it's Craig or someone else,BOND25 has to be a standalone film not involving Quantum,SPECTRE or whoever !
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd endorse that!
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.
    Ever heard of TWINE,DAD,MR or OP?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.
    Ever heard of TWINE,DAD,MR or OP?
    Neither of these are the worst in the series.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.
    Ever heard of TWINE,DAD,MR or OP?
    Neither of these are the worst in the series.
    Not even DAD? Who takes the crown for you?

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.
    Ever heard of TWINE,DAD,MR or OP?
    Neither of these are the worst in the series.
    Not even DAD? Who takes the crown for you?
    DAD is actually a guilty pleasure of mine. For being at the bottom of my list, that'd be SF, and on top of it comes Moore's first two and DAF. My least favourite Bond films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I watched TWINE a few nights back and saw CR last night for the first time since before SP's release. I honestly couldn't believe, while watching it, that it came from the same team that brought us the earlier film. There's only a seven year gap between them but it seems like a generation. TWINE feels lazy, clichéd & predictable, despite the interesting premise. CR feels fresh and richly textured, despite being 11 years old now. It was a great viewing experience and only served to confirm my previous impression & fear that SP was a serious misfire (again, I can't believe that film came from the same team).
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Roadphill wrote: »
    @peter @quantumorganisation Casino Royale is excellent, but he has a point on QOS. That is the worst film in the series.
    Ever heard of TWINE,DAD,MR or OP?
    Neither of these are the worst in the series.
    Not even DAD? Who takes the crown for you?
    DAD is actually a guilty pleasure of mine. For being at the bottom of my list, that'd be SF, and on top of it comes Moore's first two and DAF. My least favourite Bond films.
    I agree with most of what you say,except making SF the bottom one.

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    @ClarkDevlin

    I find your post very reasonable and I actually have to agree. While thinking that CR is a great film on its own, I never felt it to be very Bondian, which is strange since it is based on Felmming's first novel. Maybe back in 2006 it was the concept that irritated me (someone becomming Bond whom we had already known for 44 years). And it felt as if they even wanted to create a new Bond instead of showing us the back story of the cinematic Bond I used to know.
    And even though I wasn't a big Brosnan fan, I also had difficulties in accepting Craig as the new Bond and thought that too much weight was put on physical strength. I also thought that some sort of irony and self awareness was missing. It felt as if the producers felt ashamed of what they had done before and now tried to get away from some of its traditions.
    That is the reason why I actually prefer how Bond is shown in Skyfall and Spectre, even though I think that CR is by far the better film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    You all know my bottom film so I wont comment ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.