Controversial opinions about Bond films

1232233235237238707

Comments

  • edited January 2017 Posts: 19,339
    acoppola wrote: »
    That is not the argument. Leave the Connery era alone. I only want to see that 60's car in Golfinger and Thunderball.

    Come up with something original, like the Connery era did.

    Agreed..the DB5 is at risk of becoming boring through over-use...Connery only used it twice....Brosnan used it ro re-introduce the series (as it wasnt a re-boot) and a small cameo part in TND as BMW was Brosnan's car...and we are looking at 3 of Craig's 4 films using the DB5 ...it is being shoved in the viewers face ,which takes away its charm.

    Connery 2 times
    Brosnan 2 times
    Craig 3 times

    = OVERKILL.

    The DB5 belongs to GF and TB.....and it should have stopped there and not risked it's icon status ,as Moore's Lotus' from TSWLM and FYEO still are.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I also am fine with the DB5, I love it's iconic nature. But Martin managed to insert it with out so much pomp and circumstance. Each time it's unveiled in a Mendes film its such an in your face "Looky Here!" moment (I can forgive SF, it was the 50th anniversary film). I'd just be happy with it being Bond's car, no special attention need ever be brought to it again.
    Precisely.
  • Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote: »

    Did the DB5 make CR better as a film?

    If I may butt in, its cleverly inserted into CR and doesn't draw too much attention to itself. The exchange between Bond and Solange in and around it is great ("welcome to my home").
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »

    Did the DB5 make CR better as a film?

    And logically, what was a previous Bond's car doing, if CR is his first mission?

    Trust me, I'm not a DB5 advocate.

    Did it make it a better film? No.
    Did it make it a worse film? No.

    As for logic - a man looking for logic in the Bond canon is a fool. The sooner people get over that the sooner they can spark up a cig/joint and kick back with a whisky.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    barryt007 wrote: »

    Agreed..the DB5 is at risk of becoming boring through over-use...Connery only used it twice....Brosnan used it ro re-introduce the series (as it wasnt a re-boot) and a small cameo part in TND as BMW was Brosnan's car...and we are looking at 3 of Craig's 4 films using the DB5 ...it is being shoved in the viewers face ,which takes away its charm.

    Connery 2 times
    Brosnan 2 times
    Craig 3 times

    = OVERKILL.

    The DB5 belongs to GF and TB.....and it should have stopped there and not risked it's icon status ,as Moore's Lotus' from TSWLM and FYEO still are.

    Exactly!

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »

    Trust me, I'm not a DB5 advocate.

    Did it make it a better film? No.
    Did it make it a worse film? No.

    As for logic - a man looking for logic in the Bond canon is a fool. The sooner people get over that the sooner they can spark up a cig/joint and kick back with a whisky.

    CR was a serious and hard edged film, which was taking Bond from scratch. That is the difference.

    Craig does not need to be tied down to another Bond actor's trademark car.

    I liked the new Aston in CR and that fitted beautifully. No issues there.

    Talking of smoking. I loved it when Bond smoked. That made me smoke. Too cool.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2017 Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »

    CR was a serious and hard edged film, which was taking Bond from scratch. That is the difference.

    Craig does not need to be tied down to another Bond actor's trademark car.

    I liked the new Aston in CR and that fitted beautifully. No issues there.

    Shit happens. It's still probably one of the best three Bond films of all time and a DB5 isn't going to change that.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »

    Shit happens. It's still probably one of the best three Bond films of all time and a DB5 isn't going to change that.

    I would have preferred to see Bond smoke rather than the DB5 1964. Connery in Dr No made smoking cool. Bond lives dangerously.

    QOS is the crown of the Craig era. Best film since LTK. A minority opinion though in the mainstream.

    And Forster should have directed SF, and a shame Mendes got the gig. To screw up Blofeld I never thought was possible.
  • Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote: »

    I would have preferred to see Bond smoke rather than the DB5 1964. Connery in Dr No made smoking cool. Bond lives dangerously.

    QOS is the crown of the Craig era. Best film since LTK. A minority opinion though in the mainstream.

    And Forster should have directed SF, and a shame Mendes got the gig. To screw up Blofeld I never thought was possible.

    We saw Bond smoking in the previous film ;)
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited January 2017 Posts: 7,207
    acoppola wrote: »

    I would have preferred to see Bond smoke rather than the DB5 1964. Connery in Dr No made smoking cool. Bond lives dangerously.

