›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…4849515354…707

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Austin Powers didn't ruin Bond Movies. It helped keep them from using those old tropes again in the 90's and 2000's with the sad exception of Die Another Day.
  • JrW_008JrW_008 The North
    Posts: 112
    I'll get whacked for being racist and homophobic saying this but in my honest opinion Bond must be white, hetrosexual and speak in a legitimate Bond accent. Like SirHenryLeeChaChing I would never, ever watch a film claiming to be Bond without a legitimate Bond. There's controversy for you.
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Absurd. Moonraker, The Man with the Golden Gun, Octopussy, Live and Let Die and The World is not Enough (for example), are really good Bond movies, only people see flaws in them or see them open to ridicule. Great Bond movies from my perspective - others see them as lousy or not up to much

    Given the exception of TWINE I agree with you. There isn't a Roger Moore Bond film I don't like, and Octopussy is my favourite of them. They may be far fetched to some but it makes for enjoyable viewing as much as, for example FRWL does, just sometimes in a different way.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I suppose whether it ruined Bond movies or not is down to how much you valued all the old tropes.

    I would never say Austin Powers ruined Bond, but I have to admit I miss the gadgets.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    @JrW_008 If a Bond release can keep the interest, keep you fascinated and wanting more, then it's a fine and upstanding Bond release. All the above titles do just that, Ok, it may not be one way traffic the entire duration, there's no such thing as a flawless or immaculate James Bond film, but for thrills and spills, you can't go wrong with those mentioned
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited August 2013 Posts: 16,351
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I suppose whether it ruined Bond movies or not is down to how much you valued all the old tropes.

    I would never say Austin Powers ruined Bond, but I have to admit I miss the gadgets.

    Austin Powers never used gadgets though. All I remember him using was a mini camera while taking pictures. Other than that just a tube a tooth paste to blind a guard and Magnifying Glasses.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I suppose whether it ruined Bond movies or not is down to how much you valued all the old tropes.

    I would never say Austin Powers ruined Bond, but I have to admit I miss the gadgets.

    Austin Powers never used gadgets though. All I remember him using was a mini camera while taking pictures. Other than that just a tube a tooth paste to blind a guard and Magnifying Glasses.

    Didn't his mini go underwater ala Spy in one of them?

    I think getting rid of the gadgets was all part of the more realistic tone, and Austin Powers was one of the main reasons for them taking that direction.

    I think Daniel Craig said in an interview that when making the new films, there was always a worry that something would seem "too Austin Powers"
  • JrW_008JrW_008 The North
    Posts: 112
    Given what Baltimore_007 just said I feel bad about saying I wouldn't watch a Bond film with a black actor cast as Bond. What I am trying to say is I fear a non white actor being cast because of pressure from 'minority groups' and PC views. I honestly don't think I could get my head around a non white Bond, you can change your hair colour but you can't change your skin. It just wouldn't be James Bond to me.
    I want to express I genuinely don't see myself as being a racist, I have never had any issue with someone of another race I just can't see my favourite character changing his skin and really don't mean to be hurtful in saying this and I hope you can forgive me if I have. I just want to express my opinion.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited August 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I suppose it's really where you draw the line. To me making him black would be no worse than giving him an underwater car or making him blonde but for some people it'd be a step too far.

    I don't really understand why changing his skin colour would be any worse than the countless other changes though, or why anyone would stop watching the films because of it.
    JrW_008 wrote:
    I want to express I genuinely don't see myself as being a racist, I have never had any issue with someone of another race I just can't see my favourite character changing his skin and really don't mean to be hurtful in saying this and I hope you can forgive me if I have. I just want to express my opinion.

    Mate, it's fine. I know you're not racist, don't get all worried about it ;)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited August 2013 Posts: 16,351
    The way I see it. James Bond was written as a early middle aged white guy in his late 30's early 40's. Change that then it's not James Bond anymore. Stay to the source material look of the character. Sure Hair color changes from time to time but that's one minor thing to get riled up over.

    Also I don't count cars as Gadgets. They can have gadgets but I don't count a spy car as a gadget.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Complaining about hair colour is the same as complaining about eye colour and making a fuss over Connery's which were brown, as @Murdock said, a small change in the grand scheme of things.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited August 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote:
    The way I see it. James Bond was written as a early middle aged white guy in his late 30's early 40's. Change that then it's not James Bond anymore. Stay to the source material look of the character. Sure Hair color changes from time to time but that's one minor thing to get riled up over.

    But he was written as much more than that. I don't understand why adding things like the gadgets and changing his entire personality is fine, but a black Bond isn't Bond anymore?
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Complaining about hair colour is the same as complaining about eye colour and making a fuss over Connery's which were brown, as @Murdock said, a small change in the grand scheme of things.

    I agree, except I feel the same way about his skin colour too.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    The way I see it. James Bond was written as a early middle aged white guy in his late 30's early 40's. Change that then it's not James Bond anymore. Stay to the source material look of the character. Sure Hair color changes from time to time but that's one minor thing to get riled up over.

