Controversial opinions about Bond films

14445474950707

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    The initial premise of DAD was really interesting, Bond is captured and tortured and returns a 'broken man'. Unfortunately that was all binned about ten minutes after the opening credits.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    Opinion - On paper, DAD is a decent Bond film.

    (This is not strictly my opinion 100%, but I'll elaborate once others have crucified it).

    I can sort of see what you mean. If the special effects looked a million times more realistic then you might be able to enjoy it as a stupid but fun Bond film.

    I was watching it again the other week and I may do a more thorough exploration of this (I'd thought of mocking up a poster but don't have the time at the minute) - All of this is theoretically impossible bollocks, but basically, I feel like it would have been a viable Roger entry - with a few tweaks here and there. Perhaps the Koreans are in fact the Khmer Rouge or maybe even the Russians. The plot itself is something straight out of the Roger era, I can see it sitting before TSWLM and MR as a Gilbert trilogy of sorts. It would have been incredibly difficult to pull off the plethora of action scenes (Rog back-projected on a surfboard may be a tad too far) you'd imagine that would have been scaled down in 1974-5, but in terms of it's globe-trotting ambitions and theatrical plot it just seems to me like a film that was made 30 years too late. Jean Tournier lensing Roger in Iceland and London would have been beautiful.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    I could see DAD being a Moore vehicle as well, a solid point. I have always found their respective eras to be quite similar in style and substance when compared to each other, Brosnan's tenure seemed to shamelessly and too frequently borrow from what came before. Although to Sir Roger's credit, he's frequently mentioned how way out there DAD is and under his watch, some things would have been scaled down or altered as he would have insisted it be so because he had some sense of quality control and insisted on some say in these matters. You could argue that Moonraker is contrary to that theory, and rightfully so, he knows it but at least he admits to it and that all things considered he didn't mind that it was the most monetarily successful entry for the next 20 years.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Siberia wrote:
    This thread is totally underwhelming.

    "I don't care much for Moonraker." Really?

    "Sometimes I'm in the mood for Roger Moore" barely qualifies as an opinion, let alone a controversial one.

    Here's one: Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are the superior producers. A real passion for and attention to the source material.

    Well - do we finally have a new member with something interesting to say rather than being a troll? Quite an arresting post Siberia.

    I find myself agreeing with the main thrust of your argument – we are here for controversy. Who doesn’t like a bit of Rog when theyre in the right mood. I’m as much a Fleming die hard as the next man but would I want to live in a world without any Rog Bond films? Not a chance. Enjoying a Roger romp from time to time is far from controversial.

    So – Babs and MGW more faithful to the material than Cubby and Harry?

    Well, apart from the fact they have no material left, this is an interesting theory that certainly needs some analysis.

    First lets do a breakdown of who produced what to get an overall flavour of their tendencies:

    Cubby: Oversaw DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO , TLD and LTK (although I’m not sure how much he actually did on Daltons second but he presumably signed off on the tone of the film) so clearly knew what he was doing in terms of Fleming. However he also delivered YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, TSWLM and MR (the last two on his own) and along with allowing the superspy character to emerge during the mid 60’s he has to shoulder a large slice of the blame for the clichéd Austin Powers stereotypes that became entrenched in the 70’s.
    Fleming faithfulness: For allowing TB, YOLT and DAF and then TSLWM and MR (and lets remember that apart from DN and FRWL the faithful to Fleming films after that were largely responses to going too far in previous films; OHMSS was a response to the over the top YOLT, ditto FYEO/MR and the Dalton era was a back to basics after the excess he allowed during the Rog era. For these reasons I cant go higher than 6/10 despite the likes of DN, FRWL and OHMSS.