    QOS is the crown of the Craig era. Best film since LTK. A minority opinion though in the mainstream.

    And Forster should have directed SF, and a shame Mendes got the gig. To screw up Blofeld I never thought was possible.

    I'm inclined to agree though I really like CR too.

    About the DB5, I liked its use in the Brosnan era because it's the same timeline as the original car. Never had any problems with Bond winning it in CR either because it is a different one.

    But Mendes got it all wrong though. As usual. What does GF's DB5 have to do with the new timeline? Typical of Mendes, pretentiously showing off the old DB5 while it just doesn't make sense.

    Had he used the one he won in CR it would have been fine, but Sam could not control himself and he shoved in all the gadgets from another timeline.

    Don't agree about smoking though. In the sixties smoking was chique, now it's more associated with the lower classes.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »

    I would have preferred to see Bond smoke rather than the DB5 1964. Connery in Dr No made smoking cool. Bond lives dangerously.

    QOS is the crown of the Craig era. Best film since LTK. A minority opinion though in the mainstream.

    And Forster should have directed SF, and a shame Mendes got the gig. To screw up Blofeld I never thought was possible.

    It being the minority opinion is precisely why QoS isn't the crown of the Craig era. It's the old, 'I love this band, but you wouldn't get them' shtick. It's sandwiched by two films jammed packed with ideas and themes that have heft and are executed superbly. By no means flawless, but rich in mood and atmosphere and story, next to the comparably lightweight difficult second album (which I'm aware is why some people love it - it has moments of excellence).
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »

    It being the minority opinion is precisely why QoS isn't the crown of the Craig era. It's the old, 'I love this band, but you wouldn't get them' shtick. It's sandwiched by two films jammed packed with ideas and themes that have heft and are executed superbly. By no means flawless, but rich in mood and atmosphere and story, next to the comparably lightweight difficult second album (which I'm aware is why some people love it - it has moments of excellence).

    In the end, favourite Bond film comes down to personal taste. Out of all the Craig films, QOS is the one I can watch the most.

    Fans revise their Bond films. I used to dismiss OHMSS for instance.

    And the QOS PTS has an incredible energy. A beautiful metaphor of the viciousness of the world Bond inhabits. Forster as a director did a great job.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »

    In the end, favourite Bond film comes down to personal taste. Out of all the Craig films, QOS is the one I can watch the most.

    Fans revise their Bond films. I used to dismiss OHMSS for instance.

    And the QOS PTS has an incredible energy. A beautiful metaphor of the viciousness of the world Bond inhabits. Forster as a director did a great job.

    'Favourite' is personal taste, naturally. I was talking 'best' film, from a critical perspective.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    GoldenGun wrote: »

    I'm inclined to agree though I really like CR too.

    About the DB5, I liked its use in the Brosnan era because it's the same timeline as the original car. Never had any problems with Bond winning it in CR either because it is a different one.

    But Mendes got it all wrong though. As usual. What does GF's DB5 have to do with the new timeline? Typical of Mendes, pretentiously showing off the old DB5 while it just doesn't make sense.

    Had he used the one he won in CR it would have been fine, but Sam could not control himself and he shoved in all the gadgets from another timeline.

    Don't agree about smoking though. In the sixties smoking was chique, now it's more associated with the lower classes.

    Regarding smoking, it is something that plenty of rich people do. Bond also drinks, which is also associated with the lower classes. In London there are people with no work who are drunk on the streets.

    If someone in an expensive suit and car lights a cigarette up, no one will look down on them.

    And Bond smoking is a middle finger at the politically correct culture we inhabit.

  • Posts: 4,617
    There are two seperate issues:
    Bringing a DB5 into the movie (it could be any DB5 and CR explains the entry to the car)

    and bring THE DB5 back which crosses the timelines
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    Connery's car has had more screen time outside his era. The car is a metaphor for a lack of creativity and originality in the series.

    They never needed it in the Moore era, as the DB5 would have ignited the shadow of Connery.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    EoN desperately tried to convince the public Craig is some sort of new Connery.
    That failed completely so bringing back the DB5 over and over again is an obvious attempt to put some Connery aura around Craig.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Or maybe it's just a nice and iconic car?
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,243
    EoN desperately tried to convince the public Craig is some sort of new Connery.
    That failed completely so bringing back the DB5 over and over again is an obvious attempt to put some Connery aura around Craig.

    You hit the nail on the head. A weak attempt to sub-consciously tell the audience he is the new Connery.

