›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…431432434436437…705

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’m all for stunning cinematography, because it creates an atmosphere and draws you into the film.

    The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.

    Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.

    I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)

    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’m all for stunning cinematography, because it creates an atmosphere and draws you into the film.

    The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.

    Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.

    I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)

    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.

    I think that's part of why I love the Dalton films though. Tight, straightforward Bond films. They might have been going for that with QoS but the execution was way too messy imo. Too many ideas and not enough time to flesh any of them out.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’m all for stunning cinematography, because it creates an atmosphere and draws you into the film.

    The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.

    Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.

    I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)

    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.

    I think that's part of why I love the Dalton films though. Tight, straightforward Bond films. They might have been going for that with QoS but the execution was way too messy imo. Too many ideas and not enough time to flesh any of them out.
    Oh I definitely agree. To be clear though, I wasn't referring to the overall film as much as individual shot editing. The Glen films are edited almost like how the OHMSS action sequences are edited, but for the entire film (I'm exaggerating of course for effect). The same goes for QoS, but it's even more hyper. That's in contrast to Gilbert and Young who let the shots linger and used far more wide angle perspective shots. They also ensured that a particular location was filmed from multiple angles over a longer period of time. It helped to build context and allowed the viewer to appreciate the setting & atmosphere more.

    The Glen film which did that reasonably well (imho) was FYEO. It's very atmospheric, despite Conti's disco.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2018 Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’m all for stunning cinematography, because it creates an atmosphere and draws you into the film.

    The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.

    Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.

    I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)

    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.

    I think that's part of why I love the Dalton films though. Tight, straightforward Bond films. They might have been going for that with QoS but the execution was way too messy imo. Too many ideas and not enough time to flesh any of them out.
    Oh I definitely agree. To be clear though, I wasn't referring to the overall film as much as individual shot editing. The Glen films are edited almost like how the OHMSS action sequences are edited, but for the entire film (I'm exaggerating of course for effect). The same goes for QoS, but it's even more hyper. That's in contrast to Gilbert and Young who let the shots linger and used far more wide angle perspective shots. They also ensured that a particular location was filmed from multiple angles over a longer period of time. It helped to build context and allowed the viewer to appreciate the setting & atmosphere more.

    The Glen film which did that reasonably well (imho) was FYEO. It's very atmospheric, despite Conti's disco.

    I've got a lot of time for the Glen films in general to be honest. I'm not a huge fan of the 70s films. TSWLM is brilliant, LALD is decent and MR is technically very impressive, but overall I think they feel a bit sloppy and lazy a lot of the time.

    The 80s I think are a bit of a mixed bag too (not that keen on FYEO and AVTAK) but I do see it as sort of a renaissance after the 70s. A lot of that is down to the script but I think Glen and the editors deserve a lot of credit too. I liked the workman approach. It's very basic and straightforward but there's no pretentiousness to it. Just fun, tight, straightforward spy movies with some great plots and characters and unmatched action scenes and stuntwork. They might not feel as epic as the Gilbert movies and they're not as groundbreaking as the 60s films but they seemed to get on a pretty consistent roll that I wish the producers today could match. I think OP is the most underrated film of the series and the Dalton films are my all time favourites.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’m all for stunning cinematography, because it creates an atmosphere and draws you into the film.

    The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.

    Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.

    I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)

    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.

    I think that's part of why I love the Dalton films though. Tight, straightforward Bond films. They might have been going for that with QoS but the execution was way too messy imo. Too many ideas and not enough time to flesh any of them out.
    Oh I definitely agree. To be clear though, I wasn't referring to the overall film as much as individual shot editing. The Glen films are edited almost like how the OHMSS action sequences are edited, but for the entire film (I'm exaggerating of course for effect). The same goes for QoS, but it's even more hyper. That's in contrast to Gilbert and Young who let the shots linger and used far more wide angle perspective shots. They also ensured that a particular location was filmed from multiple angles over a longer period of time. It helped to build context and allowed the viewer to appreciate the setting & atmosphere more.