    Harry: DN – TMWTGG (although his involvement in that was fairly limited). It was Harry who saw the potential and bought the rights and it was only really YOLT, DAF and TMWTGG that really pull his batting average down. He cant be accused of having anything to do with the overblown epics of TSWLM and MR however like Cubby he was a showman and given YOLT and DAF I don’t think theres any real reason to think these films would have been more Flemingesque or toned down if he had still been on board.
    Fleming faithfulness: I would say Harry and Cubby’s attitude was the same – give the people what they want and at various times the public wanted Sean as the cool superspy with a carnation under his wetsuit and or Rog saving the world in over the top fashion. 6/10

    MGW: I’m not going to count MR as although he gets an executive producer credit his decision making power in terms of the direction the script might take was limited for this film. Given both his exec producer and screenwriting credits I’m going to say his tenure starts with FYEO and overall he comes out of it pretty well. The only real failure (albeit a monumental one) is DAD.
    OP, AVTAK, GE, TND and TWINE could hardly be called Flemingesque but they had their moments and don’t forget that of the films MGW wrote himself FYEO, OP and AVTAK were certainly the more serious of the Rog era in terms of tone and he alone wrote LTK and did most of the producing duties on TLD (and co wrote of course) and LTK so I feel he has always wanted to go for a more serious Bond.
    The Brozza era seems to me like it may well have been treated merely as a transition as Babs found her feet and they just needed to show to the studio an audience that a) they could revive Bond in 95 and b) emerge from Cubbys shadow with their own take on the series which has now happened with Craig era. Brozza seems like a night watchman to me (in the cricketing sense non UK members), a safe pair of hands to keep things ticking over so although they tried to bring in a bit of depth that was similar to Fleming in tone (006’s betrayal, Paris Carver, Elektra) they didn’t want to take too many gambles so played it safe with plenty of gadgets and ticking all the clichés to make sure as many punters as possible came through the doors.
    The reasons DAD occurred are rather beyond me as I don’t really see how MGW let it happen. Was it a misguided faith in P&W and Tamahori (although who takes more of the blame for this – him or Babs is one of the great mysteries) or perhaps the fact that he was getting older and took his eye off the ball? Certainly in interviews in recent years he doesn’t seem quite as enthusiastic as he used to be and appears tired – but maybe I am wrong here. Overall though his contribution is second only to Cubby but in terms of Fleming Faithfulnesa I would give him maybe a 7/10 as after TB Cubby's output was wildly inconsistent in Fleming terms despite still having plenty of Fleming material. MGW to my mind has always from FYEO to SF attempted to bring more of Flemings Bond to the screen and has presided over both the Dalton and Craig eras with only the lull of the Brozza era really against him.

    Babs: Although she worked on TLD and LTK I don't really think she made any of the big calls regarding the tone the films would take so her tenure is only really GE to SF. Many of my comments about the Brozza era above are applicable here I guess. She did green light Jinx, the invisible car and the endless cliche box ticking of the Brozza era so on the face of it things don't look good.
    However she had the strength of character and belief in Fleming to sack a very popular (at the time) Bond and go back to Fleming. Given the way Cubby was desperate to keep Sean and Rog for as long as was humanly possible there seems to be a policy of not to risk casting another actor when you have one the public like. Babs could easily have gone back to earth after DAD and made CR with Brozza (this whole thing about the reboot being Bonds first mission is very thin. Fleming never mentions this in the book) but it would have been too jarring to have the film as was with the same actor so we would only have got a watered down version of the CR we ended up with.
    She realised she really wanted to go back to the books, bollock torture and all, and for that she needed an actor with some serious chops.
    I think the Brozza era was her learning her trade. She learned frim the mistakes of DAD and now with the Craig era she has found her stride. OK she is maybe slightly obsessed with elevating Bond to be the darling of the academy but no one is perfect and she really has upped the quality of talent involved in Bond films which can only be a good thing.
    Fleming Faithfulness 7/10.

    I've surprised myself there. Babs and MGW are more faithful to Fleming? Am I seriously saying that? I think I might be. Especially one considers that the well of Fleming material was almost dry when they took over. Who'd have thunk it?!

    That said Siberia's other comment that they are superior producers is something I can't agree with. Cubby and Harry were proper old school producers who created the Bond industry (well cinematic Bond industry) from scratch. I'm afraid the luck of having nepotism in their favour is something that, through no fault of their own, Babs and MGW can't overcome.

    Cubby and Harry worked hard and took risks to become successful Bond producers. Babs and MGW were lucky enough to be born into the thriving family business so the path was always going to be a little easier. However the job they are doing at the moment is pretty good so all credit to them.

    @TheWizardOfIce: this is handsdown the best post I've read here in weeks. I am astonished to learn from your writing exactly how much Flemingness Babs and MGM carry in them. I do agree on all accounts. It also demonstrates IMO that a lot of the antiBans criticism floating on this forum is unjustified.

