›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…178179181183184…707

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Not that Bond isn t a villain. Of course he is.

    Fleming described him as "neither a good guy or bad guy"
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Not that Bond isn t a villain. Of course he is.

    Fleming described him as "neither a good guy or bad guy"

    Bond is a good guy working for an evil organization.

    Like JFK or myself.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    josiah wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    If Blofeld is considered as the main villain in FRWL and TB, then he would have to be the main villain in DN too, wouldn't he? Even though he's never seen or mentioned in the film, he'd still be higher ranked than Dr No himself.

    Fair point.

    He's still IN the film though even if we never see his face.

    My reasoning for Blofeld being the main villain in FRWL (moreso than Klebb at least) isn't so much about where he is positioned in the hierarchy so much as it is that we see Klebb essentially trembling in fear in front of him. IMO the main villain can't be terrified of another villain on screen. If they are then I think there is either not a main villain or someone else is the main villain. In the case of CR I think Mr. White & Obanno are the lead onscreen villains because we see LeChiffre desperately begging for his life in their presence. I'm sure others will disagree, but I just don't see him as all that powerful. For me a lead villain has to be unrivaled on screen for power and begging for your life is not the act of a particularly powerful character. In the case of FRWL I tend to think Red Grant & Blofeld are the film's lead villains because Grant doesn't seem to fear anyone in the film and neither does Blofeld. Blofeld doesn't wish to have to inform the Russians of how plans have gone awry because SPECTRE has a reputation to preserve. Blofeld doesn't appear to be afraid of the Russians, but wishes to preserve the organization's (his own) reputation. Failure makes SPECTRE (Blofeld) look weak and that is unacceptable. He built this organization from the ground up and a single imperfection or crack in the foundation might send the whole thing crumbling down so all imperfections must be taken care of immediately.

    That is too subjective and too fleeting a criteria. Surely the main villain is qualified as such according to his role in the narrative and his antagonism to the hero. If say I was writing a story based on the PTS of GF, where the unnamed assassin is seen receiving the contract to kill Bond, trying to find him, bribing the girl, waiting for him in the bedroom, etc. he would be the main of the story, not his clients/employers. And fiction is full of low class thugs and fearing badguys, sorry losers and cowards that are still villains... and dangerous. Elmore Leonard was a master in creating those.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Darth Vader was terrified of the Pope, but he was still the main villain.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Darth Vader was terrified of the Pope, but he was still the main villain.

    ...but he was also Anakin Skywalker and at the end turns back into him.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I am talking about the first two movies, Bane. 1,2, not 3.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I am talking about the first two movies, Bane. 1,2, not 3.

    Fair enough.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2016 Posts: 8,395
    Brosnan and Craig are like a mirror image. One is the character not taken seriously enough, just gadgets, tux, quips, Martini (sorry brosnan fans). The other is Bond taken too seriously with personal back story and skeletons from his past.

    Aidan Turner is needed to find the middle ground.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Brosnan and Craig are like a mirror image. One is the character not taken seriously enough, just gadgets, tux, quips, Martini (sorry brosnan fans). The other is Bond taken too seriously with personal back story and skeletons from his past.

    Aidan Turner is needed to find the middle ground.

    You just nailed it. That's so true and I never saw it that way before.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    giphy.gif
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited May 2016 Posts: 3,000
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    One is the character not taken seriously enough, just gadgets, tux, quips, Martini (sorry brosnan fans).

    I don't take that as an offence at all. That's exactly what Brosnan was and exactly what I want Bond to be.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The other is Bond taken too seriously with personal back story and skeletons from his past.

    YES! Thank you!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    Here's one: Aidan Turner is already overrated as a potential Bond actor. Not that I would mind him auditioning and if he proves himself taking the role but guys... He hasn't auditioned yet and we don't know if he has it. He was great playing Philip Lombard, but that was an Agatha Christie stereotype, so not the most challenging role. He was a complete wallpaper in The Hobbit (but so were most of the cast, even the talented ones).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    That's your prerogative. Rumour has it there are even people that rank Spectre No 24...
    @birdleson

    Consider this:
    The first movie of each actor was his best:

    DN
    OHMSS
    LALD
    TND
    GE
    CR

    I might get no argument about most of them but lately I tend to believe Connery and Moore were at their best in their first as well.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Bond and Blofeld having spent a brief time together as youngsters isn't the franchise destroying catastrophe that its made out to be. I have no idea why people treat the character of Blofeld as some sort of sacred cow that cannot be altered from the fleming, despite the fact that every other recurring character has been tempered with at some point. In SP Bond and Blofeld weren't brothers, hell they weren't even friends from the sounds of things. I think people blow this way out of proportion, and actually I find the mother son relationship between Bond and M in SF way more hackneyed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Exactly. The first is always the best, and the worst is (most often) the worst. So why are we all calling for tenures to get longer?