    Hence adios Craig. For me, only Connery, Moore and Dalton were completely their own man..

    Excluding QOS, the Craig era fell into the Brosnan trap. He was also hailed as the new Connery.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »

    You hit the nail on the head. A weak attempt to sub-consciously tell the audience he is the new Connery.

    Hence adios Craig. For me, only Connery, Moore and Dalton were completely their own man..

    Excluding QOS, the Craig era fell into the Brosnan trap. He was also hailed as the new Connery.

    I've been one of the most vocal critics of the DB5 and its misuse in this era, but using it as a stick to beat Craig with is disingenuous. The positives of his era, and in particular his portrayal, far outweigh the negatives.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    It's a thread about controversy and no appreciation thread.
    Countless stabs at SP and Brosnan are ok it seems, but Craig not?

    Brosnan and Craig, both, are just not up to the Quality Level that was ensured from Connery to Dalton in the acting department and Bondian Quality.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,207
    The difference between QOS and the Mendes films is that while QOS looks unrefined on the surface it is quite subtle when you give it more thought. It is the other way around with SF and SP.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It's a thread about controversy and no appreciation thread.
    Countless stabs at SP and Brosnan are ok it seems, but Craig not?

    The idea is that you make a controversial statement, which which will either be agreed with or countered. It's called a 'forum'. If your 'controversial' statement is baseless it will likely be countered. That's how it works.

    Birdleson wrote: »
    You sure sound like Jason.

    Quite.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    edited January 2017 Posts: 167
    Jase is quite fond of Brosnan, me not at all.
    I liked SP though surprisingly. Never cared for Craig.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    acoppola wrote: »
    Connery's car has had more screen time outside his era. The car is a metaphor for a lack of creativity and originality in the series.

    They never needed it in the Moore era, as the DB5 would have ignited the shadow of Connery.
    That's a very valid point. Moreover, it's quite telling that perhaps the most progressive film in the Craig era, QoS, is the one film that does not feature this now tedious car.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The difference between QOS and the Mendes films is that while QOS looks unrefined on the surface it is quite subtle when you give it more thought. It is the other way around with SF and SP.
    Another good point. That's perhaps why QoS is looked upon much more favourably these days on this forum, and why many say it has excellent rewatch value. There's a lot going on in that short run time.
  • Posts: 19,339
    QOS is a smooth,slick film,with very under-rated villains in Greene,Meldrano,Beam etc and Craig in top form.
    Some of the scenes are brilliantly filmed with excellent dialogue.

    The Vesper scenario was closed brilliantly and the gunbarrel at the end made CR-QOS a neat little package.
    SF came along and,to me ,is still a stand-alone Bond film,no matter what is said in SP..i ignore that.

    SP should have carried on moving away from the Vesper storyline,but instead it ignores SF (apart from the totally irrelevant Silva mention) and dragged us back into it.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    The Vesper scenario was closed brilliantly and the gunbarrel at the end made CR-QOS a neat little package.
    SF came along and,to me ,is still a stand-alone Bond film,no matter what is said in SP..i ignore that.

    SP should have carried on moving away from the Vesper storyline,but instead it ignores SF (apart from the totally irrelevant Silva mention) and dragged us back into it.
    I completely agree.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    RC7 wrote: »

    I've been one of the most vocal critics of the DB5 and its misuse in this era, but using it as a stick to beat Craig with is disingenuous. The positives of his era, and in particular his portrayal, far outweigh the negatives.

    As SP proves, his era. bit off more than it can chew. Had he stuck to the QOS characterisation, then I would feel differently.

    His era is all over the place. Connery in his first four films was more consistent .And one year between films, so less time to prepare. And smaller budgets that achieved a cinematic revolution.

  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2017 Posts: 10,512
    acoppola wrote: »

    As SP proves, his era. bit off more than it can chew. Had he stuck to the QOS characterisation, then I would feel differently.

    His era is all over the place. Connery in his first four films was more consistent .And one year between films, so less time to prepare. And smaller budgets that achieved a cinematic revolution.

    Variety is the spice of life, as they say. Craig has tried to do something different with each film - more commendable in my opinion than turning up and going through the motions. Whether people like his work is up for debate, but his dedication isn't.

    As for the films, there's a tonal shift from DN to FRWL and a dramatic one to GF. Same goes for Roger - a slight shift from LALD to TMWTGG then a dramatic one to TSLWM, so singling out Craig (again) is disingenuous.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Well said RC7.
Sign In or Register to comment.