    The Glen film which did that reasonably well (imho) was FYEO. It's very atmospheric, despite Conti's disco.

    I've got a lot of time for the Glen films in general to be honest. I'm not a huge fan of the 70s films. TSWLM is brilliant, LALD is decent and MR is technically very impressive, but overall I think they feel a bit sloppy and lazy a lot of the time.

    The 80s I think are a bit of a mixed bag too (not that keen on FYEO and AVTAK) but I do see it as sort of a renaissance after the 70s. A lot of that is down to the script but I think Glen and the editors deserve a lot of credit too. I liked the workman approach. It's very basic and straightforward but there's no pretentiousness to it. Just fun, tight, straightforward spy movies with some great plots and characters and unmatched action scenes and stuntwork. They might not feel as epic as the Gilbert movies and they're not as groundbreaking as the 60s films but they seemed to get on a pretty consistent roll that I wish the producers today could match. I think OP is the most underrated film of the series and the Dalton films are my all time favourites.
    I don't disagree with you. I really like the Glen films too (apart from AVTAK). I think they're all easy to rewatch. I do think however that they lack that larger than life vibe of the earlier films and a lot of that is down to the editing, which is more in line with contemporary American action films of that era as opposed to Bond films. I think that is why they are sometimes criticized for cinematography unfairly.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’m all for stunning cinematography, because it creates an atmosphere and draws you into the film.

    The problem with the Mendes films however is they are just too showy. Compare TLD’s Tangiers to that of SP.

    Maybe the first isn’t as much of a technical masterpiece but it transfers the atmosphere of the film a lot better.

    I thought you enjoyed LTK though? ;)

    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.

    I think that's part of why I love the Dalton films though. Tight, straightforward Bond films. They might have been going for that with QoS but the execution was way too messy imo. Too many ideas and not enough time to flesh any of them out.
    Oh I definitely agree. To be clear though, I wasn't referring to the overall film as much as individual shot editing. The Glen films are edited almost like how the OHMSS action sequences are edited, but for the entire film (I'm exaggerating of course for effect). The same goes for QoS, but it's even more hyper. That's in contrast to Gilbert and Young who let the shots linger and used far more wide angle perspective shots. They also ensured that a particular location was filmed from multiple angles over a longer period of time. It helped to build context and allowed the viewer to appreciate the setting & atmosphere more.

    The Glen film which did that reasonably well (imho) was FYEO. It's very atmospheric, despite Conti's disco.

    I've got a lot of time for the Glen films in general to be honest. I'm not a huge fan of the 70s films. TSWLM is brilliant, LALD is decent and MR is technically very impressive, but overall I think they feel a bit sloppy and lazy a lot of the time.

    The 80s I think are a bit of a mixed bag too (not that keen on FYEO and AVTAK) but I do see it as sort of a renaissance after the 70s. A lot of that is down to the script but I think Glen and the editors deserve a lot of credit too. I liked the workman approach. It's very basic and straightforward but there's no pretentiousness to it. Just fun, tight, straightforward spy movies with some great plots and characters and unmatched action scenes and stuntwork. They might not feel as epic as the Gilbert movies and they're not as groundbreaking as the 60s films but they seemed to get on a pretty consistent roll that I wish the producers today could match. I think OP is the most underrated film of the series and the Dalton films are my all time favourites.
    I don't disagree with you. I really like the Glen films too (apart from AVTAK). I think they're all easy to rewatch. I do think however that they lack that larger than life vibe of the earlier films and a lot of that is down to the editing, which is more in line with contemporary American action films of that era as opposed to Bond films. I think that is why they are sometimes criticized for cinematography unfairly.

    I agree they're definitely not as larger than life, but I think that's part of the charm for me. I love a YOLT/TSWLM style extravaganza as much as anyone else, but I think after MR it was time to switch gears. And the shift back down to earth got us some great original stories imo, with OP and the Dalton movies. I've always put this down to the scripts but you're right, the tight editing definitely adds to that vibe.

