›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…492493495497498…707

Comments

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think for the book to be truthfully adapted a not so high budget would be needed.

    For most of the film perhaps not, but filming a faithful version of the keelhauling, the explosion of Mr. Big's yacht, and the sharks eating everyone would have cost a lot more than the film's actual climax, which occurred in a bargain-basement supervillain's lair with two sharks.

    The 'climax' is really lame for a Bond film. It's all over far too quickly.

    Luckily there's that cool fight on the train to as an extra bonus.

    I miss that, the henchman turning up for a final reel showdown. They missed a trick with Mr. Hind in SP, imagine that great train scrap was at the end!

    Certainly much better than the finale we got…
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think for the book to be truthfully adapted a not so high budget would be needed.

    For most of the film perhaps not, but filming a faithful version of the keelhauling, the explosion of Mr. Big's yacht, and the sharks eating everyone would have cost a lot more than the film's actual climax, which occurred in a bargain-basement supervillain's lair with two sharks.

    The 'climax' is really lame for a Bond film. It's all over far too quickly.

    Luckily there's that cool fight on the train to as an extra bonus.

    I miss that, the henchman turning up for a final reel showdown. They missed a trick with Mr. Hind in SP, imagine that great train scrap was at the end!

    Yeah, the old 'henchman turning up at the end' sort of got phased out in the Moore era.

    Kinda miss it....
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think for the book to be truthfully adapted a not so high budget would be needed.

    For most of the film perhaps not, but filming a faithful version of the keelhauling, the explosion of Mr. Big's yacht, and the sharks eating everyone would have cost a lot more than the film's actual climax, which occurred in a bargain-basement supervillain's lair with two sharks.

    The 'climax' is really lame for a Bond film. It's all over far too quickly.

    Luckily there's that cool fight on the train to as an extra bonus.

    I miss that, the henchman turning up for a final reel showdown. They missed a trick with Mr. Hind in SP, imagine that great train scrap was at the end!

    Yeah, the old 'henchman turning up at the end' sort of got phased out in the Moore era.

    Kinda miss it....
    Me too. Klebb was the first instance.

    I think they had this angle that they wanted to play up in SP (is Bond leaving or is he not leaving?) and I suppose incorporating the henchman thing may have messed with that.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    Talking of Rosa Klebb (whom I consider sharing main villain status with Grant), I think she might have been the most dangerous physical adversary James Bond ever met, simply because of the potency of the poison.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Talking of Rosa Klebb (whom I consider sharing main villain status with Grant), I think she might have been the most dangerous physical adversary James Bond ever met, simply because of the potency of the poison.


    It sure is a great scene!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Talking of Rosa Klebb (whom I consider sharing main villain status with Grant), I think she might have been the most dangerous physical adversary James Bond ever met, simply because of the potency of the poison.


    It sure is a great scene!
    Incredibly iconic, and it's amazing how threatening & intimidating she is throughout the entire film despite being essentially a small, frail looking woman. It's a well written, filmed and acted role.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    bondjames wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Talking of Rosa Klebb (whom I consider sharing main villain status with Grant), I think she might have been the most dangerous physical adversary James Bond ever met, simply because of the potency of the poison.


    It sure is a great scene!
    Incredibly iconic, and it's amazing how threatening & intimidating she is throughout the entire film despite being essentially a small, frail looking woman. It's a well written, filmed and acted role.

    That's what you get when you stay close to Fleming. Of all the persons described by Fleming I dare say Klebb was best cast. It's increadably accurate.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    The fact that Klebb is old and frail makes her all the more frightening. It channels on images of witches. As a child I was scared to see even previews of FRWL.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?
    Not at all. I suggested her some years back. She's the new incarnation of MP to me. Sassy but a bit demure. A terrible missed opportunity. having said that, I don't think Arterton would have gone for a recurring role like that in a Bond film. I think I read somewhere that she wasn't too keen on her character and has moved on.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,619
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.

