Controversial opinions about Bond films

1531532534536537707

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Remington wrote: »
    Am I the only one who cringes at the "a licence to kill is also a licence not to kill" line?

    It doesn t make any sense.

    Uhm, rewatch the film.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    It's a great line considering the ending of the film. And it links with what was said in SF during Bond's first encounter with Q:
    "Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled."
    "Or not pulled. It's hard to know which in your pajamas."
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 1,596
    That line from SF makes a lot more sense than the line currently being discussed from SP. @Thunderfinger is right, it doesn't really make sense. It's only there to be a bit of a witticism/ a bit playful. The SF line is an example of a very good line. It's funny, clever, and it makes a point while also making sense.

    The SP line makes sense in that we know what it means, we know what is being said, what the message is. I "get it." But on a strict basis, it makes zero sense. It suggests that a person needs a license to kill in order to not kill someone.

    Also, I'll chime in that I agree by and large about that movie's action. It's inconsistent. I like the PTS and the train fight a lot. The car chase in Rome is a snooze fest and the London finale is embarrassing.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,473
    No one needs a licence not to kill someone obviously. It means that Bond could have killed Blofeld legally and morally had he decided to, and he would not have to face the same consequences as someone without a licence to kill if he had gone through with it. Most people can’t just kill someone without legal repercussions, which is what makes his licence to kill and NOT to kill powerful. And part of M’s point was that it was a decision only an agent can make in a moment, and no technology can help with that.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited September 2019 Posts: 1,165
    I understand what it means, I just think it is poorly worded. I don t need a licence in order to not kill you.
    That’s too literal an interpretation, @Thunderfinger. M’s statement just meant a human agent has the ability and capability to make a judgement call when a situation isnt black-and-white. That is something a machine could never do.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The line is fine; not great, but fine.
    I agree.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.

    +1.

    Sometimes, I even wonder if TWINE ends up being slightly better than GE. It's a more straightforward and grounded spy film, with a memorable Marceu, and Brosnan is more comfortable in the part...
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.

    Eesh!
    Harsh criticism! I am a huge fan of Goldeneye myself, and consider it in my top 5 of the series. I think it always holds a special place in my heart because it was the first Bond experience in the Cinema. I had seen every preceding Bond film at least 5 times by the time it was released, but you can't beat Bond on the big screen.

    Although I disagree with it, I don't think your alone in your opinion. Goldeneye is a little like Skyfall amongst Bond fans. A lot love it, but just as many dislike it.
  • Posts: 16,167
    I hope to change this opinion, but I've been feeling we're in the post "Jumped the Shark" era of the Bond films.

    That pivotal moment in a series where a change is made as a result of formula fatigue and the series never recovers it's original magic.
    Fonzie literally jumping the shark on HAPPY DAYS, DIFF'RENT STROKES introducing new obnoxious characters, THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW going to color and losing Barney, the Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN films changing their tone to slapstick comedy, and BOND attempting a MARVEL -esque story arc.

    Maybe "Jumped the Shark" is a bit harsh, but this is due mainly to the diminishing quantity (and arguably quality) of the films. I keep going back to this. Since LTK, 30 years ago the productivity of the Bond films has been reduced to half. If it were to continue at this rate, the next 30 years would only result in 4 more films.

    After NTTD there's no indication on what lies ahead for the series. Worse case, scenario: I could see a three year breather, than an announcement Eon are closing up shop. I hope not but if that were the case then I'd really feel somewhere along the line the series jumped the shark.

    CR was a brave attempt to inject something new and reintroduce audiences to Bond. Up until QoS it seemed the series was reinvigorated and we'd get an entire new era of Craig films on a regular basis.

    Instead we've got a drawn out story arc some fans (including myself) aren't crazy about, yet still optimistic the newest film will end up a favorite. Seems to me there's a few people even on this board that just seem to be riding the new film out until we get a recast. I'm getting there and don't blame them, TBH, but still hope NTTD is going to be amazing.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    That's a very pessimistic way of looking at it. If you look at each era's Bond, you can say the same at various points, particularly DAF, MR, AVTAK, DAD. And each time the series was either reinvigorated or has simply ploughed on.