    I think it's very well done though and I wouldn't mind a similar approach for the next one, since SF and SP felt sort of sweeping and epic even with their (by Bond standards) realistic stories.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Surely, the allowing of "the shots to linger" was more down to the editing rather than down to the direction, and in that case it would've have been Peter R. Hunt's skill not so much Gilbert or Young? Same could be said of wide angle perspective shots being the combined responsibility of the cinematographer alongside the director. In other words, Freddie Young, Claude Renoir and Jean Tournier should share equal billing for Gilbert's work.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    Surely, the allowing of "the shots to linger" was more down to the editing rather than down to the direction, and in that case it would've have been Peter R. Hunt's skill not so much Gilbert or Young? Same could be said of wide angle perspective shots being the combined responsibility of the cinematographer alongside the director. In other words, Freddie Young, Claude Renoir and Jean Tournier should share equal billing for Gilbert's work.
    You could be right @bondsum. I'm not sure how these things are put together but I'd imagine the director has a say in how the film is edited. The Glen films move along at an incredible clip (they feel fresh in that respect even today), but a downside is they fail to fully establish atmosphere like some of the earlier films.
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited February 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I should imagine that it's very much a collaboration, but editing is probably way too technical for most directors to handle and they tend to sit in on much later assembled edited-together footage and make suggestions. There are plenty of stories of the editor saving the mess of footage a director has shot and making the movie that much more entertaining than it would have been. Having recently watched the making of Superman The Movie, I was impressed by Richard Donner who gave much kudos to Goeffrey Unsworth by pointing out that it was Unsworth that solved all the technical problems of how to shoot a man flying and the big action set pieces, right down to how it should be lit and photographed. Spielberg would pay similar accolades to Douglas Slocombe for his gifted and invaluable work on the Indiana Jones trilogy.

    With regards to Glen, it helped that he was an accomplished editor, so when he shot his footage he knew how it would be pieced together.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).

    I'm only talking about LTK. Mill's cinematography in TLD is great imo (Pushkin/Bond framing at the hotel, desert scene, PTS...) and no other Glen Bond film comes close in looking as stale as LTK.

    Really it comes down to the depth of frame and the lighting. Everything shot at the Keys looks 'flat', with people/objects appearing to be at relatively the same distance to the camera, and no effort is put into using anything other than ambient light so no colors pop out. Later in the film when they're at that drug warehouse, the whole set is lit up like it's the 60's again. If you're not sure what that means then watch out for it next time and compare it with Dr.No or even some sets in LALD (Mr. Big's) - they both completely illuminate the sets and it doesn't look normal because that's not how lighting in reality would flood a room. The turn, imho, came in TSWLM where Renoir and Adam (with the aid of Kubrick) paid close attention to how lighting could be made organically. That's not to say that it doesn't ever happen afterwards, but by the time LTK came out it was '89 and it makes it seem so old by then. But anyway, I'd say that LTK has the overall worst cinematography of the films and so I was confused how you were "all for stunning cinematography" and despite that you can enjoy the film.
    bondjames wrote: »
    The Glen films tend to get a bad rap due to the editing. It's filmed in tight and edited tight as well. The shot composition is decent, but the quick editing prevents it from being fully appreciated. The same, to a much more excessive degree, applies to QoS. The audience needs to soak in a setting, and that requires the camera to linger for a while and move back to give perspective.

