Controversial opinions about Bond films

1505506508510511707

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinion (?): We Share the Same Passions is the best romantic music we've had in a Bond film since 1989. It hasn't been surpassed, though Arnold got very close in TWINE and CR.
    Is it true it was actually composed by John Altman and not Eric Serra?

    The whole score is composed by Serra, the only exception is the James Bond Theme rendition that was eventually used during the tank chase.
  • Posts: 7,507
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinion (?): We Share the Same Passions is the best romantic music we've had in a Bond film since 1989. It hasn't been surpassed, though Arnold got very close in TWINE and CR.
    Is it true it was actually composed by John Altman and not Eric Serra?

    The whole score is composed by Serra, the only exception is the James Bond Theme rendition that was eventually used during the tank chase.

    That is the only good track in the score! ;))
  • Posts: 7,653
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Feels like opposite ends of the spectrum, although I like Damon as an actor and I like his characterization of Bourne (done with intelligence that TC lacks); I'm just not a fan of the films and can barely get through one of them nowadays (they seem to have dated terribly, and I didn't bother seeing the last one).

    You didn't miss much,believe me...just the same as normal.
    These films need to be put out to pasture.

    They still delivered more than the last two 007 movies which have alienated quite a few fans of the franchise, who are now basically waiting for the next 007 and a newer course of the franchise.

    The last Bourne movie was great fun an had some brilliant actionscenes something the last two 007 movies put you to sleep with.

    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.

    I always take issue with someone ascribing motivations to other's opinions. We don't know what is anyone else's head and it basically invalidates the other's (often heartfelt) perspective.

    Thank you for your opinion and I am glad you never ascribe motivations to other peoples opinions, When somebody does not watch a movie and stil has an opinion about it I generally find them ignorant it is better to tell people you have no opinion based upon facts. But these days these everybody has an opinion regardless of any knowledge, which I find far more annoying than anything else.

    And furthermore this being a 007 fansite I do read a lot of stupid comments about other movies based upon a rather odd reasoning.

    I am a Bondfan, but find the Craig era a lot of bellybutton gazing and I am sure the next one will contain a personal matter as well. I do miss the 007 of before where at least I wanted to be 007 nowadays and women wanted to be with 007, I feel nothing like that anymore. Craig is certainly not my taste of 007 due to the last two movie.
  • Posts: 7,507
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Feels like opposite ends of the spectrum, although I like Damon as an actor and I like his characterization of Bourne (done with intelligence that TC lacks); I'm just not a fan of the films and can barely get through one of them nowadays (they seem to have dated terribly, and I didn't bother seeing the last one).

    You didn't miss much,believe me...just the same as normal.
    These films need to be put out to pasture.

    They still delivered more than the last two 007 movies which have alienated quite a few fans of the franchise, who are now basically waiting for the next 007 and a newer course of the franchise.

    The last Bourne movie was great fun an had some brilliant actionscenes something the last two 007 movies put you to sleep with.

    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.


    With every direction the Bond series takes, some fans will feel disappointed or alienated. Nothing new there.
  • IMHO the Bond films will always be able to draw on the tension between the character in the books, the character in the films to date, and what is expected from the latest take on an action film. That gives a great, ugh, brand and great possibilities, for all the legacy constraints. Character is everything in a CGI world.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.

    I always take issue with someone ascribing motivations to other's opinions. We don't know what is anyone else's head and it basically invalidates the other's (often heartfelt) perspective.

    On the one hand, yeah, I see what you're saying. It is obviously possible to think the Mission Impossible films are all hot garbage that are unwatchable after seven minutes. But when an action series gets rare near-universal acclaim for three movies in a row, and folks on a Bond forum are saying it's actually insufferable crap, well, it's pretty easy to figure out. If the next Bond is miles better than Fallout, there will be a Mission Impossible forum with a bunch of people who think it's horrible.