    I do get where you are coming from though, the current situation is different in that the cinema landscape and world has changed dramatically since the early Bond films, and Broccoli and particularly Wilson aren't getting any younger, so we may be moving onto the third wave of producers (a sell off is pure speculation at this point)
  • Posts: 16,167
    w2bond wrote: »
    That's a very pessimistic way of looking at it. If you look at each era's Bond, you can say the same at various points, particularly DAF, MR, AVTAK, DAD. And each time the series was either reinvigorated or has simply ploughed on.

    I do get where you are coming from though, the current situation is different in that the cinema landscape and world has changed dramatically since the early Bond films, and Broccoli and particularly Wilson aren't getting any younger, so we may be moving onto the third wave of producers (a sell off is pure speculation at this point)

    I'm hoping MGM/Universal has a plan for the series' future.
    Maybe Gregg will take over from Michael and reinvigorate the series post Craig? I imagine Barbara would stay on, but seems more interested in other projects.
    I wouldn't want a sell off, TBH even if it meant more frequent films. If I want to watch a Bond not produced by the Broccolis I can always pop in NSNA.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited September 2019 Posts: 7,134
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.

    It’s the next one in my Bondathon and I wonder how it will hold up, but I’ve always held it in high regard though my very last experience with it was admittedly underwhelming. Still though, I’m a staunch defender of the Serra score. One of my favourites.
  • Sometimes, and I hate myself for having this opinion, I just really want a Bond film ever two years, even if it's not all that good. I tend to really enjoy some of the worst Bond films, and this 4-5 year gap that is becoming the norm I don't care for.

    I also am not sure it is good for the series in the long run? Audiences want to really "get to know" an actor in their tenure as Bond.

    Craig has been Bond longer than anyone, at this point, and yet he has fewer movies than Moore and Connery.

    If four becomes the new standard, every successive Bond actor is going to have fewer years in the role because of the natural "aging out" process that even adored Bonds have gone through (Moore, and now Craig).

    2006 - CR
    2010 - QoS
    2014 - SF
    2017 - SP

    If you look at it that way, if QOS hadn't been made and released when it did, despite some of its shortcomings with audiences (and some Bond fans), it is likely that SP would've been Craig's last Bond film, releasing two years later than it did in reality, and that's with me giving it a year off the "4 year schedule" because in reality SP did come out only 3 years after SF.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    matt_u wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.

    +1.

    Sometimes, I even wonder if TWINE ends up being slightly better than GE. It's a more straightforward and grounded spy film, with a memorable Marceu, and Brosnan is more comfortable in the part...

    Actually I think Brosnan gives his best performance in GE, it' just the middle of the road mediocre script, satellite in space elements etc which are generic Bond.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Roadphill wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.

    Eesh!
    Harsh criticism! I am a huge fan of Goldeneye myself, and consider it in my top 5 of the series. I think it always holds a special place in my heart because it was the first Bond experience in the Cinema. I had seen every preceding Bond film at least 5 times by the time it was released, but you can't beat Bond on the big screen.

    Although I disagree with it, I don't think your alone in your opinion. Goldeneye is a little like Skyfall amongst Bond fans. A lot love it, but just as many dislike it.

    GE was the first Bond film I watched at the cinema, but having been obsessed since the age of 5, the film was a mediocure disappointment. I was appalled by the score bar the pre-title sequence, gunbarrel, tank and theme song. The car chase music should have been scrapped and Serra sacked IMO! Skyfall is far superior to GE, albeit Skyfall is massively inferior to CR.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GE is a bottom three Bond film for me.
  • ToTheRight wrote: »
    Worse case, scenario: I could see a three year breather, than an announcement Eon are closing up shop.

    Ah I hope not.

    But there’s a chance that things will change forever sometime around 2034, which is only fifteen years away.

    My understanding (might be wrong) is that the character of James Bond will fall out of copyright then, at which point Eon lose their monopoly. Anyone will be able to make any James Bond film they want, with any of the books’ characters, a bit like like Sherlock Holmes now.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 984
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I hope to change this opinion, but I've been feeling we're in the post "Jumped the Shark" era of the Bond films.

    That pivotal moment in a series where a change is made as a result of formula fatigue and the series never recovers it's original magic.
    Fonzie literally jumping the shark on HAPPY DAYS, DIFF'RENT STROKES introducing new obnoxious characters, THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW going to color and losing Barney, the Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN films changing their tone to slapstick comedy, and BOND attempting a MARVEL -esque story arc.