    Yes to Strawberry Fields being the real MoneyPenny or even Loelia Ponsonby. Naomie Harris sounds too rough in her voice.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.
    Not too controversial at all. Not only an incompetent field agent in this case, but also an incompetent woman, and an incompetent woman of colour no less. I noticed it on first viewing and thought they were a bit bold with that, especially for 2012. No way they would do that today.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.
    Not too controversial at all. Not only an incompetent field agent in this case, but also an incompetent woman, and an incompetent woman of colour no less. I noticed it on first viewing and thought they were a bit bold with that, especially for 2012. No way they would do that today.

    Or could get away with it anyhow. I found that part of SP already annoying how Bond failed because of women, M ordered and Moneypenny shot him. And still he survived their best attempts to kill him. That was a very unfriendly approach which surprised me with Barbara at the wheel.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    I really don't mind Harris as Monepenny, but I have no doubt she would be better received as a traditional Moneypenny. It's really just the way she was introduced in SF that irritates me.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,619
    I normally love British accents, but her's comes off like she smokes too much. In particular when she yells.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I really don't mind Harris as Monepenny, but I have no doubt she would be better received as a traditional Moneypenny. It's really just the way she was introduced in SF that irritates me.

    True as Moneypenny up to that point never needed 007 as shining knight to safe her, she was always the unobtainable security in 007's live and M would kick his arse had he done his dastardly deeds with her/his secretary.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.
    Not too controversial at all. Not only an incompetent field agent in this case, but also an incompetent woman, and an incompetent woman of colour no less. I noticed it on first viewing and thought they were a bit bold with that, especially for 2012. No way they would do that today.

    @bondjames was Eve really incompetent in SF? She took a difficult shot under pressure. Otherwise she's pretty capable. That's one thing I was never quite convinced with SF.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I normally love British accents, but her's comes off like she smokes too much. In particular when she yells.

    Haven't really thought about that, but I guess a traditional Moneypenny wouldn't need to yell…
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I really don't mind Harris as Monepenny, but I have no doubt she would be better received as a traditional Moneypenny. It's really just the way she was introduced in SF that irritates me.

    True as Moneypenny up to that point never needed 007 as shining knight to safe her, she was always the unobtainable security in 007's live and M would kick his arse had he done his dastardly deeds with her/his secretary.

    Indeed. That's why the flirtation between Bond and Moneypenny has worked out so well in the films, IMO. Why change something that works?
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    I really don't mind Harris as Monepenny, but I have no doubt she would be better received as a traditional Moneypenny. It's really just the way she was introduced in SF that irritates me.

    True as Moneypenny up to that point never needed 007 as shining knight to save her, she was always the unobtainable security in 007's live and M would kick his arse had he done his dastardly deeds with her/his secretary.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.
    Not too controversial at all. Not only an incompetent field agent in this case, but also an incompetent woman, and an incompetent woman of colour no less. I noticed it on first viewing and thought they were a bit bold with that, especially for 2012. No way they would do that today.

    @bondjames was Eve really incompetent in SF? She took a difficult shot under pressure. Otherwise she's pretty capable. That's one thing I was never quite convinced with SF.
    I think she was made out to be incompetent by what happened to her (relegated to the office on account of 'killing OO7' and also in the way Bond makes fun of her (both at MI6 and up on the rooftop). I didn't mind it because I don't expect films of this nature to be preaching devices (he has a license to kill which he uses after all, which is sometimes forgotten in this day and age), but I'm surprised they took this approach. In a way I applaud them, because it's reminiscent of the style of the older films.
    SaintMark wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    I think Gemma Arterton would have been a good Moneypenny. Possibly better that Harris. Controversial?

    No it would make more sense than having Moneypenny rebooted as a special agent with a license to kill of on her way to it. I am sure had #Metoo been around they would not have set a woman up in failing to stop the baddie by shooting 007. Or is that too controversial.
    Not too controversial at all. Not only an incompetent field agent in this case, but also an incompetent woman, and an incompetent woman of colour no less. I noticed it on first viewing and thought they were a bit bold with that, especially for 2012. No way they would do that today.