    I'll actually go further and say that anyone who claims to have been interested in one of the last few MI movies but came out thinking it sucked is being disingenuous. Or they're not very good at understanding the types of movies being promoted by posters and trailers. Each MI movie is a caper driven by meticulous set pieces and incredible stuntwork, and that's what they're meant to do. They're not about pretending to be Japanese or driving an underwater car or every woman having the same voice. You don't have to like any particular series, but to pretend that Mission Impossible is somehow doing a bad job of delivering the Mission Impossible product is ridiculous.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    jobo wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Controversial opinion (?): We Share the Same Passions is the best romantic music we've had in a Bond film since 1989. It hasn't been surpassed, though Arnold got very close in TWINE and CR.
    Is it true it was actually composed by John Altman and not Eric Serra?

    The whole score is composed by Serra, the only exception is the James Bond Theme rendition that was eventually used during the tank chase.

    That is the only good track in the score! ;))

    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Feels like opposite ends of the spectrum, although I like Damon as an actor and I like his characterization of Bourne (done with intelligence that TC lacks); I'm just not a fan of the films and can barely get through one of them nowadays (they seem to have dated terribly, and I didn't bother seeing the last one).

    You didn't miss much,believe me...just the same as normal.
    These films need to be put out to pasture.

    I agree @barryt007 ...
  • Remington wrote: »
    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
    "That's What Keeps You Alone" is a wonderful track as well.

    I will defend GE's score (and the film) until the grave, lol.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Remington wrote: »
    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
    "That's What Keeps You Alone" is a wonderful track as well.

    I will defend GE's score (and the film) until the grave, lol.

    Me too. One of my favourite scores of the franchise and my number one non-Barry score for a Bond film.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    GoldenEye is a fine score.
  • Posts: 1,916
    peter wrote: »
    I get what you're saying @jobo -- I like Bugs Bunny a helluva lot more than I like Hunt. And, once again, it goes back to the man playing him. Outside of these M:I films, when did Cruise have a hit? I mean a bonafide hit? People like to slam Craig, but Craig doesn't chase Box Office or movie stardom (I think, outside of Bond, he gave that up after CB&A); but Tom Cruise does chase stardom and Box Office. And outside of M:I, not a lot has been going on in the past decade.

    And he doesn't come across as being particularly bright either, in my opinion. Not a lot of intelligence goes into his performance of Hunt. So, might as well keep him moving like the Energizer Bunny. And he's game for that, I suppose, but it's boring after a while.

    Saying that, this conversation has somehow hijacked the thread's purpose. My apologies.
    Peter, I don't think you're giving Cruise enough credit overall. Consider what the man does behind the scenes of not just MI but several of his projects, and I'm not just talking about focus on stunts. From what I know of the man, he works tirelessly on his films, doesn't just collect a paycheck and jet off to party.

    You may not think of him as particularly bright, but he's very engaging with fans, the press and with publicity rounds. I pick up on that. And I disagree he just chases box office and stardom. Why else would he take the chance to sing in a film like Rock of Ages or do a more personal project like American Made? He could've easily probably just signed up for a project he could make a mint from and do little, but that's not his style. He's taken numerous chances in his career. Recall how people moaned about how bad Interview with the Vampire would be before they'd seen it? Sounds a lot like how some people sounded off when a certain actor took over the role of Bond.

    You don't have to like him and I'm not trying to encourage you to, but I don't believe you should underestimate him altogether, either.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @BT3366 ... No I don't like Cruise, in fact I have always found him very hard to like. Superficial, arrogant, poseur, and lacking in something human (that is reflected in his robotic meticulousness);

    Having some contact with industry folk, I do know that he is incredible to work with. He's a dream on set and treats all very well.

    Having some contact with industry folk, unfortunately, I'm also aware that this cheerfulness and mindfulness is barely obliged to his family and to his own blood. This hasn't gone unnoticed.

    Tom Cruise expects control-- whether from children or romantic partners. He has been known to stage manage their lives and his-- this is no big secret. And when he's done with a relationship, many times it's like the person never existed.

    I could write here what I know about a very awkward relationship he had with his ex-wife Katie Holmes and Jamie Foxx-- and his ridiculous demands on the couple (so he wouldn't be "embarrassed").

    To me, the man's a giant phoney. His good behaviour on set and in crowds feels more like orders from a higher entity, and in actuality, that cold, robotic meticulousness reveals a calculating, ego-centric con-man.