    Maybe "Jumped the Shark" is a bit harsh, but this is due mainly to the diminishing quantity (and arguably quality) of the films. I keep going back to this. Since LTK, 30 years ago the productivity of the Bond films has been reduced to half. If it were to continue at this rate, the next 30 years would only result in 4 more films.

    After NTTD there's no indication on what lies ahead for the series. Worse case, scenario: I could see a three year breather, than an announcement Eon are closing up shop. I hope not but if that were the case then I'd really feel somewhere along the line the series jumped the shark.

    CR was a brave attempt to inject something new and reintroduce audiences to Bond. Up until QoS it seemed the series was reinvigorated and we'd get an entire new era of Craig films on a regular basis.

    Instead we've got a drawn out story arc some fans (including myself) aren't crazy about, yet still optimistic the newest film will end up a favorite. Seems to me there's a few people even on this board that just seem to be riding the new film out until we get a recast. I'm getting there and don't blame them, TBH, but still hope NTTD is going to be amazing.

    I hope your wrong. I do agree with your last paragraph, though. Whilst I still have a measure of anticipation for NTTD, I am, as you put it, one of those essentially riding this era out now.

    I absolutely loved CR, but I can't say that for the other three. I think, whilst some have loved the consistency of tone in Craig's era, it has worn me out. I love a serious Bond film. I love an epic, more fantastical Bond film. I love a middle of the road Bond film. But I don't love any of those when we get four of the same in a row. Imagine if we had four Moonraker type films in a row, or four Licence To Kills? That is essentially what we have had with the Craig era, and even for some of the good it has brought us, I am ready for his run to end.
  • Posts: 16,167
    Roadphill wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I hope to change this opinion, but I've been feeling we're in the post "Jumped the Shark" era of the Bond films.

    That pivotal moment in a series where a change is made as a result of formula fatigue and the series never recovers it's original magic.
    Fonzie literally jumping the shark on HAPPY DAYS, DIFF'RENT STROKES introducing new obnoxious characters, THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW going to color and losing Barney, the Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN films changing their tone to slapstick comedy, and BOND attempting a MARVEL -esque story arc.

    Maybe "Jumped the Shark" is a bit harsh, but this is due mainly to the diminishing quantity (and arguably quality) of the films. I keep going back to this. Since LTK, 30 years ago the productivity of the Bond films has been reduced to half. If it were to continue at this rate, the next 30 years would only result in 4 more films.

    After NTTD there's no indication on what lies ahead for the series. Worse case, scenario: I could see a three year breather, than an announcement Eon are closing up shop. I hope not but if that were the case then I'd really feel somewhere along the line the series jumped the shark.

    CR was a brave attempt to inject something new and reintroduce audiences to Bond. Up until QoS it seemed the series was reinvigorated and we'd get an entire new era of Craig films on a regular basis.

    Instead we've got a drawn out story arc some fans (including myself) aren't crazy about, yet still optimistic the newest film will end up a favorite. Seems to me there's a few people even on this board that just seem to be riding the new film out until we get a recast. I'm getting there and don't blame them, TBH, but still hope NTTD is going to be amazing.

    I hope your wrong. I do agree with your last paragraph, though. Whilst I still have a measure of anticipation for NTTD, I am, as you put it, one of those essentially riding this era out now.

    I absolutely loved CR, but I can't say that for the other three. I think, whilst some have loved the consistency of tone in Craig's era, it has worn me out. I love a serious Bond film. I love an epic, more fantastical Bond film. I love a middle of the road Bond film. But I don't love any of those when we get four of the same in a row. Imagine if we had four Moonraker type films in a row, or four Licence To Kills? That is essentially what we have had with the Craig era, and even for some of the good it has brought us, I am ready for his run to end.

    I agree about the tone. Imagine had the Moore era consisted of only four or five spread out movies in the style of LALD? We'd have never gotten TSWLM, MR or FYEO. Imagine if by Moore's final film we still had him whining about his relationship with Solitaire?
    To me, the Craig era started out promisingly with some clever tweaking of the formula. Also an initial return to the 2 year interval.
    I just hope Cary's style of Bond is classic in it's own way without too strongly resembling the previous Craig outings, or tipping the hat too obviously to the pre-Craig films.
    I also hope MGM have a distribution deal lined up for future films and Universal fast track the next Bond actor's run.
  • Posts: 1,917
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.
    Agree, only I've never and probably never will love it. It's just very middling for me, thought so since 1995.

