Controversial opinions about Bond films

JamesBondKenya

Nah, I think the less gadgets the better. But I guess it also depends on how agregious the gadget is. For example I love a good bomb in a watch but I can’t stand something like the jacket from TWINE because it essentially makes bond not need to be smart

peter

Make them grounded and real, but not: oh, isn't that lucky! Q Branch designed said jacket and coincidentally Bond needed it on his latest mission because he was, wouldn't ya know it, caught in an avalanche.

I think it's OHMSS the novel where Bond took his watch and made them into knuckle-dusters-- love that.

Or the mentioned briefcase.

What tools could Bond use today that are realistic, yet would impress since they're just out of our reach. That's what'd I'd love to see.

Exploding watches, saws in watches, machine guns in cars and ejector seats too... I just don't think this stuff washes in the modern era of action films.

(BTW, the Aston looked pretty good as just being a car, with James Bond using his skill as a marksman and a driver-- at the same time-- in QoS. That's wits and skills combined)

BT3366

Just make them practical or cutting edge we can't get commercially yet. Remember when Bond films did that?

My least favorite case of a too-convenient gadget was YOLT when he runs across Osato's safe and just happens to have a mini safecracker in his jacket pocket. I'd have found it funny if he'd have instead pulled out the rebreather.

Where was this gadget when Bond had to crack Gumbold's safe just a film later and had to get one that doubles as a copying machine that is the size of a traveling case? That monstrosity made for a much more suspenseful scene, one of the best in the series.

CommanderRoss

I agree with th general line of thought here. Cadgets are part of spywork, as they've always been. But Bond's suitcase, as is introduced in FRWL, is standard for ALL field agents. IIRC that's also mentioned by Grant in the train, asking if those coins are also in the other briefcase.

What I like about the DB10 is that it's actually assigned and customised to a different agent (albeit not ready).

The worst is actually DAD's invisible car, which was so good (apparently) they need it to malfunction just to get an action scene going.

I don't like it when gadgets are there to get him out of a certain situation, but as has been mentioned before, the watch in LALD helps him out/doen't help at all/ helps him out, making it far more 'realistic'.

But a certain ballpoint is certainly convincing.

BMW_with_missiles

It is often true that Bond’s gadgets are very convenient and obviously just a plot device created by the writers, but I think that just goes back to the fact that holding the plot of any Bond film up to excessive scrutiny never ends well. Gadgets are, in my opinion, an indelible part of the cinematic character, and removing them is far too great a change to make to cinematic Bond. It’s an injustice to the character established in audiences’ minds by decades of films heavily featuring gadgets as a primary facet of Bond. Lack of gadgets, to me, makes Bond feel significantly less like Bond, and I think that’s true for many audience members. Very often, some fantastical piece of technology is invented, like a jet pack or something, and news articles about it make statements like “straight out of a James Bond movie,” or “real life Bond gadget.” Members here may be familiar with the novels and their relative lack of gadgets, but the general film going public and many fans like myself don’t really care about the books, and may not even be aware of their existence. Gadgets and cinematic Bond go hand in hand.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

The gadgets are actually there to enforce Bonds fallibility. If Bond got through on just his wits every time he would start to come across as a superman type figure, or the villains would look idiots. We need to know that there are some things James Bond can't do and some predicaments he can't think around. Sometimes, he truly is outsmarted or outnumbered. In those times it is necessary that he has some other trick up his sleeve which the enemy hasn't considered, and that's the role that the gadgets have.

Good point, I agree.

jobo

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

The gadgets are actually there to enforce Bonds fallibility. If Bond got through on just his wits every time he would start to come across as a superman type figure, or the villains would look idiots. We need to know that there are some things James Bond can't do and some predicaments he can't think around. Sometimes, he truly is outsmarted or outnumbered. In those times it is necessary that he has some other trick up his sleeve which the enemy hasn't considered, and that's the role that the gadgets have.

