›

The unfair criticism

LudovicoLudovico
in Bond Movies Posts: 15,229
I have been thinking about it a lot and decided to start this topic: this is about the unfair criticism of Bond movies, each and every one of them. Things you have read on the internet, or watched, or even read here. Basically, any negative comment that you deem unfair regarding a Bond movie. You do not have to disagree with the whole review, or even like the film. Whatever you find unfair and explain why.

I am particularly curious about early reviews of the early films that are now classics, DN, FRWL, etc. Or negative reviews of these classics by non Bond fans.
«134

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    "Dalton and LTK nearly killed the franchise."

    This is one of the classics. Quite absurd really.

    During the hiatus, a lot of papers wrote their obituaries for the James Bond series. Reasons for its death would be explained with the end of the cold war, a new type of action films taking over, Fleming s barrel being scraped to the bottom.

    16 films was seen as a roaring success, nobody mentioned LTK as the reason why no new Bond film got off the ground, and nobody called Dalton a failure.

    That started after Brosnan had done two or three films as far as I can remember. It started with talkshow hosts and journalists, and we all know how easy it is to sway people s opnions.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    OHMSS was a financial flop.

    Apart from Butch Sundance it was the years most successful film.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Yes, I was amazed looking back at the Box office success of ohmss.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    NicNac wrote: »
    OHMSS was a financial flop.

    Apart from Butch Sundance it was the years most successful film.

    Well compared to the 141 mil that Thunderball made, I see why people said it was a flop. I guess in a 007 sense it was
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    OHMSS was a flop globally, bringing in $82m, which was much less than anything since DN or anything after that as well. This was before the days of rampant inflation, so one could compare the grosses with some level of confidence. The US box office at $22.8m was approx. 50% of both its immediate predecessor and its immediate successor.

    I remember seeing Michael Wilson commenting (on stage) on his view that the people did not take to Lazenby. It was a video on this site.
    ---

    RE: Dalton & LTK being blamed for killing the franchise during the early 90's, there is also some truth to that rumour.

    In US/Canada not too many took to him or LTK in particular at the time, and many were hoping that he would be replaced as soon as possible. There wasn't even much enthusiasm for him when TLD came out really......and it carried over into LTK's poor US box office.

    It wasn't something that started in the late 90's, but rather, from the moment he replaced Moore. There was just an all round lack of enthusiasm for him and his portrayal among the North American crowd on the whole.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    deleted - DP
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Never heard such a thing here, except one friend of mine who thought he looked like a homo. But it was not the reason for the hiatus regardless, there were litigation issues.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Never heard such a thing here, except one friend of mine who thought he looked like a homo. But it was not the reason for the hiatus regardless, there were litigation issues.

    I agree. Definitely the gossip that Dalton was the reason for the hiatus was misinformed and erroneous. However, North America did not fall in love with Dalton, so when the hiatus occured, the blame game began in the rags, without facts as usual.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,723
    'DAD nearly killed the franchise'.

    Without DAD, there would be no CR or Craig as Bond, as a successful 4th outing (critics wise) for Brosnan meant either Brozza would have done a 5th, or his successor would have been a safe choice, since the then current trend of Bond movies would be seen as successful money wise and critics wise.

    The beauty of the 007 franchise is, a 'panned' outing actually saves the series, as it gives EON the opportunity to change the direction the films are going. Without the backlash DAD received, EON would not have changed the style, as for them they have no need for any changes as the franchise would be successful in all department.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I do get the sense that, at the time of the late 80s, the series was kind of running out of steam a bit. Even with a new actor in the part and an attempt to shake the series up in 1987, the films still had the same tropes (Q, the same "plain" visual style and the same almost checklist mentality).

    With Dalton, as far as I know he was liked in the UK but far less so in the US - at least by the general audiences.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I do get the sense that, at the time of the late 80s, the series was kind of running out of steam a bit. Even with a new actor in the part and an attempt to shake the series up in 1987, the films still had the same tropes (Q, the same "plain" visual style and the same almost checklist mentality).

    That is true. I blame Glen. Ever since MR, I felt the films had a sort of cheaper look to them, and it's no coincidence that Glen helmed them all until GE. He was workmanlike, but didn't bring much flair to the proceedings. From my perspective, OP stood out positively because of Moore, and TLD stood out positively because of Dalton.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    It's difficult to put my finger on but those films (and the films made in the early 70s funnily enough) feel like the sort of films used as "fillers" in TV schedules. Slightly cheap in style or quality and used to fill a gap on a quiet weekend afternoon. Decent films but don't do anything really memorable.

    That sounds much harsher than it was probably intended to be.

    Incidentally I remember the ITV "Best Ever Bond" documentary in 2002. Dalton's era were the only films that didn't get a mention in the 10 best moments voted for by the public (even OHMSS/Tracy's death was included).
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    NicNac wrote: »
    OHMSS was a financial flop.

    Apart from Butch Sundance it was the years most successful film.

    What about the claim that George was "let go". Even Diana Rigg apparently thought that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited July 2015 Posts: 24,256
    I have a feeling that the most unfair criticism is always focused towards Dalton. Even today people still talk about the Dalton years as if that's when the series hit rock bottom. IMO it were the critics that got hit by rocks and lost their mind. TLD had the first consistent and intelligent script in years, an actor who was committed to capturing the soul of Fleming's Bond and breathtaking stunts. Comments like Dalton is too bitter, he can't do 'funny', he's too serious, ... come from people who never read a single Fleming novel. So in the end, people desperately search for something to drive their anti-Dalton point home and this is usually it: his haircut in LTK is terrible... Great, NOW I will take you seriously. </sarcasm>
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I have a feeling that the most unfair criticism is always focused towards Dalton. Even today people still talk about the Dalton years as if that's when the series hit rock bottom. IMO it were the critics that got hit by rocks and lost their mind. TLD had the first consistent and intelligent script in years, an actor who was committed to capturing the soul of Fleming's Bond and breathtaking stunts. Comments like Dalton is too bitter, he can't do 'funny', he's too serious, ... come from people who never read a single Fleming novel. So in the end, people desperately search for something to drive their anti-Dalton point home and this is usually it: his haircut in LTK is terrible... Great, NOW I will take you seriously. </sarcasm>

    people experiencing Roger Moore hangover and/or jaded Connery holdouts.... i thought the timing was right for a harder edged Bond - considering where action movies were going at the time, like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard... it's just the public that didn't seem ready for Dalton...