    I really think a lot of GE love comes from it being the perfect storm that hit at the right time - first film in 6 years; many filmgoers' first exposure to Bond; longtime fans get a new take on the series for modern times; Brosnan, the heir apparent finally gets his shot at Bond; the video game bringing in new fans. I've seen countless comments on fan boards that count GE as the film that made people fans. Nothing wrong with that, but when you put it into context with the rest of the series, it just doesn't seem that special. I felt the love some people have for GE for CR's approach to a reboot.

    I have to wonder do newer fans rank GEll that high, especially those who became fans during the Craig era?


  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    BT3366 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    My controversial opinion is that GE is grossly over rated. Don't get me wrong I am a staunch Bond fan and I still love it. However, it's a decidedly average in the franchise and I remember merely thinking it was 'ok' but a far cry from Connery, early Moore, OHMSS or Dalton when I watched it at 11 years old in the cinema.

    In brief, what never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, vapid, MTV-influenced compilation of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. Fleeting surface flash and gloss with no real heart or soul. A hollow Bond movie garnering hollow praise. Oh and the score is even worse than NSNA.
    Agree, only I've never and probably never will love it. It's just very middling for me, thought so since 1995.

    I really think a lot of GE love comes from it being the perfect storm that hit at the right time - first film in 6 years; many filmgoers' first exposure to Bond; longtime fans get a new take on the series for modern times; Brosnan, the heir apparent finally gets his shot at Bond; the video game bringing in new fans. I've seen countless comments on fan boards that count GE as the film that made people fans. Nothing wrong with that, but when you put it into context with the rest of the series, it just doesn't seem that special. I felt the love some people have for GE for CR's approach to a reboot.

    I have to wonder do newer fans rank GEll that high, especially those who became fans during the Craig era?


    I've heard this a lot on here, overrated, only popular because of the video game, etc, but I disagree (the game didn't even come out until two years after the film). GE is popular because it's brilliant. Not the most groundbreaking or amazingly plotted Bond film sure but it bought Bond back and proved his relevance in a really fresh and exciting way. It's loaded with memorable characters, scenes and dialogue, it introduced an actor who may not be that popular on here but who audiences loved at the time, it's got brilliant action, a great theme song, gave flashy modern updates to old mainstays like the titles and the gunbarrel, it's got a cool villain with a unique link to Bond, an intelligent likeable but real seeming Bond girl, it introduced Dench's M and had the brilliant "dinasour/bean counter" scene. It's just really good. There's a reason they bought Campbell back for the next reboot.

    If you sit there with a critic hat on and compare its artistic merit to some of the older films then sure, maybe it's not that great. It is a big loud 90s action film after all. But if you just sit back relax forget the ropey plot and go along for the ride then it's a blast. It was just what the series needed at the time and it still holds up well. Top five for me.
  • Posts: 1,917
    It was well executed and marketed and did its job extremely well in getting the series and it's popularity revived and freshened up, no disputing. But I take exception with it being "brilliant."

    GE really feels like the Bond answer to the films like True Lies and the big action films that took Bond's place during the hiatus. I'd describe the precredits as one of the best ever UNTIL the part they decided to take it a step too far with the ridiculous flying-into-the-plane sequence. It kinds of sets things up for the rest of the film as far as that goes. I've never thought the tank sequence was good, just like an outtake from The Blues Brothers with destruction for destruction's sake and getting Bond into a vehicle he'd never been in before in the series. The only other action sequence I really liked was the fight at the end, which harkened back to the Connery days.

    But there's still a lot of familiar that did nothing to top what had gone before - casino scene; a mad Russian general (I prefer Gen. Orlov from OP); a knockoff of Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush; yet another threatening piece of space hardware; a gadget-rigged car, which he never even gets to use except to drive down a road; a hidden villain's HQ where everything explodes at the end.

    Then there's the whole business with trying to basically eliminate the Dalton era like setting the precredits in 1986, retconning others like giving Bond a 00 partner and close friend and an old frienemy in Zukovsky.

    There are other aspects I don't care for, but others still I really like. GE is the definition of a very mixed bag for me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Roadphill wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I hope to change this opinion, but I've been feeling we're in the post "Jumped the Shark" era of the Bond films.

    That pivotal moment in a series where a change is made as a result of formula fatigue and the series never recovers it's original magic.
    Fonzie literally jumping the shark on HAPPY DAYS, DIFF'RENT STROKES introducing new obnoxious characters, THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW going to color and losing Barney, the Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN films changing their tone to slapstick comedy, and BOND attempting a MARVEL -esque story arc.