    His "risks" are all calculated -- but more often they are back-firing nowadays and in the past decade as well...

    I forgot to put what else I remembered from the last M:I film: the hero-worshipping nonsense-- that Hunt is the saviour to all and this is banged over the heads three or four times in the film. Eye rolling moments for me as I know the little guy has a lot of say in his "brand" (running, running in the rain, he basks in all of this); he being the saviour that we all need is a blatant and calculated Cruisism.

    This is why I stay away from the M:I threads on this site (other than to say that last film truly was a fun cartoon); I don't want to slaughter what gives so many here enjoyment. But when I saw some things on this thread, I jumped in with two cents.

    And, in the end, that's all this is: my two cents. I would never begrudge you, or anyone else for enjoying Cruise and his films. You seem to have a very heart-felt opinion on he and his body of work, and my ramblings above should never take that away.
  • GoldenGun wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
    "That's What Keeps You Alone" is a wonderful track as well.

    I will defend GE's score (and the film) until the grave, lol.

    Me too. One of my favourite scores of the franchise and my number one non-Barry score for a Bond film.

    I've always been fond of the Goldeneye OST. I thought Eric Serra did a great job with it.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,608
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
    "That's What Keeps You Alone" is a wonderful track as well.

    I will defend GE's score (and the film) until the grave, lol.

    Me too. One of my favourite scores of the franchise and my number one non-Barry score for a Bond film.

    I've always been fond of the Goldeneye OST. I thought Eric Serra did a great job with it.

    Bits of it translated well into the n64 game.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
    "That's What Keeps You Alone" is a wonderful track as well.

    I will defend GE's score (and the film) until the grave, lol.

    Me too. One of my favourite scores of the franchise and my number one non-Barry score for a Bond film.

    I've always been fond of the Goldeneye OST. I thought Eric Serra did a great job with it.

    Bits of it translated well into the n64 game.

    Controversial opinion: Goldeneye N64 had a better score than the movie.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,608
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Come on man. The GoldenEye Overture is a great track.
    "That's What Keeps You Alone" is a wonderful track as well.

    I will defend GE's score (and the film) until the grave, lol.

    Me too. One of my favourite scores of the franchise and my number one non-Barry score for a Bond film.

    I've always been fond of the Goldeneye OST. I thought Eric Serra did a great job with it.

    Bits of it translated well into the n64 game.

    Controversial opinion: Goldeneye N64 had a better score than the movie.

    Agreed 110%. I never get tired of hearing the game soundtrack.
  • Posts: 19,339
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Feels like opposite ends of the spectrum, although I like Damon as an actor and I like his characterization of Bourne (done with intelligence that TC lacks); I'm just not a fan of the films and can barely get through one of them nowadays (they seem to have dated terribly, and I didn't bother seeing the last one).

    You didn't miss much,believe me...just the same as normal.
    These films need to be put out to pasture.

    They still delivered more than the last two 007 movies which have alienated quite a few fans of the franchise, who are now basically waiting for the next 007 and a newer course of the franchise.

    The last Bourne movie was great fun an had some brilliant actionscenes something the last two 007 movies put you to sleep with.

    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.

    So you are saying my post was pure envy ?
  • Posts: 7,653
    barryt007 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Feels like opposite ends of the spectrum, although I like Damon as an actor and I like his characterization of Bourne (done with intelligence that TC lacks); I'm just not a fan of the films and can barely get through one of them nowadays (they seem to have dated terribly, and I didn't bother seeing the last one).

    You didn't miss much,believe me...just the same as normal.
    These films need to be put out to pasture.

    They still delivered more than the last two 007 movies which have alienated quite a few fans of the franchise, who are now basically waiting for the next 007 and a newer course of the franchise.

    The last Bourne movie was great fun an had some brilliant actionscenes something the last two 007 movies put you to sleep with.

    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.

    So you are saying my post was pure envy ?

