Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
To what extent does critical commentary or reviews influence fan opinion of the James Bond Films?
Dragonpol
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
This is something I've been wondering about for a while and so I thought I'd create a Ronseal-type thread on it - i.e. It does what it says on the tin, or rather in the thread title. It's one of those topics I create every so often that doesn't require me to say a bit amount more past the thread title but here in the OP I will say that I'm referring here to fan opinion on the James Bond films being influenced by the likes of film reviews or reviewers, books on the Bond films, word of mouth reviews etc. It's basically about anything one reads or hears or sees in terms of reviews or critical commentary that may then go on to broadly influence fan opinion on a particular Bond film or even a particular era of Bond films.
For a small example, something I see repeated on Bond forums like this one a lot is that Sean Connery gave a "phoned in" performance in You Only Live Twice (1967) and was simply sleepwalking through the part of Bond or "going through the motions". This, though it may indeed be the case, derived from, I think, James Bond in the Cinema book on the Bond films.
Another example of critical commentary or reviews influencing fan opinion (again in a negative way) would be those that initially reviewed George Lazenby's performance as Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). These reviews were on the whole very negative, both about Lazenby and the film itself, yet today OHMSS is considered a classic and the best Bond film of the lot by many people (myself included). Could it even be that the influence of such critical commentary or review on bond fan opinion is largely subconscious?
I don't believe this has ever come up as a topic for discussion here before, perhaps because it seems too obvious, and so it has been overlooked. I think it's important enough though, hence the creation of this thread. Hopefully the ensuing discussion will bear this out...
^ 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
Well, I'm very glad to hear it, of course. Especially when the reviewers get it wrong. ;)
That's not quite right--many reviews of OHMSS, especially those from high-profile publications, knocked Lazenby but praised the film itself. Someone on the CBn board made that point a few years ago.
As for the larger issue, critical consensus tends to match that of the fans. Some Bond films were hits at the box office but not with critics and fans (Moonraker), while others were both (Goldfinger). Some films underperformed at the box office but were liked by some critics and fans (Licence to Kill, which has its share of defenders and earned a three and a half star review from Roger Ebert).
You're quite right on OHMSS. I did say, "on the whole" though. I meant to word it that way. I'm of course aware that not all reviewers were against the film when it was released. It was more Lazenby's performance that was at issue. Sorry if I did not put that across forcibly enough first time around.
For many many years a lot of film reviews of the latest Bond films seemed on automatic pilot, citing the same old complaints, reading almost like Mad Magazine parodies. Bond is too long in the tooth, Bond played by the latest actor will never be Connery back in the 60s' peak, he's out of date, just repeating the previous films, the franchise continues to decline. Past its sell date. Bond Girls, gadgets, action, all disappointing. So the reviewers kind of marginalized themselves, some reviews could have been written in advance of even seeing the latest film.
Casino Royale broke that mold, being such a quality product and the best-reviewed film of 2006 I think. Another peak. Unfortunately, I think that added to a very sensitive portion of the audience reacting harshly to the following mission Quantum of Solace for first the editing style, then other content (the gunbarrel, the title song, that moment during the boat chase). Not solely based on the reviews, but such an overwhelmingly positive reception for BOND 21 seemed to set up disappointment for BOND 22. On the other hand, its box office was about the same as Casino Royale, and critics' and user ratings align with older, very fine Bond films. So the Quantum of Solace failure myth was perpetrated, but short lived it seems.
Did a similar thing happen with Skyfall and Spectre? Bonzo box office over $1.1B and very positive reviews/audience ratings. Then a sort of backlash by a portion of the audience railing against the next film Spectre for the Blofeld story element and the smaller than desired scale for the climax. Though its reviews and audience ratings match a lot of older favorites and its box office was still over the top at $880M or so.
I'd ask if a sort of roller coaster effect is playing out with part of the audience compelled to like it, loathe it, like it again, loathe it some more. Meaning BOND 25 may be overwhelmingly well-liked. Maybe in part based on disappointment with BOND 24.
Unless there's an anomaly like Casino Royale, I don't think reviews so much play into fan opinion. Though the reviews/ratings are always available to prove a viewer's case for success, failure, decline, or ascent.
The long view is more interesting to me, Quantum of Solace being a recent example. I've always liked it, and I enjoy the positive comments the film gets today. Reviews are interesting to consider, regardless.
As I've mentioned on other threads in the past, the opinions I heard on SF from others were unanimously positive, to the extent that people were going out of their way to make sure older family members who hadn't been to the theatre in a while went out to see it for an experience of Bond on the big screen. The word of mouth was infectious and that too got people to go out and view it. That had nothing to do with critics or audience ratings, but rather how people had experienced the film first hand.
With SP, the tepid US reviews didn't impact my pre-viewing impression of the film. More than anything, Sam Smith's wailing had the biggest negative effect before I saw it. So did Craig's 'wrist slash' remarks, and the yellow filter and woeful dialogue in the trailers (this was in contrast to SF). So there certainly was a comparative negative psychological pre-viewing effect, but it had nothing to do with the critics. More Craig and Smith. In terms of friends and family, most I know saw it, but absolutely nobody brought it up to me. Overall impression when I asked was 'meh', in contrast to SF where people were going out of their way to sell the film to me (forgetting that I was the #1 Bond fan of all of them). I remember many being positive on CR as well, but very few saw QoS for some reason. Could that have been because of reviews? Maybe.
I know people have gone to view a film due to positive word of mouth from me or from other people they know, so I think that's an important criteria. Perhaps when a friend likes something, it can impact how someone else experiences and views it too.
Ultimately the way a film is reviewed may on the margin impact the way I personally rank it, but not the way I experience or personally enjoy it. TMWTGG is a perfect example. I have a real soft spot for the film but never rank it too high in my list. Lacking in courage? Perhaps, or maybe it's just that I assume that my opinion must be deeply subjective and cannot be substantiated since most dislike the film.
I agree with @Birdleson. 200 percent.
You remind me of Roald Dahl making a bet with his bookie both ways, and him accepting!
Great post. Agreed.
Never heard that story, but he too was a Norwegian. It s in our nature.
Yes, true. He mentions it in a Tales of the Unexpected story intro. Big fan of Dahl's adult short stories and that show. I might be able to find the clip online.
I concur.
And Roald Dahl was educated in Weston Super Mare and sold gasoline near me!
I’ve been out of tune with Bond reviews for years. Loved Dalton, hated Brosnan from the moment he appeared on screen - GE is garbage FYI. Liked early Craig but largely unimpressed by the Mendes era (especially that overrated pile of awfulness SF).
Peter Cook used to do that as well. His reasoning was if his team lost he'd at least get money out of it, and if they won he wouldn't mind paying.
I'm not sure how that works though. To me, it does sound a bit silly on the part of the betting shop...though I'm no betting expert!
I mean with Dahl it was the same bookie he phoned up on each occasion and he was fully aware of what Dahl was doing - "About that bet. I bet you I'll lose it", Dahl said to his bookie.
A lot of Skyfall be made to postive and spoiled before. And a lot of negatieve lies about QOS.
Biggest problem are reviewers who suport some kind of directers or actors and are over exited about them. Horny. Atleast i admit that i whas wrong about Christopher Waltz. Also i don't mind Feyernoord won last year. And iam very happy orange girls won and guys don't.
Thanks for that. Made a lot of sense.
Indeed. I've still no idea what it all means, though.
over this