    Sir, I sincerely thank you for this post. I was a joy reading it and it feels good agreeing with it.
  • @Dimi- did you mean MGM, or MGW?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2013 Posts: 12,480
    DarthDimi said: TheWizardOfIce: this is handsdown the best post I've read here in weeks. I am astonished to learn from your writing exactly how much Flemingness Babs and MGM carry in them. I do agree on all accounts. It also demonstrates IMO that a lot of the antiBans criticism floating on this forum is unjustified.

    Sir, I sincerely thank you for this post. I was a joy reading it and it feels good agreeing with it.

    ***

    @DarthDimi: "antiBans" - you mean antiBabs? Or am I just missing the right lingo as I am just waking up?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Oops, antiBabs of course. ;-) It's getting late for me. Thanks, @4EverBonded. :-)
  • Posts: 686
    DarthDimi said: TheWizardOfIce: this is handsdown the best post I've read here in weeks. I am astonished to learn from your writing exactly how much Flemingness Babs and MGM carry in them. I do agree on all accounts. It also demonstrates IMO that a lot of the antiBans criticism floating on this forum is unjustified.

    Sir, I sincerely thank you for this post. I was a joy reading it and it feels good agreeing with it.

    ***

    @DarthDimi: "antiBans" - you mean antiBabs? Or am I just missing the right lingo as I am just waking up?

    Why is it unjustified? Is she above criticism?
  • No she's not ABOVE criticism -- it's just that (as @Wizard has detailed) the criticism is unjustified. And just to put a tweak in your tail: IMHO, that criticism is largely based on sexism. She's a GURL, she can't POSSIBLY understand how to make a good James Bond film!
  • Posts: 686
    No she's not ABOVE criticism -- it's just that (as @Wizard has detailed) the criticism is unjustified. And just to put a tweak in your tail: IMHO, that criticism is largely based on sexism. She's a GURL, she can't POSSIBLY understand how to make a good James Bond film!

    Okay, when you don't have an effective argument you just accuse people of sexism. Typical.
  • Posts: 2,483
    Perdogg wrote:
    No she's not ABOVE criticism -- it's just that (as @Wizard has detailed) the criticism is unjustified. And just to put a tweak in your tail: IMHO, that criticism is largely based on sexism. She's a GURL, she can't POSSIBLY understand how to make a good James Bond film!

    Okay, when you don't have an effective argument you just accuse people of sexism. Typical.

    It's the coin of our sorry realm. And this from a guy who thinks Babs is doing a very good job.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,789
    DN is way more entertaining than FRWL. Shoot- I have a Kevlar vest! :))
  • Posts: 5,634
    It is more entertaining. More to get involved in, think the locations help too. From Russia With Love often seems a bit gloomy and dark with regards to location, uninteresting even, whereas Dr No took in some really outstanding scenery. FRWL is maybe the better Bond release of the two, but I simply enjoy Dr No more with each viewing. It's a more uplifting watch you could go as far to say
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 169
    While I still rate FRWL above it, another thing about DN that's important to mention is that Joseph Wiseman set the bar very high for Bond villain performances. Very menacing & dignified despite his relatively brief screen time in what could have been an embarrassing recycling of Fu Manchu.
  • No she's not ABOVE criticism -- it's just that (as @Wizard has detailed) the criticism is unjustified. And just to put a tweak in your tail: IMHO, that criticism is largely based on sexism. She's a GURL, she can't POSSIBLY understand how to make a good James Bond film!
    How could you such a thing. We women are more than capable ;) Look at Katherine Bigalow
  • No she's not ABOVE criticism -- it's just that (as @Wizard has detailed) the criticism is unjustified. And just to put a tweak in your tail: IMHO, that criticism is largely based on sexism. She's a GURL, she can't POSSIBLY understand how to make a good James Bond film!

    How could you say such a thing. We women are more than capable ;) Look at Katherine Bigalow

    That was said with tongue firmly in cheek, in case you hadn't noticed. Barb's doing a great job, Cubby would be very proud of her.

  • Posts: 43
    Skyfall was basically a remake of TWINE and Brosnan performance was better than Craig's.
  • Posts: 169
    aspie wrote:
    Skyfall was basically a remake of TWINE and Brosnan performance was better than Craig's.