    I just watched MI3 which had plenty of the characterization in it even before the credits roll the PTS shows a Tc in pain we only learn about his helplessness later in the movie and MI3 is a bloody impressive movie JJ Abrams can write and deliver a great film, only he is a fanboy and wants to deliver an exciting movie. With Bourne 5 both the leading actor and the successful director came back because they had another story to tell and the movie was pretty good and enjoyable.

    It is only with Mendes whose vision was grand but the content was lacking that the 007 franchise was really going nowhere, with any decent action director we would have gotten less bloated and better streamlined movies and without a doubt better movies. It is no surprise that both movies did get Oscars for the best Title-song the one area EON had final say about. Mendes has gotten a franchise that was firing on all cilinders and turned in a bloated corpse that has its work cut out getting out of a shyte corner it was painted into.

    The competition which is probably only the MI franchise as I do not see Bourne returning is just doing fine. It will be interesting to see how the franchise will continue without Tom. But that will be in the future after the next two movies who will contain exciting stunts and great action and the scripting is better than EON currently does show.

    Yeah I guess I meant Envy. :)
  • Posts: 7,507
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Feels like opposite ends of the spectrum, although I like Damon as an actor and I like his characterization of Bourne (done with intelligence that TC lacks); I'm just not a fan of the films and can barely get through one of them nowadays (they seem to have dated terribly, and I didn't bother seeing the last one).

    You didn't miss much,believe me...just the same as normal.
    These films need to be put out to pasture.

    They still delivered more than the last two 007 movies which have alienated quite a few fans of the franchise, who are now basically waiting for the next 007 and a newer course of the franchise.

    The last Bourne movie was great fun an had some brilliant actionscenes something the last two 007 movies put you to sleep with.

    I know that this is a 007 site but some of the negatives on the competing franchises smell like pure envy while knowing that your own franchise in troubled water.

    So you are saying my post was pure envy ?

    I just watched MI3 which had plenty of the characterization in it even before the credits roll the PTS shows a Tc in pain we only learn about his helplessness later in the movie and MI3 is a bloody impressive movie JJ Abrams can write and deliver a great film, only he is a fanboy and wants to deliver an exciting movie. With Bourne 5 both the leading actor and the successful director came back because they had another story to tell and the movie was pretty good and enjoyable.

    It is only with Mendes whose vision was grand but the content was lacking that the 007 franchise was really going nowhere, with any decent action director we would have gotten less bloated and better streamlined movies and without a doubt better movies. It is no surprise that both movies did get Oscars for the best Title-song the one area EON had final say about. Mendes has gotten a franchise that was firing on all cilinders and turned in a bloated corpse that has its work cut out getting out of a shyte corner it was painted into.

    The competition which is probably only the MI franchise as I do not see Bourne returning is just doing fine. It will be interesting to see how the franchise will continue without Tom. But that will be in the future after the next two movies who will contain exciting stunts and great action and the scripting is better than EON currently does show.

    Yeah I guess I meant Envy. :)


    Those are only your personal opinions, and that is not enough for you to make verdict of Barry´s line of reasoning...

    You keep insisting that Mendes has jeopardized Bond and ´alienated´ fans. Well, the stone cold truth is Skyfall was a massive hit both financially and critically and recruited several new people into liking the franchise. Spectre, although far more controversial and a disappointment to some, was still a huge succes financially. Feel free to repeat your subjective opinions (that is what these threads are for), but when you imply that the vast majority of people and general public agree with you that Mendes has ruined the franchise, it is a bit pathetique, as it is far from the case!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2019 Posts: 6,277
    Revelator wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: If I'm being generous there are about only 11 out of all 24 Bond movies that are actually good. The rest are subpar.

    Not very controversial from my standpoint. A couple of Bond films are genre masterpieces, a handful range from very good to just good, and the remainder are either mediocre, formulaic, or just plain bad. But pretty much all of them have been made with craft and display such fine production values that even the bad films retain some entertainment value.