Bond was outsmarted regularly in the novels. He didn't rely on gadgets, but would eventually triumph the hard way thanks to endurance, bravery and willpower, like it should be. He gets far too many easy escapes through out the film series thanks to gadgets.

peter

jobo wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

The gadgets are actually there to enforce Bonds fallibility. If Bond got through on just his wits every time he would start to come across as a superman type figure, or the villains would look idiots. We need to know that there are some things James Bond can't do and some predicaments he can't think around. Sometimes, he truly is outsmarted or outnumbered. In those times it is necessary that he has some other trick up his sleeve which the enemy hasn't considered, and that's the role that the gadgets have.

Bond was outsmarted regularly in the novels. He didn't rely on gadgets, but would eventually triumph the hard way thanks to endurance, bravery and willpower, like it should be. He gets far too many easy escapes through out the film series thanks to gadgets.

Exactly. His wits, physical attributes, and lotsa blood-spilling gets him out of horrible situations and he never comes across as a superman type (since he pays his dues to get out of the situations-- with his own blood, usually).

It's in the films where it got to a point that Bond became Superman with all his gadget-wizardry.

I'd be happy with spywear that is just out of our own reach that is believable to a spy/assassin. Anything outlandish and I am taken out of the film.

Mendes4Lyfe

jobo wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

The gadgets are actually there to enforce Bonds fallibility. If Bond got through on just his wits every time he would start to come across as a superman type figure, or the villains would look idiots. We need to know that there are some things James Bond can't do and some predicaments he can't think around. Sometimes, he truly is outsmarted or outnumbered. In those times it is necessary that he has some other trick up his sleeve which the enemy hasn't considered, and that's the role that the gadgets have.

Bond was outsmarted regularly in the novels. He didn't rely on gadgets, but would eventually triumph the hard way thanks to endurance, bravery and willpower, like it should be. He gets far too many easy escapes through out the film series thanks to gadgets.

We don't have the advantage of being inside Bonds head in a movie, with his thoughts. Many of those sequences in the books were driven by his internal monologue.

ClarkDevlin

BMW_with_missiles wrote: »

It is often true that Bond’s gadgets are very convenient and obviously just a plot device created by the writers, but I think that just goes back to the fact that holding the plot of any Bond film up to excessive scrutiny never ends well. Gadgets are, in my opinion, an indelible part of the cinematic character, and removing them is far too great a change to make to cinematic Bond. It’s an injustice to the character established in audiences’ minds by decades of films heavily featuring gadgets as a primary facet of Bond. Lack of gadgets, to me, makes Bond feel significantly less like Bond, and I think that’s true for many audience members. Very often, some fantastical piece of technology is invented, like a jet pack or something, and news articles about it make statements like “straight out of a James Bond movie,” or “real life Bond gadget.” Members here may be familiar with the novels and their relative lack of gadgets, but the general film going public and many fans like myself don’t really care about the books, and may not even be aware of their existence. Gadgets and cinematic Bond go hand in hand.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

The gadgets are actually there to enforce Bonds fallibility. If Bond got through on just his wits every time he would start to come across as a superman type figure, or the villains would look idiots. We need to know that there are some things James Bond can't do and some predicaments he can't think around. Sometimes, he truly is outsmarted or outnumbered. In those times it is necessary that he has some other trick up his sleeve which the enemy hasn't considered, and that's the role that the gadgets have.

Good point, I agree.

+1

Roadphill

I always go back and forth on the gadgets. To be honest, as above posters have said, as long as they aren't too obtuse, and blatantly Deus ex machina style, such as the aforementioned TWINE jacket, I am fine with them. They are a part of Bond history.

BT3366

I was fine with CR and QoS being mostly gadget-free. Who misses them when the story and action are good? OHMSS is another prime example.

Again, if it's something that's helpful we haven't seen before and is in the realm of reality, then fine. Otherwise it can just be lazy as in the case of the exploding watch in SPECTRE that saves Bond from Blofeld's torture.

peter

BT3366 wrote: »

I was fine with CR and QoS being mostly gadget-free. Who misses them when the story and action are good? OHMSS is another prime example.