    The former is an unremarkable fact (many Bond films recycle elements from earlier installments) and the latter is an opinion I do not share.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 43
    Dr_Yes wrote:
    aspie wrote:
    Skyfall was basically a remake of TWINE and Brosnan performance was better than Craig's.

    The former is an unremarkable fact (many Bond films recycle elements from earlier installments) and the latter is an opinion I do not share.
    Well, the thread is for controversial opinions. Structure recycled many times but actual scenes being lifted from other films (MI 6 Building scene) is just too close and well - sloopy. The story basically substituted Badem character for Elektra's. Babs should have known better. SF uninspiring to say the least. Regards.

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    How about Daniel Craig is nothing like Fleming's Bond

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    To elaborate:

    Craig's bond looks nothing like the description of Ian Fleming's Bond or any of the other bonds ( well in honesty with the exception of Dalton and perhaps Brosnan in appearence wise especially with the comma hair and perhaps Connery though without the scottish accent)

    * Bond isnt blue eyed or blonde
    * Bond under any circumstances DRINKS Heinkien Beer or any other beers (in the novels he will only drink beer if its offered to him by a highly respectable charater and the beer has to be an exotic imported beer- Craigs bond is guilty of drinking Heinkien Beer (though in all fairness- even Tanner was drinking Henikein ON THE JOB!!!)

    * Bond smokes cigarettes- Connery, Brosnan (in Die Another day) and Dalton (LTK)
  • Posts: 5,634
    Brosnan smoked a cigar in Die Another Day. I believe that was the only instance in which I can recall the Irishman smoking as Bond. Even in Tomorrow Never Dies he was seen to say to someone - "Filthy habit"..

    The Craig 'inappropriate as Bond' as been discussed to death by now, but you can appreciate any frustrations. Yes, there was the issue with hair color, even eyes, and the physique was something we hadn't quite seen before, but the initial furore died down eventually, as enough people recognized he's simply a very good Bond, but I was one of those who had initial skepticism about the actor, but we've all seen now after two or three releases, what he can bring to the screen as Flemings iconic character, so those (minor) inconsistencies we first saw, can eventually be overlooked
  • Posts: 533


    "GOLDFINGER" sucked and is still my least favorite Bond movie.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Fleming's Bond had Grey Blue eyes from what I read in Casino Royale.
  • Posts: 169
    aspie wrote:
    Dr_Yes wrote:
    aspie wrote:
    Skyfall was basically a remake of TWINE and Brosnan performance was better than Craig's.

    The former is an unremarkable fact (many Bond films recycle elements from earlier installments) and the latter is an opinion I do not share.
    Well, the thread is for controversial opinions. Structure recycled many times but actual scenes being lifted from other films (MI 6 Building scene) is just too close and well - sloopy. The story basically substituted Badem character for Elektra's. Babs should have known better. SF uninspiring to say the least. Regards.

    You make a fair and reasonable point about the explosion itself at MI6, which was just a step away from the old low-budget film practice of using stock footage. Other than having it out for M personally, Silva's motive, methods, and goals beyond killing her were different enough from Elektra's that it didn't bother me. I don't mind at all if you disagree. I recently watched TWINE again for the first time in a long while & I liked it a lot and can see why there are ardent fans for Brosnan #3.
  • JrW_008JrW_008 The North
    Posts: 112
    *I like TMWTGG and rank it in the top half on Bond films.
    *TLD and LTK do not feel like Bond films at all. I like LTK but it doesn't feel like a Bond film.
    *Roger Moore is one of the better Bonds. Some consider him 'cheesy' but I really don't get that off him.
    *QoS is undoubtedly one of the worst, it's an extra to Casino Royale which sways and becomes horrific.
    *OHMSS was a disaster. Lazenby was a awful Bond and the film itself felt stiff and just wrong.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Murdock wrote:
    Fleming's Bond had Grey Blue eyes from what I read in Casino Royale.