    I don't think it's controversial either; roughly half of the 24 are good. If you allow that all six '60s films should be included, that leaves roughly TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, GE, CR, SF.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2019 Posts: 6,277
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I'm glad I'm not the only one finding the Tom Cruise promotional vehicle with Ethan Sue insufferable.
    I wouldn't go so far as to consider the M:I movies insufferable...but at least completely forgettable. I haven't seen the latest one, and do not expect that to change until I can get it on Blu-ray for well under 10 euros. But I've seen all the others (I even own them on BD, more for completism than actual affection) and, quite frankly, do not recall anything specific about them except that they had that big-nosed dwarf as the main character. Oh yes, and that Jim Phelps was the bad guy and they had that ridiculous Eurotunnel helicopter chase and a lot of scenes in Prague in the first entry, but that is the only one I so far cared to watch for a second time. Not saying M:I is not entertaining altogether, but give me all and any Bond film (except maybe TWINE and DAD) over the entire bunch anytime.

    Tbh I never know what happened in which M:I film. That's the problem. I remember some of the stunts, and I understand Tom does most of them himself, but then they add so much CGI you never know if it was really dangerous or just a lot of spectacle. With Bond it's usually different. The one that went utterly wrong was DAD. But the crane jumping in CR i.e. is still breathtaking.

    The character development in the MI: films is lacking for me. Cruise still can't act. The first is almost certainly the best because of the cast (Kristin Scott Thomas is welcome in any Bond film) and director. The most recent had Vanessa Kirby so that was an improvement on the last few.
    peter wrote: »
    @BT3366 ... No I don't like Cruise, in fact I have always found him very hard to like. Superficial, arrogant, poseur, and lacking in something human (that is reflected in his robotic meticulousness);

    Having some contact with industry folk, I do know that he is incredible to work with. He's a dream on set and treats all very well.

    Having some contact with industry folk, unfortunately, I'm also aware that this cheerfulness and mindfulness is barely obliged to his family and to his own blood. This hasn't gone unnoticed.

    Tom Cruise expects control-- whether from children or romantic partners. He has been known to stage manage their lives and his-- this is no big secret. And when he's done with a relationship, many times it's like the person never existed.

    I could write here what I know about a very awkward relationship he had with his ex-wife Katie Holmes and Jamie Foxx-- and his ridiculous demands on the couple (so he wouldn't be "embarrassed").

    To me, the man's a giant phoney. His good behaviour on set and in crowds feels more like orders from a higher entity, and in actuality, that cold, robotic meticulousness reveals a calculating, ego-centric con-man.

    His "risks" are all calculated -- but more often they are back-firing nowadays and in the past decade as well...

    I forgot to put what else I remembered from the last M:I film: the hero-worshipping nonsense-- that Hunt is the saviour to all and this is banged over the heads three or four times in the film. Eye rolling moments for me as I know the little guy has a lot of say in his "brand" (running, running in the rain, he basks in all of this); he being the saviour that we all need is a blatant and calculated Cruisism.

    This is why I stay away from the M:I threads on this site (other than to say that last film truly was a fun cartoon); I don't want to slaughter what gives so many here enjoyment. But when I saw some things on this thread, I jumped in with two cents.

    And, in the end, that's all this is: my two cents. I would never begrudge you, or anyone else for enjoying Cruise and his films. You seem to have a very heart-felt opinion on he and his body of work, and my ramblings above should never take that away.

    In a word: Scientology.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,247
    Well for a frenchise that's been running for 24 episodes now and over 50 years, I'm amazed people still call it out and i.e. compare old entries to modern other frenchises. For me the M:I films seem all the same, I can't destinguish the one from the other. The stuntwork is fantastic though, allthough that too loses it's meaning with CGI support.

    Bond however shouldn't be an all action kind of film, neither the dark humourless (but realistic) Smiley kind of films. As has been said before, all have their place and tbh I don't think people who go and watch an M:I film choose it over Bond. If they're interested in both they probably go see both.

    @SaintMark as @jobo said, I don't recocnise the 'demise', and if anything, Bond has come back from far worse (DAD). I guess the problem for you is you don't seem to like Craig, and he's back. But don't worry, B26 probably has a different Bond all together.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    I agree there is a lot of small, but vocal, anti-Craig animus on this board.