    Maybe "Jumped the Shark" is a bit harsh, but this is due mainly to the diminishing quantity (and arguably quality) of the films. I keep going back to this. Since LTK, 30 years ago the productivity of the Bond films has been reduced to half. If it were to continue at this rate, the next 30 years would only result in 4 more films.

    After NTTD there's no indication on what lies ahead for the series. Worse case, scenario: I could see a three year breather, than an announcement Eon are closing up shop. I hope not but if that were the case then I'd really feel somewhere along the line the series jumped the shark.

    CR was a brave attempt to inject something new and reintroduce audiences to Bond. Up until QoS it seemed the series was reinvigorated and we'd get an entire new era of Craig films on a regular basis.

    Instead we've got a drawn out story arc some fans (including myself) aren't crazy about, yet still optimistic the newest film will end up a favorite. Seems to me there's a few people even on this board that just seem to be riding the new film out until we get a recast. I'm getting there and don't blame them, TBH, but still hope NTTD is going to be amazing.

    I hope your wrong. I do agree with your last paragraph, though. Whilst I still have a measure of anticipation for NTTD, I am, as you put it, one of those essentially riding this era out now.

    I absolutely loved CR, but I can't say that for the other three. I think, whilst some have loved the consistency of tone in Craig's era, it has worn me out. I love a serious Bond film. I love an epic, more fantastical Bond film. I love a middle of the road Bond film. But I don't love any of those when we get four of the same in a row. Imagine if we had four Moonraker type films in a row, or four Licence To Kills? That is essentially what we have had with the Craig era, and even for some of the good it has brought us, I am ready for his run to end.

    Not sure I buy this, personally. I think they’re all as different as any other era.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It was well executed and marketed and did its job extremely well in getting the series and it's popularity revived and freshened up, no disputing. But I take exception with it being "brilliant."

    GE really feels like the Bond answer to the films like True Lies and the big action films that took Bond's place during the hiatus. I'd describe the precredits as one of the best ever UNTIL the part they decided to take it a step too far with the ridiculous flying-into-the-plane sequence. It kinds of sets things up for the rest of the film as far as that goes. I've never thought the tank sequence was good, just like an outtake from The Blues Brothers with destruction for destruction's sake and getting Bond into a vehicle he'd never been in before in the series. The only other action sequence I really liked was the fight at the end, which harkened back to the Connery days.

    But there's still a lot of familiar that did nothing to top what had gone before - casino scene; a mad Russian general (I prefer Gen. Orlov from OP); a knockoff of Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush; yet another threatening piece of space hardware; a gadget-rigged car, which he never even gets to use except to drive down a road; a hidden villain's HQ where everything explodes at the end.

    Then there's the whole business with trying to basically eliminate the Dalton era like setting the precredits in 1986, retconning others like giving Bond a 00 partner and close friend and an old frienemy in Zukovsky.

    There are other aspects I don't care for, but others still I really like. GE is the definition of a very mixed bag for me.

    I agree it isn't the most original, I guess just don't think originality is the be all and end all with Bond films. TSWLM's villain scheme is basically a remake of YOLT and on the surface the whole film is fairly formulaic and box ticking, but it still feels fresh and exciting and full of energy. Same with GE. It's all about the presentation imo and GE does have some novel concepts of its own (a female M calling out Bond's sexism, an evil 00, etc).

    Disagree on Orlov/Ouromov. They're both Russian generals but are very different characters imo. Orlov was mad, Ouromov was more subdued and human seeming.

    Onnatop I think is great. We've seen the mad femme fatale thing before sure but never in such an overtly sexual turned up to 11 sort of way.

    Disagree again on the tank scene. Bond coming crashing through the wall in a tank straightening his tie while the Bond theme plays is a perfect crowd pleasing moment. The actual chase is nothing special I guess but it was something different. And worth it just for that moment at the start.

    The satellite, I'll give you that. The emphasis on computers felt very fresh and modern at the time, but the actual plot of the space weapon was definitely nothing special. And yeah, the BMW was annoyingly pointless as well.