Again, if it's something that's helpful we haven't seen before and is in the realm of reality, then fine. Otherwise it can just be lazy as in the case of the exploding watch in SPECTRE that saves Bond from Blofeld's torture.

damn right.

peter

Birdleson wrote: »

Yes, I don't count tracking devices, cell-phones, copy machines, etc. as "gadgets". There is much more "Q" can do as Quartermaster, than come up with ridiculous gadgets.

Fully in agreement... I sincerely hope Q is there to arm
Bond in 25, not give him a gadget for a gag or to get him out of a situation

LeonardPine

peter wrote: »

Birdleson wrote: »

Yes, I don't count tracking devices, cell-phones, copy machines, etc. as "gadgets". There is much more "Q" can do as Quartermaster, than come up with ridiculous gadgets.

Fully in agreement... I sincerely hope Q is there to arm
Bond in 25, not give him a gadget for a gag or to get him out of a situation

My thoughts exactly. If we're going down that route again I will be sorely disappointed.

GoldenGun

My most controversial opinion must be: I like Madonna’s Die Another Day.

mattjoes

GoldenGun wrote: »

My most controversial opinion must be: I like Madonna’s Die Another Day.

Same here.

echo

jobo wrote: »

That car chase is, as you said, there for the Aston to 'trut it's stuff', not James Bond.

Wot?

Remington

GoldenGun wrote: »

My most controversial opinion must be: I like Madonna’s Die Another Day.

So do I.

FoxRox

I’ve heard it many times, and it’s probably my least favorite of all the title songs. I just can’t get into it at all.

Major_Boothroyd

It's good that this thread can act like a confessional for people who can freely admit their love of Madonna's Die Another Day while performing the dual function of being a register for the rest of us to keep tabs on clearly troubled individuals.

MooreFun

Die Another Day isn't even the worst theme of the Brosnan era, that'd be Sheryl Crow's sad TND attempt.

JamesBondKenya

FoxRox wrote: »

I’ve heard it many times, and it’s probably my least favorite of all the title songs. I just can’t get into it at all.

Yeah and it only gets worse with time. The weird techno crap lyrics have only aged poorly to what was already an awful sounding song

GoldenGun

I agree that the lyrics make no sense, but neither do the lyrics to other songs, like Moonraker for instance, make any sense.
I quite like some electronic music genres, like for instance synthwave and deephouse, and surely that helps to appreciate its sound.
After all, I like many 80’s soundtracks that use synth too, i.e. Manhunter, Le grand bleu, etc.

jobo

MooreFun wrote: »

Die Another Day isn't even the worst theme of the Brosnan era, that'd be Sheryl Crow's sad TND attempt.

They are both quite horrible. I think the Brosnan era had the worst run of title songs. (Not his fault, obviously! You dont´t need to accuse me of bashing him!)

GoldenGun

Sorry to disagree but I like all the Brosnan title songs. I consider Craig’s era to have the weakest run of title songs. YKMN and SF are all right, AWTD is so so and WOTW is the only Bond song that I truly dislike.

barryt007

Personally re Brosnan's title songs I like GE and TWINE.
TND is bang average and DAD is absolute shite.

mattjoes

GoldenGun wrote: »

I agree that the lyrics make no sense, but neither do the lyrics to other songs, like Moonraker for instance, make any sense.

Though I would say there is a difference in that Moonraker's lyrics achieve a certain sense of poetry. DAD's lyrics don't. I understand they were trying to be more in-your-face with them --direct and dramatic-- but they could've been better.

That said, I still very much enjoy the song. It has a boldness to it that I think suits James Bond, even if the style is removed from the "classic" James Bond theme songs. The strings in the background are very good, and I wish David Arnold had had the opportunity to integrate them into his score.

GoldenGun wrote: »

Sorry to disagree but I like all the Brosnan title songs. I consider Craig’s era to have the weakest run of title songs. YKMN and SF are all right, AWTD is so so and WOTW is the only Bond song that I truly dislike.

I enjoy all the Brosnan songs too. The Craig era of songs is alright but Sam Smith's vocals lets WOTW down (shame as its a terrific theme otherwise), as do Keys and White's vocals for AWTD (though it's definitely an inferior composition to WOTW in my opinion). So I prefer the Brosnan songs.

I wish Tina Turner came back for another one.