    But he was written as much more than that. I don't understand why adding things like the gadgets and changing his entire personality is fine, but a black Bond isn't Bond anymore?.

    No because it strays way to far from the source material and changes the character completely.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote:
    No because it strays way to far from the source material and changes the character completely.

    I think they did that a long, long time ago.

    How is Roger Moore's Bond not changing the character completely? His skin colour is the same sure but he's nothing like Flemings Bond. Same goes for Brosnan and even Connery.

    Making him black is only changing his appearance. You could get a black Bond and make the movies closer to the source material than ever if you got the right story and if he played a Fleming type Bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited August 2013 Posts: 16,351
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    No because it strays way to far from the source material and changes the character completely.

    I think they did that a long, long time ago.

    How is Roger Moore's Bond not changing the character completely? His skin colour is the same sure but he's nothing like Flemings Bond. Same goes for Brosnan and even Connery.

    Making him black is only changing his appearance. You could get a black Bond and make the movies closer to the source material than ever if you got the right story and if he played a Fleming type Bond.

    Roger still looked enough like Fleming's Bond. Middle Aged white male. Even if a Black actor could pull off a Flemingesque performance it wouldn't be James Bond. Like @SirHenry said, If they want a Black spy, create a new Franchise. Hollywood needs some new tentpole franchises anyway.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    I think Bond movies should be made to please Bond fans. In fact I should head up the Committee that determines whether a movie is worthy of "Bond".
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    Dalton in LTK is the best portrayal of James Bond in any film ever. I'm not sure that'll be entirely controversial but I actually don't know what the consensus here is for that. I have a feeling CR and FRWL would get more votes even on here.

    Guy Hamilton is the worst Bond director before Tamahori.

    You can say that a black Bond is not Bond, but if that's the case, you're obliged to say that Roger Moore wasn't Bond either. I'd much rather see, say, Idris Elba do a Daltonesque or Craigesque Bond than see someone like Moore go in and take a dump all over Fleming's creation.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    edited August 2013 Posts: 686
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    Dalton in LTK is the best portrayal of James Bond in any film .

    I could not see Fleming-Bond disobeying an order and refusing to go to Turkey.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    Perdogg wrote:
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    Dalton in LTK is the best portrayal of James Bond in any film .

    I could not see Fleming-Bond disobeying an order and refusing to go to Turkey.

    Fleming's Bond didn't look at his missions objectively and would question his orders. He would also take revenge if his best friend was mutilated and his wife raped and murdered.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    Perdogg wrote:
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    Dalton in LTK is the best portrayal of James Bond in any film .

    I could not see Fleming-Bond disobeying an order and refusing to go to Turkey.

    Fleming's Bond didn't look at his missions objectively and would question his orders. He would also take revenge if his best friend was mutilated and his wife raped and murdered.

    Based on what?
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    chrisisall wrote:
    The Sixties Bonds were the only really good ones.

    (is that controversial enough?)
    Ugh, you sound just like my dad with that one!
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    Fleming's Bond didn't look at his missions objectively and would question his orders. He would also take revenge if his best friend was mutilated and his wife raped and murdered.
    Yes but the key difference is that Fleming's Bond got his revenge for Felix and Tracy while he was on a mission. The very people he sought for revenge were the people that he was sent on a mission to stop in the first place. LTK puts quite a different spin on things.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Dalton was and is the best cinematic Bond portrayal of Bond and will never be topped.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    To the above, Connery was perhaps the closest representation of Fleming's character in From Russia With Love, but it's always a close call with either of Dalton's two appearances
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    chrisisall wrote:
    Dalton was and is the best cinematic Bond portrayal of Bond and will never be topped.

    How do you square this with your belief that the only really good Bond movies were in the 60's?

    I liked the different look the MI6 offices have in Quantum of Solace, and I'm kind of regretful they didn't keep it, even though I definitely prefer the new Universal Exports layout.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    [
    How do you square this with your belief that the only really good Bond movies were in the 60's?
    That was just a controversial thing I tossed out; early Connery & Dalton were the best.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    QoS is better than all the Bourne movies. ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Murdock wrote:
    QoS is better than all the Bourne movies. ;)

    I can agree with this. The Bourne movies were good fun, but QoS is leagues better.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    QoS is better than all the Bourne movies. ;)

    I can agree with this. The Bourne movies were good fun, but QoS is leagues better.

    There's no way in hell QoS was better than Identity.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @StirredNotShaken, like I said, they're all good, but the problem with 'Identity' is I've seen it so many times and I just grew tired of it. QoS, for some reason, does not get old for me.

    Then again, it's my opinion. No facts here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @StirredNotShaken, like I said, they're all good, but the problem with 'Identity' is I've seen it so many times and I just grew tired of it. QoS, for some reason, does not get old for me.

    Then again, it's my opinion. No facts here.
    Agreed.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited August 2013 Posts: 7,314
    I think that I'd have to give the edge to Identity as it had a better story, more interesting characters and better direction. I would rank Craig's performance higher than Damon's though (which is a testament to Craig's abilities since Damon was great) and I think that QoS had a better score.
Sign In or Register to comment.