    SP was very much in line for the series, in that the fourth film for a Bond actor (TB, MR, DAD) tends to be a bloated spectacle.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    echo wrote: »
    I agree there is a lot of small, but vocal, anti-Craig animus on this board.

    SP was very much in line for the series, in that the fourth film for a Bond actor (TB, MR, DAD) tends to be a bloated spectacle.

    Agree with you on that(although two of those films are still better than SP).

    I wouldn't say I am anti-Craig, per se, but I do think his era post CR has flattered to decieve.

    He probably is my least favourite Bond. A good actor, no doubt, but I just don't find him very watchable. I don't know whether it's his look, voice or the 'cut of his jib'.

    That being said, he, like all of the others, has still brought something to the role. When I think we could have got Clive Owen or Julian McMahon, Craig doesn't seem so bad.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Command

    @SaintMark as @jobo said, I don't recocnise the 'demise', and if anything, Bond has come back from far worse (DAD). I guess the problem for you is you don't seem to like Craig, and he's back. But don't worry, B26 probably has a different Bond all together.

    @CommanderRoss I find the the comparison with DAD as always laughable, that movie was by no means the worst 007 movie and did not in any way prove to be low point for the series. (MR gets a lot of criticism and then we got FYEO with the same leading actor which was bloody great Fleming driven plot with great stunts that looked real and probably were) so after DAD had Brosnan been around we would undoubtely have gotten a toned down movie, had it happened.

    We got the great CR and the passable QoB next in which Craig more than showed he was capable of great 007 movies. I am by no means anti-Craig he has proven himself. However if you call me anti-Mendes I am fine with that.
    In my humble opinion he with EON's Oscar pretensions (got them for the songs though) made the 007 series into something it never was a bit too arty (great looking images, so had MR) and made it into a bellybutton-gazing movie that was nothing like before and did the franchise no good. Bond became less of an adventure and more of a lot of work with plotholes were complete train-sets could pass through, this last thing was no real setback as the 007 had its plotholes before. But Mendes came up with some stories that would have made sense if he also made it smart and tight thriller stories instead he went DAD like out there and the SP movie was so bloody terruble it made no sense whatsoever. As a movie a bloody waste of time.

    I did enjoy the most recent MI movies because they were enjoyable, fun and well made movies that managed personal and yet enjoyable yarns. Something missing terrible form the last two movies. Do I blame Craig, no I do not even if it is known that he also has a lot of cloud within the production. Mendes however should never be let near the series again, he just is no Martin Campbell, he lack the quality.

    Currently based upon the last two movies from the 007 franchise I feel no incredible urge towards the next one. While I can easily say that the next MI movie has my attention based upon their presentation over the last 3 movies.

    For me something is just missing these days form the 007 franchise and I hope that Craig goes out on a high but perhaps he'll be plagued by the same ending as Brosnan.

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    I agree!
    +2
    Birdleson wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    Not all of them ;)

    I agree!
    +2

    As with nearly everything, for me it's a matter of how it's done, and how the characterization fits into the narrative and the flow of the film. If it all comes together in a holistic fashion (and I can appreciate that this is from my perspective), then I'm perfectly fine with a meeker companion vs. a strong willed type. So I suppose I really don't have a preference.

    I will say though that I'm not a fan of whiners. Daft I can deal with, but clingy whiners
    are annoying to me.

    And we all know who the main protagonist of whining and clinging is don't we ?

    Stacey Sutton ;)
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Benny wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    I agree!
    +2
    Birdleson wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the meeker, damsel type Bond girls are more appealing.

    Not all of them ;)

    I agree!
    +2

    As with nearly everything, for me it's a matter of how it's done, and how the characterization fits into the narrative and the flow of the film. If it all comes together in a holistic fashion (and I can appreciate that this is from my perspective), then I'm perfectly fine with a meeker companion vs. a strong willed type. So I suppose I really don't have a preference.

    I will say though that I'm not a fan of whiners. Daft I can deal with, but clingy whiners
    are annoying to me.

    And we all know who the main protagonist of whining and clinging is don't we ?

    Stacey Sutton ;)

    That's what i would have said....
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    My pick is Sam Smith.
Sign In or Register to comment.