    But your last point, I don't think any of what you described is retcons. The 1986 thing I never saw as an insult (and Dalton is my favourite Bond). They needed a PTS set in the 80s so they picked a random year where there wasn't a Bond film released. Dalton wasn't sacked, he could have done GE himself if he wanted, plus Tim and Barbara were close and Brosnan has talked about admiring what he did with the part on multiple occasions. I don't think anyone involved was trying to wipe the slate clean and make people forget the Dalton era, you're not the only one to have mentioned that but I think it's just fan paranoia. Zukofsky I think is a great character and Alec's history with Bond makes him a great villain. The scene where he has Bond captured (the speech about all the vodka martinis and his funeral, and the lovely little "how is Q?", honestly surprised they never had a former 00 as a villain before) make any holes in his backstory worth it imo. And again I don't see these as retcons at all. Bond has always had off screen adventures.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2019 Posts: 6,304
    Fleming s underwater scenes are far, far better than in any of the films.

    Yes, I wonder why they haven't been properly adapted, particularly the LALD ending (could be a good PTS--and a unique one, if no dialogue).

    I took the GE PTS in a positive way and as no slam on Dalton: it gave Brosnan the chance to "be" Bond in 1986, the chance he was denied before.

    There are other echoes in the film: "You'll never know/What it feels to get so close and be denied..."
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It was well executed and marketed and did its job extremely well in getting the series and it's popularity revived and freshened up, no disputing. But I take exception with it being "brilliant."

    GE really feels like the Bond answer to the films like True Lies and the big action films that took Bond's place during the hiatus. I'd describe the precredits as one of the best ever UNTIL the part they decided to take it a step too far with the ridiculous flying-into-the-plane sequence. It kinds of sets things up for the rest of the film as far as that goes. I've never thought the tank sequence was good, just like an outtake from The Blues Brothers with destruction for destruction's sake and getting Bond into a vehicle he'd never been in before in the series. The only other action sequence I really liked was the fight at the end, which harkened back to the Connery days.

    But there's still a lot of familiar that did nothing to top what had gone before - casino scene; a mad Russian general (I prefer Gen. Orlov from OP); a knockoff of Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush; yet another threatening piece of space hardware; a gadget-rigged car, which he never even gets to use except to drive down a road; a hidden villain's HQ where everything explodes at the end.

    Then there's the whole business with trying to basically eliminate the Dalton era like setting the precredits in 1986, retconning others like giving Bond a 00 partner and close friend and an old frienemy in Zukovsky.

    There are other aspects I don't care for, but others still I really like. GE is the definition of a very mixed bag for me.

    I agree it isn't the most original, I guess just don't think originality is the be all and end all with Bond films. TSWLM's villain scheme is basically a remake of YOLT and on the surface the whole film is fairly formulaic and box ticking, but it still feels fresh and exciting and full of energy. Same with GE. It's all about the presentation imo and GE does have some novel concepts of its own (a female M calling out Bond's sexism, an evil 00, etc).

    Disagree on Orlov/Ouromov. They're both Russian generals but are very different characters imo. Orlov was mad, Ouromov was more subdued and human seeming.

    Onnatop I think is great. We've seen the mad femme fatale thing before sure but never in such an overtly sexual turned up to 11 sort of way.

    Disagree again on the tank scene. Bond coming crashing through the wall in a tank straightening his tie while the Bond theme plays is a perfect crowd pleasing moment. The actual chase is nothing special I guess but it was something different. And worth it just for that moment at the start.

    The satellite, I'll give you that. The emphasis on computers felt very fresh and modern at the time, but the actual plot of the space weapon was definitely nothing special. And yeah, the BMW was annoyingly pointless as well.

    But your last point, I don't think any of what you described is retcons. The 1986 thing I never saw as an insult (and Dalton is my favourite Bond). They needed a PTS set in the 80s so they picked a random year where there wasn't a Bond film released. Dalton wasn't sacked, he could have done GE himself if he wanted, plus Tim and Barbara were close and Brosnan has talked about admiring what he did with the part on multiple occasions. I don't think anyone involved was trying to wipe the slate clean and make people forget the Dalton era, you're not the only one to have mentioned that but I think it's just fan paranoia. Zukofsky I think is a great character and Alec's history with Bond makes him a great villain. The scene where he has Bond captured (the speech about all the vodka martinis and his funeral, and the lovely little "how is Q?", honestly surprised they never had a former 00 as a villain before) make any holes in his backstory worth it imo. And again I don't see these as retcons at all. Bond has always had off screen adventures.