    @bondjames What's wrong with the editing/shots in any of the Glen films? I can't think of any instance that would cause disorientation or have me feel claustrophobic. The action in the Glen era is top-tier come to think of it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    @bondjames What's wrong with the editing/shots in any of the Glen films? I can't think of any instance that would cause disorientation or have me feel claustrophobic. The action in the Glen era is top-tier come to think of it.
    @BondAficionado there's really nothing wrong with the editing. I was just saying that the editing doesn't allow the atmosphere of the locations to be experienced as well as in the earlier films because it's done in a faster manner. Not even close to QoS style disorientation certainly (that film is the worst offender by far), but still much more brisk than in prior Bond films. FYEO is the one where they still allow locations to breathe in that old style. Think about when Melina is first introduced in the plane flying over the boat, or even when Bond arrives at the hotel in Cortina (one of the most atmospheric scenes in the Glen era imho).

    My point is that it's more on account of the editing and perhaps the focus on pace that prevents the viewer from fully absorbing the location. If one thinks about Joe Butcher's Meditation location (in Mexico) in LTK for instance, it's a beautiful setting. However, due to the focus on action and pace, perhaps it's missed by most.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,844
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I do, and I’ve always found Alec Mills’ work on the Dalton films very underrated. Same for Alan Hume’s work for FYEO and OP. Glen’s films are full of atmosphere. I think the argument of Glen’s “grey visuals” only apply to certain parts of AVTAK (the mine scenes are particularly unimpressive).

    I'm only talking about LTK. Mill's cinematography in TLD is great imo (Pushkin/Bond framing at the hotel, desert scene, PTS...) and no other Glen Bond film comes close in looking as stale as LTK.

    Really it comes down to the depth of frame and the lighting. Everything shot at the Keys looks 'flat', with people/objects appearing to be at relatively the same distance to the camera, and no effort is put into using anything other than ambient light so no colors pop out. Later in the film when they're at that drug warehouse, the whole set is lit up like it's the 60's again. If you're not sure what that means then watch out for it next time and compare it with Dr.No or even some sets in LALD (Mr. Big's) - they both completely illuminate the sets and it doesn't look normal because that's not how lighting in reality would flood a room. The turn, imho, came in TSWLM where Renoir and Adam (with the aid of Kubrick) paid close attention to how lighting could be made organically. That's not to say that it doesn't ever happen afterwards, but by the time LTK came out it was '89 and it makes it seem so old by then. But anyway, I'd say that LTK has the overall worst cinematography of the films and so I was confused how you were "all for stunning cinematography" and despite that you can enjoy the film.

    Stunning cinematography isn’t everything of course. I think cinematography is one of the most important aspects of a film, but it’s obviously not the only one.

    You’re right though about the wearhouse scene but I’d argue the Isthmus scenes and the finale in the desert fare a lot better. Anyway, it hasn’t the best cinematography in the series and I would never claim that but I like it more than say DAF, LALD, AVTAK or TND.

    Furthermore, LTK more than makes up for anything it might not have with one of the most engaging stories of the series and a distinctly 80’s atmosphere (which I always can appreciate).
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I guess "great cinematography" is very subjective. It very much depends on what you like. Many people point at how beautifull certain scenes look on the screen, and other may criticize that this might look even a bit too beautifull and hence fake. I guess most films have at least a few very fine and memorable shots and of course this all depends on the locations that were filmed. So it is no wonder that OHMSS is often praised for having a great cinematography.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,844
    Also depends on the subject, a Bond film benefits from a different approach in cinematography than a horror film or a Fellini film.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    edited February 2018 Posts: 1,884
    bondjames wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    @bondjames What's wrong with the editing/shots in any of the Glen films? I can't think of any instance that would cause disorientation or have me feel claustrophobic. The action in the Glen era is top-tier come to think of it.
    @BondAficionado there's really nothing wrong with the editing. I was just saying that the editing doesn't allow the atmosphere of the locations to be experienced as well as in the earlier films because it's done in a faster manner. Not even close to QoS style disorientation certainly (that film is the worst offender by far), but still much more brisk than in prior Bond films. FYEO is the one where they still allow locations to breathe in that old style. Think about when Melina is first introduced in the plane flying over the boat, or even when Bond arrives at the hotel in Cortina (one of the most atmospheric scenes in the Glen era imho).