    I was nervous the same would happen to Craig in 2005 when his casting was announced - as it seemed to be heading down a similar path to Dalton - the mass public in an uproar... except he managed to do the unthinkable - and thats make a lot of early skeptics eat a delicious helping of crow.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Timing is everything.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Timing is everything.

    no, i believe half of everything is luck.. and the other half is fate. ;)

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Timing, luck & fate then. :)>-
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Timing, luck & fate then. :)>-

    so Trevelyan was wrong.. luck and fate are more like 33.33333333% of everything.... well, i see no other alternative than to travel back in time and alert the script writers lol

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Alec was wrong about many things... ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Alec forgot he was Sean Bean, so he had to die twice in the movie. ;)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    @DarthDimi. Unfortunately you're right that Dalton himself is sneered at by the media. I
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,343
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I have a feeling that the most unfair criticism is always focused towards Dalton. Even today people still talk about the Dalton years as if that's when the series hit rock bottom. IMO it were the critics that got hit by rocks and lost their mind. TLD had the first consistent and intelligent script in years, an actor who was committed to capturing the soul of Fleming's Bond and breathtaking stunts. Comments like Dalton is too bitter, he can't do 'funny', he's too serious, ... come from people who never read a single Fleming novel. So in the end, people desperately search for something to drive their anti-Dalton point home and this is usually it: his haircut in LTK is terrible... Great, NOW I will take you seriously. </sarcasm>

    Brilliantly written, @DarthDimi. As a Dalton fan I can only agree! He's the best Bond by a long shot. :)
  • jobojobo
    edited July 2015 Posts: 7,507
    - "Craig is not really James Bond, because he has emotions and because he doesn't crack jokes all the time"

    I guess I don't need to explain to you why this is bollocks, but I sure read it a lot on the internet, and it sure is annoying!

    - "Craig's Bond makes so many mistakes. I wan't the classic, prefect, indestructable Bond of old, the one who is always in control"

    Yes, take a look at he early Connery films and read the novels, and you will find your Bond who is always in control and never makes mistakes...
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    I feel that blaming Brosnan for the quality of the scripts he received is about as unfair a criticism as any other you can name...and yet, it goes on around here all too often. Enough, I say! Blame or praise him for the qualitiy of his performance as Bond, but not for the scripts he had to work from.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Never heard such a thing here, except one friend of mine who thought he looked like a homo. But it was not the reason for the hiatus regardless, there were litigation issues.

    Well God forbid anyone should look like a homo.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    Well God forbid anyone should look like a homo.
    LOL, sapiens, anyone?
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,026
    Despite the dust up created by GL and OHMSS, the series through DAF was essentially the same, irrespective of what a bad film DAF was for SC's final appearance as Bond.
    It seems to me much of the criticism was ginned up after during and after the RM years.
    Original Bond fans such as myself were never comfortable with Moore's interpretation of Bond. A decade after DN, for a new generation Moore was their introduction to Bond. Thus the series had competing versions of the Bond character. You either liked the brutal, cruel, nonchalance of Connery, or you preferred the light, unflappable, slightly fey version portrayed by Moore. For many, who and what Bond is is defined by Moore's portrayal. They are convinced he personifies Bond. Each succeeding Bond actor falls
    into the Connery prototype or the Moore prototype.

    On a purely superficial level, it takes a while to get used to a new Bond's face. Neither GL or TD were Bond long enough for either to become the new face of Bond for many. The wonderful irony of of course is their films and performances end up being among the best.

    Often the criticisms of Bond doing this or that, his demeanor, or personality are not compared with the Bond of novels, but the interpretations of a previous actor. If RM is your man, TD will never do it for you. The same is true of DC compared with PB.

    The film series has now spanned five decades, and each Bond brings with him a new generation of viewers and what is current and trendy with them. For many of them,
    they know little about Bond and it's unlikely many have read the original novels, a point which is frequently obvious on this site from time to time.

    Whether TD got the love and respect he deserved from the media and fans, changes nothing. So much depends on when one entered the series.

    It won't be long before we'll be having the same conversations about the next Bond.
    Will he take his cue from DC or PB?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    Another bit of unfair criticism, I find, is aimed at the great Roger Moore.

    Moore is often called the 'old' Bond and the 'funny' Bond.
    Personally, I don't think age issues really begin to show until AVTAK, and a lot may have to do with what I presume was a slightly failed face lift. ;-)

    As for the funny Bond, I just think Moore delivered his funny lines less cool than Connery but more jokey and that's the thing. I don't think the scripts written for him were so much more comedic.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    Agreed
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Another bit of unfair criticism, I find, is aimed at the great Roger Moore.

    Moore is often called the 'old' Bond and the 'funny' Bond.
    Personally, I don't think age issues really begin to show until AVTAK, and a lot may have to do with what I presume was a slightly failed face lift. ;-)

    As for the funny Bond, I just think Moore delivered his funny lines less cool than Connery but more jokey and that's the thing. I don't think the scripts written for him were so much more comedic.

    Agreed!
Sign In or Register to comment.