    Or could get away with it anyhow. I found that part of SP already annoying how Bond failed because of women, M ordered and Moneypenny shot him. And still he survived their best attempts to kill him. That was a very unfriendly approach which surprised me with Barbara at the wheel.
    I think they just missed this element of it (meaning they didn't pay attention to it). I'm sure they'll be very conscious this time.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    If they ever do the opening of TMWTGG, we'll all be happy Moneypenny knows how to take a shot. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Why is competence an issue anyway? Dench's M consistently makes bad decisions with horrific ramifications in both of her incarnations. Makes for a more interesting character. The Bond of the novels frequently overestimates his own abilities, or misses or ignores key bits of information, and ends up in peril as a result.
    I agree. I have no problems with it. I think we're just commenting about instances in the context of the times we live in and how it may be perceived and construed. Honestly, to "h" with that. These films should stay true to their convictions and not pander. Anyone can make mistakes, including a woman of colour. It's refreshing to see actually.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    I agree, in fact that's one important aspect of Bond as a character that one should not forget: he makes mistakes and is not infallible. The villain on the other hand should be smarter and far more capable.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Why is competence an issue anyway? Dench's M consistently made bad decisions with horrific ramifications in both of her incarnations. Makes for a more interesting character. The Bond of the novels frequently overestimates his own abilities, or misses or ignores key bits of information, and ends up in peril as a result.


    Not only the Bond of the novels. The cinematic Bond frequently gets into trouble because of recklesness or lack of judgement.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2019 Posts: 8,395
    Like how a certain member feels about Kara, I feel the same way about Vesper. Not the character but how she is portrayed by Eva Green. For me she isn't beguiling but instead just irritating. As an example, who uses the phrase "aimless wanderings"? With tracey I believed that Bond had met his match. With Vesper all I see is someone out of their depth and without any self-awareness. Why is she so confrontational on the train, opposite someone who has been trained in how to kill? It doesn't make any sense. Why does Bond get swept along, like hes actually going along with her self-delusion. When he watches her walk away and does that smile smirk and head tilt, why is he thinking "what a woman!" It annoys the heck out of me. Even rookie Bond isn't that easily manipulated.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    Why wouldn't she be confrontational? If she disapproves if his job and thinks he's a glorified hitman disguised as a civil servant, some arrogant jerk who is from Eton or whatever. That's how she sees Bond. It is in character that she is confrontational. As for Bond, instead of being swept away Vesper talks him down and challenges him professionally. I think he thus sees her as a challenge and an unusual woman.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why wouldn't she be confrontational? If she disapproves if his job and thinks he's a glorified hitman disguised as a civil servant, some arrogant jerk who is from Eton or whatever. That's how she sees Bond. It is in character that she is confrontational. As for Bond, instead of being swept away Vesper talks him down and challenges him professionally. I think he thus sees her as a challenge and an unusual woman.

    Well shes certainly unusual, but not in a way thats endearing. Not for me anyway. And I don't see how she challenges him professionally. Shes an accountant. Her charade on the train strikes me as "I'm important too, you need to take me seriously OKAY?" I can't understand how Bond doesn't see through this, or why he is the least bit challenged. I also don't remember Vesper in the book being this boisterious.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,114
    Vesper in the book is very different yes. Regarding the challenge, questioning the whole strategy and indeed relevance of the poker play, heck, being borderline hostile to the plan, I call that challenging him.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Why wouldn't she be confrontational? If she disapproves if his job and thinks he's a glorified hitman disguised as a civil servant, some arrogant jerk who is from Eton or whatever. That's how she sees Bond. It is in character that she is confrontational. As for Bond, instead of being swept away Vesper talks him down and challenges him professionally. I think he thus sees her as a challenge and an unusual woman.

    Well shes certainly unusual, but not in a way thats endearing. Not for me anyway. And I don't see how she challenges him professionally. Shes an accountant. Her charade on the train strikes me as "I'm important too, you need to take me seriously OKAY?" I can't understand how Bond doesn't see through this, or why he is the least bit challenged. I also don't remember Vesper in the book being this boisterious.

    But he does see through it; calls her out on her exterior to hide who she is (by wearing slightly masculine clothes)...
Sign In or Register to comment.