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
And then the next film he has an exploding watch, rocket booster car and ejector seat with parachute.
But seriously, Q hands over a gun in the National Gallery? All so that Mendes can shoe horn in more slap around the face symbolism with the Fighting Temeraire.
I also really dislike the use of the Tennison poem in SF. So clumsy. What should have been conveyed by plot and character is instead banged over our heads like an undergraduate seminar.
Even if he quickly becomes an over the top cartoon character in TSWLM, he's still a worthy adversary in that film.
In MR he's just a fool, displaying little to no menace. The flapping of arms when his parachute fails to deploy, the boat chase where he goes over the waterfall, crashing into the cable car station and falling in love. #-o :-w
Then changing sides and becoming an ally. Please.
I love Richard Kiel and he's surely one of the most memorable villains and was a truly lovely man. But Jaws in MR was a series low for me.
Don't forget when he's in costume and gives up going after Manuela, and joins in with the dancing Carnaval-goers :P
I actually didn't mind Jaws in Moonraker. Being a menacing, unkillable henchman in both films to him finally turning on Drax and helping Bond in the end. and then still surviving the space station, I don't really know why, but Jaws is just part of the fun of these films, and to a certain extent just require us to sit back and enjoy the ride, and I don't mind any of it.
That's the scene I referenced one post up.
+1. I expressed this back when the film came out and other posters on another site thought I was out of my mind.
We're on the same page. I think some viewers with perhaps limited exposure to serious cinema or culture more generally took these elements in SF as a sign of sophisticated filmmaking whereas they're clearly quite the opposite.
Made M look incompetent once again, too.
Yup. Hey M. Silva's coming to kill you. Let's just sit here and recite poetry.
The idea is stupid, the equation is terrible (it looked dated in 2002) and the fact that they played the Bond theme over it, is unbelievable and makes it worse, it was like them saying how cool is this
But with all that being said, the slide whistle over the barrel roll will forever be the worse moment. For me it's because the CGI kite surfing was never going to look good but this is one of if not one of the greatest stunts ever done in the history of cinema and somehow they managed to shoot it down unbelievably trying to go for a cheap gag which isn't funny. Sums up Sir Roger's tenure as Bond for me.
I always think it was a mistake to have Sheriff Pepper in the car as well, when they cut back to him and he's rolling round in the car and overacting, it just spoils it a bit for me. They should have Sir Roger just looking cool and unfazed like it was just another day on the job for Bond
The barrel roll is one of the greatest moments in cinema history and shouldn't have been marred by a mistimed gag
Hahaha
Don't forget the Beach Boys in AVTAK. Bond should basically stay clear of kite surfing and snow boarding. Just not Bondian.
The whole PTS in AVTAK is pretty dire actually.
I've come to the conclusion although I quite like watching this film it is one of the most uneven toned entries of the series.
QOS definitely nailed this rogue Bond idea so much better and without coming across like a farce.
From my point of view: I remember seeing it when it came out (I would have been a bit older than you) and relative to other movies at the time, and being relatively young, I still thought, "man, that looks bad."
To this day it just rips me right out of the movie every time I see it.
Seems a bit exaggerated to call the film a farce simply because Q shows with some gadgets and a few good quips.
In Empires Bond magazine in the latest issue, Director John Glen says it was his idea to put the Beach Boys song over the snowboarding scene!
I like this pts, apart from that!
I don't think they are good quips, it is like they are trying to put Moore type humour and scenario into a film that is supposed to Bond out for revenge.
At that point it does turn it into a farce, LTK had stuck to its convictions rather than trying to remind people it was a Bond rather than letting it do that without ticking boxes it would have been all the better for it.
From the moment Q steps in the film loses its edge, stupid broom gadget with Q in the field. It undermines what Dalton was trying to do.
I think the film would have been much better if Bond had of worked out how to attempt to assassinate Sanchez without Q's assistance.
The whole film isn't a farce but the idea of Q being in it is. Ticking boxes, although some Bond fans just want to be reminded they are watching a Bond film rather than the film just doing that anyway.
Fine by me, tick all the boxes you like if I get some great scenes with Q. Plus, I'd hardly say it undermines the rest of the film, if anything the ending does that job.
"Let's go fishing James!" Felix (My wife is dead, time to party) Leiter
Q turns up half-way through this revenge-film like a bad visual gag.
Yes... serious films need a counter balance with humour, but, this humour never matched the story.
I was 15 when I saw this film (in Canada you had to be 14 years or older to see it (and I loved it)), but I did find Q's involvement quite jarring (unlike 6 years before when he joins Rog-Bond in the third act).
In LTK, it does become a farce when Q shows up (and I love Desmond)...
Fair enough, can't argue with that. The tone does shift drastically whenever Q is on screen.
Doesn't bother me though. I love Q in LTK. Wouldn't change a thing, personally.
I don't think even Dalton thought LTK got it quite right tbh. Pretty sure he's on record somewhere saying he wanted his third film to be more lighthearted.
Regarding the quality of the quips we´ll have to disagree. I regard the Q scene in LTK as one of the best and most entertaining in the series.
I don´t think it disturbs the overall tone of the film too much, and unlike in many other gadget laden Bond films, I don´t think it significantly impacts Bond´s plan in a way that make his efforts seem lazy or not requiering intelligence or wit. Bond still has to cleverly infiltrate an organization from within and set up a cunning plan dependent on significant skill to potentially achieve his goals unlike other films were he can simply casually push buttons in his car.
In addition I quite like the fact that Bond and Q´s relationship has developed through the years to a point where they really care for each other as friends and Q is willing to defy orders in order to help him. The fact Desmond is in such fine form in the film and puts in one of his best performances as Q, makes it alltogether one of the most enjoyable examples of Bond/Q interaction in the series for me.
To me this is typical of one of the central problems of the Moore era: EON never were willing to say no.
Sometimes the judicious thing is to deliver one joke well and let it breathe a bit, not to pile 12 of them on top of each other. Bond snowboarding on a broken ski-doo rail would have been thrilling and sort of funny - no need to bash us over the head with the soundtrack.
On some level this is the same category of problem that they made with the slide whistle, and with the double-take pigeon+Bondola sequence. (Among many others.)
Agreed. Why not add some canned laughter while at it?
Good point.
-waiter
-tourists
-police
-painter
-double-taking dog
-. . .and double-taking pigeon.
Here again, EON, you could have delivered one or two of those and made your point. But six?