    My point is that it's more on account of the editing and perhaps the focus on pace that prevents the viewer from fully absorbing the location. If one thinks about Joe Butcher's Meditation location (in Mexico) in LTK for instance, it's a beautiful setting. However, due to the focus on action and pace, perhaps it's missed by most.

    Oh right, you were referring to the lack of long shots of the setting, gotcha. Tbh the Bond films pretty much stopped doing a lot of that during the 80's and it hasn't really returned since. They'll show the establishing wide shot and that's mainly it time-wise.

    The old films took their time introducing you to a new location, because more of the film was spent there compared to nowadays where they keep cutting between two parallel scenes. They also used more different perspectives and angles in the past I think.
    GoldenGun wrote: »

    Stunning cinematography isn’t everything of course. I think cinematography is one of the most important aspects of a film, but it’s obviously not the only one.

    You’re right though about the wearhouse scene but I’d argue the Isthmus scenes and the finale in the desert fare a lot better. Anyway, it hasn’t the best cinematography in the series and I would never claim that but I like it more than say DAF, LALD, AVTAK or TND.

    Furthermore, LTK more than makes up for anything it might not have with one of the most engaging stories of the series and a distinctly 80’s atmosphere (which I always can appreciate).

    Yeah, but bad cinematography cannot immerse oneself into a film...

    Fair examples, although I'd add TMWTGG. *shudder*

    I actually find AVTAK to be the most '80s', but that's 99% subjective.



  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,477
    I know this is far from controversial since alot of fans feel the same way. Watching TLD last night and the first half is so damn good. Pure classic Bond in all areas but then it just falls apart after the fake Pushkin assassination.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    I know this is far from controversial since alot of fans feel the same way. Watching TLD last night and the first half is so damn good. Pure classic Bond in all areas but then it just falls apart after the fake Pushkin assassination.
    +1. An unfortunate situation which afflicts many recent Bond films, imho.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,477
    I feel the same way about AVTAK until San Francisco
    Spectre after Morroco
    DAD until Iceland
    The second half of FYEO is much better than the first
    The first 45 minutes of TB makes snails look like NASCAR races
    YOLT until Japanese Bond
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Maybe controversial: I do enjoy AVTAK more than TSWLM. Roger is too old in it but it never bothers me.

    The first half hour of TLD is one of the best in the series
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,897
    I always found TSWLM too sci-fi oriented and too recycled.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,477
    I'm trying to figure out the sci-fi areas in TSWLM
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Maybe controversial: I do enjoy AVTAK more than TSWLM.

    I honestly never thought I would hear something like that in my lifetime. Or anyone else's for that matter.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,844
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Maybe controversial: I do enjoy AVTAK more than TSWLM.

    I honestly never thought I would hear something like that in my lifetime. Or anyone else's for that matter.

    I enjoy TMWTGG and FYEO more than TSWLM.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Bros Attacks!
    Posts: 6,905
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Maybe controversial: I do enjoy AVTAK more than TSWLM.
    Same here.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,937
    Controversial opinion here:

    I enjoy AVTAK more than the 2006 CR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Maybe controversial: I do enjoy AVTAK more than TSWLM.
    Same here.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Controversial opinion here:

    I enjoy AVTAK more than the 2006 CR.
    Shocking. Positively shocking.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,897
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    I'm trying to figure out the sci-fi areas in TSWLM

    An underwater world. The destruction of the whatever is above water to create a new civilization. Heck the submarine car is borderline.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Controversial opinion here:

    I enjoy AVTAK more than the 2006 CR.

    You're in the wrong thread mate. You want the 'Certifiably Insane Opinion' thread.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,324
    Nothing surprises me anymore. CR is better in just about every way for me, of course, but I do still enjoy AVTAK. I will say for sure AVTAK is one of the most underrated Bond films, alongside LTK and QOS.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Christopher Walken's Zorin is enough for me to appreciate AVTAK.
Sign In or Register to comment.