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
"I am so good."
"Especially when you`re bad."
I can see that lines like that are horrible. I can see that they put the line in the script (it didn't go through by accident).
If they thought it was rubbish why put it in there? That wouldn't do anyone any good.
Actually the line you quote is far from the worst. Ornathologist....there's a mouthful (looks at crotch). The line is awful and the delivery is worse.
Well I think they thought the audience would love it. I also think they thought these were the sort of one-liners Bond movies had always done.
I agree. The Brosnan films before DAD were already littered with these kind of one liners. DAD just turned up the dial. I always say the Brosnan films subverted the character of Bond to being a 12 year old's idea of the ultimate 'cool guy.'
An excellent summary.
Straightening the tie underwater a particularly low point. Like something out of a Bond video game.
When he did it in GE it was class, same as when Dan did the cuffs.
When he did it in TWINE it just came across as forced and desperate - someone trying too hard to come up with an iconic moment. Of course Arnold doesn't help matters by drawing attention to it.
The Bond/Fatima version of that scene in NSNA is played so much better and more natural. I can attest in the cinema the audience loved the "but my Martini's still dry".
Connery is THE MAN. Pierce, in DAD with Jinx just comes off unfortunately as sleazy.
Even the "Christmas comes once a year" line makes Pierce come off as sleazy/creepy whereas had the 57 year old Moore said something like that in AVTAK, he could make the delivery funny, and himself still be likable.
Obviously the director thought it was funny enough to include in the film.
Agreed again. I didn't have a problem with GE or SF, although I would have preferred if it was not done in both cases as well.
Once again, I'm in agreement. This is a record.
Exactly.
Parts of Spectre especially did feel quite Brosnan-esque (escaping from Blofeld's base, landing on the sofa, landing by the river with parachute, the New York, New York blast during the car chase...heck the whole car chase was almost out of a Brosnan era PS2 game).
That "cheesy" aspect seemed to creep back.
The problem for me is that EON poked fun at themselves earlier in the Craig era. Almost pissed on their own legacy. Once one has done that, I think it's difficult to credibly go back to embracing what you lambasted previously. As an example, in the SF Q meet, we are told that they don't go in for exploding pens. Perhaps not, but an exploding watch is just fine only one film later, apparently.
It seems that with CR they felt they couldn't do cheesy Bond because of Austin Powers and have tried to work their way back there. They should have kept with the tone and style of CR. Spectre SHOULD have led into a perfect adaptation of YOLT. But that possibility is now littered with issues cos of what they did in Spectre.
Which leads me to think that Bond 25 is on the backburner because now they don't know which direction to go in.
Even some of the more drama-based scenes felt clichéd (Bond looking at the "Vesper interrogation" tape before being called away by Madeline).
...and why in films do they keep using the Chess-cunning-schemer-metaphor with the villains?
However, I think they knew what they were doing with SP. The plot issues were discussed by execs during the production process. So I believe they wanted to keep it somewhat open ended, but also intended to close off the Craig era with this film, giving him a more light hearted last chapter (perhaps even at his request). Time will tell if this is in fact the case.
I know people will disagree with me on this, but on a pure 'enjoyment' scale, I'll put DAD several notches above SP. DAD is colourful, has spark and is much more entertaining to me. It's unabashedly OTT.
Count me in as one of those 'people'. Difficult to enjoy something when you're cringing into your seat with embarrassment. SP has its flaws for sure but not enough to challenge the DAD supremacy.
I genuinely think after coming out of DAD if someone had asked me if I was a Bond fan I'd have done a St Peter and said 'Not I' thrice until the cock crowed. (Perhaps Jesus got the same company that did the tsunami CGI in DAD to do his walking on water stunt and Peter was so embarrassed he didn't want to admit to have anything to do with him?)
My god there's DAD apologists springing up everywhere. It's like Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
SP left me feeling disappointed to be sure. DAD left me feeling depressed. There's a subtle difference.
DAD left me angry and perplexed.
I was not a fan of any of these moments. Always hated the tank chase and the PTS in SF is from the same playbook IMO - lame OTT 'comedy' action sequences that end up just being utterly dire.
There are others of course - like the fire engine in AVTAK. But the sartorial adjustments were just the icing on the lame cake
For a long time I felt Bond was iredeemibly mired in the straight to DVD bin of history.
CR and QOS changed that, although Mendes has squandered much of the good work that had been to create a new fresh direction