    IMO 3 - 5 Bond films should be the range for any actor. If they haven't done what they can with the character after 3 - 5 tries, then they don't deserve to.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    If they've had a solid run why stop? George, Tim, Pierce needed more films and so does Dan.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Pierce's tenure really just shows how films get worse with each outing...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Pierce's tenure really just shows how films get worse with each outing...

    That's not a blanket statement, it varies from franchise to franchise. Look at what happened to the 'Fast & Furious' films; whoever thought they'd get through that many installments before the series really took off and starting making insane money?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    George & Tim definitely needed more. I think Pierce & Dan had enough to prove themselves. If Dan gets one more, that's ok, but I don't think it's necessary. 4 is more than adequate for any actor. Then a change allows for more creativity.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I used to like the idea , when they made a Bond every two years. That Five films
    was the perfect number for an actor, and would give us a Bond for every decade. :)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,112
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Pierce's tenure really just shows how films get worse with each outing...

    That's not a blanket statement, it varies from franchise to franchise. Look at what happened to the 'Fast & Furious' films; whoever thought they'd get through that many installments before the series really took off and starting making insane money?

    Never really enjoyed any of those films to be honest.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,967
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Pierce's tenure really just shows how films get worse with each outing...

    That's not a blanket statement, it varies from franchise to franchise. Look at what happened to the 'Fast & Furious' films; whoever thought they'd get through that many installments before the series really took off and starting making insane money?

    Never really enjoyed any of those films to be honest.

    Which doesn't negate their success and popularity, nor does it counter my point: there are particular franchises out there that get better and better as time goes on. 'Mission: Impossible' immediately comes to mind, too.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I love the F&F films from 4 onwards. As they became more action based.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    I actually gave up on Fast & Furious all the way back in 2003 when I saw the 2nd film. I didn't check out another one of these films until the 6th one in 2013. Loved it, and then checked all the one's I missed, and I rediscovered the franchise in a new light.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Bond and Blofeld having spent a brief time together as youngsters isn't the franchise destroying catastrophe that its made out to be. I have no idea why people treat the character of Blofeld as some sort of sacred cow that cannot be altered from the fleming, despite the fact that every other recurring character has been tempered with at some point. In SP Bond and Blofeld weren't brothers, hell they weren't even friends from the sounds of things. I think people blow this way out of proportion, and actually I find the mother son relationship between Bond and M in SF way more hackneyed.

    It is controversial, but I agree with it.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Pierce's tenure really just shows how films get worse with each outing...

    That's not a blanket statement, it varies from franchise to franchise. Look at what happened to the 'Fast & Furious' films; whoever thought they'd get through that many installments before the series really took off and starting making insane money?

    What I'm saying though is that in terms of Bond the general trend is that each actor's successive films get worse. Simply because they are less creative each time and less inspired. E.g. AVTAK. Only with a change of actor and the reinvention that comes with that change do the brains behind the films get a new sort of 'creative spark' with what they're doing.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    I actually gave up on Fast & Furious all the way back in 2003 when I saw the 2nd film. I didn't check out another one of these films until the 6th one in 2013. Loved it, and then checked all the one's I missed, and I rediscovered the franchise in a new light.

    To be honest I gave up after the first film!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited May 2016 Posts: 7,112
    F&F is the perfect example why I generally don't like most modern action films and why James Bond has been an exception.

    It's big, loud and lacks class. Much like Vin Diesel with his atrocious acting, his terrible attire and his ugly cars.

    Than there is Bond, civilized and stylish.

    Nevertheless, it did rise in popularity as the series went on. I'm not denying that.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    LALD boat chase is one of the worst action sequences in Bond. So long. So boring. So painfully unfunny. Only redeemed to an extremely limited extent by George Martin's score at the end. And people say the SP car chase drags. Ha!
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    The character of Bond Fleming ripped of Leslie Charteris. As he's basically
    just the saint ! ( That should be controversial ) :D
    I'd go one step further and say Fleming was inspired by the 1930s Dennis Wheatley series of novels featuring a ruthless and charming secret agent, a connoisseur of rare wines and fancy women. His name was Gregory Sallust. One could even say Fleming's second Bond novel Live and Let Die was a homage to Sallust and his espionage and occult dealings.
Sign In or Register to comment.