    Thank you for saying this. That's one point @002 has wrong, then.
  • Posts: 2,402
    002 wrote:
    To elaborate:

    Craig's bond looks nothing like the description of Ian Fleming's Bond or any of the other bonds ( well in honesty with the exception of Dalton and perhaps Brosnan in appearence wise especially with the comma hair and perhaps Connery though without the scottish accent)

    * Bond isnt blue eyed or blonde
    * Bond under any circumstances DRINKS Heinkien Beer or any other beers (in the novels he will only drink beer if its offered to him by a highly respectable charater and the beer has to be an exotic imported beer- Craigs bond is guilty of drinking Heinkien Beer (though in all fairness- even Tanner was drinking Henikein ON THE JOB!!!)

    * Bond smokes cigarettes- Connery, Brosnan (in Die Another day) and Dalton (LTK)

    Are you for real, man? He doesn't look like Fleming's description, he drinks a beer because the producers needed product placement, and he doesn't smoke again because of a production decision? Forget that his portrayal has all the personality and character of Fleming's? It's insignificant physical things that make him not at all like Fleming, and it doesn't matter at all how Craig portrays him?
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    002 wrote:
    To elaborate:

    Craig's bond looks nothing like the description of Ian Fleming's Bond or any of the other bonds ( well in honesty with the exception of Dalton and perhaps Brosnan in appearence wise especially with the comma hair and perhaps Connery though without the scottish accent)

    * Bond isnt blue eyed or blonde
    * Bond under any circumstances DRINKS Heinkien Beer or any other beers (in the novels he will only drink beer if its offered to him by a highly respectable charater and the beer has to be an exotic imported beer- Craigs bond is guilty of drinking Heinkien Beer (though in all fairness- even Tanner was drinking Henikein ON THE JOB!!!)

    * Bond smokes cigarettes- Connery, Brosnan (in Die Another day) and Dalton (LTK)

    Are you for real, man? He doesn't look like Fleming's description, he drinks a beer because the producers needed product placement, and he doesn't smoke again because of a production decision? Forget that his portrayal has all the personality and character of Fleming's? It's insignificant physical things that make him not at all like Fleming, and it doesn't matter at all how Craig portrays him?

    I have a few rebuttal points of my own as well.

    Point 1- He thinks Brozzer is a great Bond, so consider that. Which is fine, it's his opinion and he can have that. His stance towards Craig based on his prior statements in other threads is not unlike those of the DCINB crew as well. Complain about blond hair (Moore's was light brown, it's not like there isn't a precedent here so it shows what hypocrites they are to begin with because it interferes with their views) is always the first beef. Height and Golem ears usually follow next. Let's keep it honest in here- if they told Brosnan to drink Heineken, he couldn't do it fast enough which is the story of his tenure. I also don't recall Bond drinking Mojitos either! He proved to be the ultimate kiss ass when it came to playing Bond. "Anything you say boss, to hell with me putting my own stamp on the role or fighting hard for that, the paycheck and opportunities for other films are what counts, I'm an A lister now baby!". Most people I know who are actors would tell you on a strictly professional level that Craig could out act Brosnan as Bond in his sleep.

    Point 2- Heineken IS technically an import unless you live in Holland or in a country with a manufacturing facility, and that includes Turkey, plus it's priced that way too here in the United States.

    Point 3- Cigarettes? Brosnan never smoked one in a Bond film, I guess he missed that one in his rush to bury Craig. He smokes cigars in DAD but then he is an avid cigar aficionado in real life so it makes sense. We saw the same with Moore in his first two films, and it was the same circumstance, he had given up cigarettes by then but did still enjoy a good cigar. Craig is a ex-smoker, and made it clear when he signed on that he was not going to start again for the sake of the role. And he rightfully shouldn't be forced to damage his health for the sake of Fleming authenticity, that's just plain wrong and inconsiderate to whatever actor who is playing Bond. Connery, Dalton, and Lazenby were cigarette smokers to begin with so no harm done. But should that be a really be a hiring criteria?



  • edited August 2013 Posts: 11,189
    I'm not 100% certain but I wonder if there's some merit to the claim that TWINE is Brosnan's best performance as Bond. True he overacts in a few scenes but I caught some of it the other day and noticed the following:

    - he looks his best here. Reasonably commanding and authoratitve.
    - he's a lot less smarmy than he is in TND and seems to act like a serious agent.
    - he's more comfortable than he was in GE

    For his hammy performance in some scenes there's others in which I think he's effective like the PTS, the first meeting with Electra at the building site of the pipeline, the casino, killing Davidov etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.