ClarkDevlin

barryt007 wrote: »

Personally re Brosnan's title songs I like GE and TWINE.
TND is bang average and DAD is absolute shite.

Pretty much.

mattjoes

BT3366 wrote: »

I was fine with CR and QoS being mostly gadget-free. Who misses them when the story and action are good? OHMSS is another prime example.

Gadgets are not something that is essential to make a Bond film, but that doesn't automatically mean they need to be excluded from them.

---

Seems to me the main disconnect between those who don't favor gadgets and those who do is that the former think they come at the expense of Bond as a character, while the latter don't or don't care. I fall into the latter camp as for me Bond films are not --or rather, need not be-- solely about Bond and the tension of his struggle against the villains. Bond films are a buffet to me-- women, hotels, good food, beautiful locations, action, suspense, intrigue, the character of Bond himself, and gadgets.

Gadgets are interesting unto themselves; they're a spice, an optional condiment which might take away from Bond's resourcefulness, but ideally only in brief doses and with the benefit of offering something distinctive that contributes to a sense of spectacle. As long as their design and integration into a film is plausible enough I'm happy. And let's remember the world of Bond is a fantasy-- government agents don't lead glamorous lives by definition, in which in each mission they meet gorgeous women and stay at the best hotels. I think that core quality of fantasy in Bond legitimizes the use of gadgets.

There is room here for films in which Bond relies exclusively on his wits as well as films in which he is aided by technological devices.

bondjames

mattjoes wrote: »

BT3366 wrote: »

I was fine with CR and QoS being mostly gadget-free. Who misses them when the story and action are good? OHMSS is another prime example.

Gadgets are not something that is essential to make a Bond film, but that doesn't automatically mean they need to be excluded from them.

---

Seems to me the main disconnect between those who don't favor gadgets and those who do is that the former think they come at the expense of Bond as a character, while the latter don't or don't care. I fall into the latter camp as for me Bond films are not --or rather, need not be-- solely about Bond and the tension of his struggle against the villains. Bond films are a buffet to me-- women, hotels, good food, beautiful locations, action, suspense, intrigue, the character of Bond himself, and gadgets.

Gadgets are interesting unto themselves; they're a spice, an optional condiment which might take away from Bond's resourcefulness, but ideally only in brief doses and with the benefit of offering something distinctive that contributes to a sense of spectacle. As long as their design and integration into a film is plausible enough I'm happy. And let's remember the world of Bond is a fantasy-- government agents don't lead glamorous lives by definition, in which in each mission they meet gorgeous women and stay at the best hotels. I think that core quality of fantasy in Bond legitimizes the use of gadgets.

There is room here for films in which Bond relies exclusively on his wits as well as films in which he is aided by technological devices.

Well written. You've expressed my view as well.

As an example, the TSWLM Lotus chase remains one of the highlights of the entire canon for me. Every time I view that scene I am absolutely blown away by the tension, the style, the cinematography, the audacity of the premise (conflict involving land, air and sea) and the excellence of the stuntwork and gadgetry on display. The accoutrements take nothing away from the experience for me, and in fact they actually enhance it.

I am similarly impressed and blown away by the stuntwork, tension and humour in the FYEO Citreon/Peugeot chase even though that one features no gadgets at all. In fact, I'd say this chase, while just as good, has a little less tension in it than the TSWLM one where the stakes seem higher.

So for me, it really comes down to how it's done.
--

GoldenGun wrote: »

Sorry to disagree but I like all the Brosnan title songs. I consider Craig’s era to have the weakest run of title songs. YKMN and SF are all right, AWTD is so so and WOTW is the only Bond song that I truly dislike.

I agree. I can't stand AWTD and WOTW. SF is decent but I don't consider it top tier. YKMN is the only one I really like.

During the Brosnan run, I like GE & TND (yes, I'm one of the few who enjoys Crow's effort) and don't mind DAD (it suits the film). It's only Garbage's effort which I find a bit 'been there, done that' pastiche. I'm glad they didn't select K'd Lang's Surrender for TND because I think that too sounds a bit too imitative (in an inferior manner) of the past.