    Completely agree with you on several points, particularly Orumov and Orlov. Orlov was basically a generic lunatic. Don't get me wrong, he was gloriously hammy thanks to Steven Berkoff, but nothing special.
    Orumov was far more interesting. Gottfried John gave a more nuanced performance. I very much liked the scene when he finds out Trevelyan is a Cossack, and despite everything a flicker of his patriotism kicks back in. One of the better secondary villains of the series, in my view. He probably would have worked well as a main villain in his own right.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    echo wrote: »
    Fleming s underwater scenes are far, far better than in any of the films.

    Yes, I wonder why they haven't been properly adapted, particularly the LALD ending (could be a good PTS--and a unique one, if no dialogue).

    I totally agree.
  • Posts: 16,167
    Roadphill wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It was well executed and marketed and did its job extremely well in getting the series and it's popularity revived and freshened up, no disputing. But I take exception with it being "brilliant."

    GE really feels like the Bond answer to the films like True Lies and the big action films that took Bond's place during the hiatus. I'd describe the precredits as one of the best ever UNTIL the part they decided to take it a step too far with the ridiculous flying-into-the-plane sequence. It kinds of sets things up for the rest of the film as far as that goes. I've never thought the tank sequence was good, just like an outtake from The Blues Brothers with destruction for destruction's sake and getting Bond into a vehicle he'd never been in before in the series. The only other action sequence I really liked was the fight at the end, which harkened back to the Connery days.

    But there's still a lot of familiar that did nothing to top what had gone before - casino scene; a mad Russian general (I prefer Gen. Orlov from OP); a knockoff of Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush; yet another threatening piece of space hardware; a gadget-rigged car, which he never even gets to use except to drive down a road; a hidden villain's HQ where everything explodes at the end.

    Then there's the whole business with trying to basically eliminate the Dalton era like setting the precredits in 1986, retconning others like giving Bond a 00 partner and close friend and an old frienemy in Zukovsky.

    There are other aspects I don't care for, but others still I really like. GE is the definition of a very mixed bag for me.

    I agree it isn't the most original, I guess just don't think originality is the be all and end all with Bond films. TSWLM's villain scheme is basically a remake of YOLT and on the surface the whole film is fairly formulaic and box ticking, but it still feels fresh and exciting and full of energy. Same with GE. It's all about the presentation imo and GE does have some novel concepts of its own (a female M calling out Bond's sexism, an evil 00, etc).

    Disagree on Orlov/Ouromov. They're both Russian generals but are very different characters imo. Orlov was mad, Ouromov was more subdued and human seeming.

    Onnatop I think is great. We've seen the mad femme fatale thing before sure but never in such an overtly sexual turned up to 11 sort of way.

    Disagree again on the tank scene. Bond coming crashing through the wall in a tank straightening his tie while the Bond theme plays is a perfect crowd pleasing moment. The actual chase is nothing special I guess but it was something different. And worth it just for that moment at the start.

    The satellite, I'll give you that. The emphasis on computers felt very fresh and modern at the time, but the actual plot of the space weapon was definitely nothing special. And yeah, the BMW was annoyingly pointless as well.

    But your last point, I don't think any of what you described is retcons. The 1986 thing I never saw as an insult (and Dalton is my favourite Bond). They needed a PTS set in the 80s so they picked a random year where there wasn't a Bond film released. Dalton wasn't sacked, he could have done GE himself if he wanted, plus Tim and Barbara were close and Brosnan has talked about admiring what he did with the part on multiple occasions. I don't think anyone involved was trying to wipe the slate clean and make people forget the Dalton era, you're not the only one to have mentioned that but I think it's just fan paranoia. Zukofsky I think is a great character and Alec's history with Bond makes him a great villain. The scene where he has Bond captured (the speech about all the vodka martinis and his funeral, and the lovely little "how is Q?", honestly surprised they never had a former 00 as a villain before) make any holes in his backstory worth it imo. And again I don't see these as retcons at all. Bond has always had off screen adventures.

    Completely agree with you on several points, particularly Orumov and Orlov. Orlov was basically a generic lunatic. Don't get me wrong, he was gloriously hammy thanks to Steven Berkoff, but nothing special.
    Orumov was far more interesting. Gottfried John gave a more nuanced performance. I very much liked the scene when he finds out Trevelyan is a Cossack, and despite everything a flicker of his patriotism kicks back in. One of the better secondary villains of the series, in my view. He probably would have worked well as a main villain in his own right.

    Ouromov made quite an impression on me when I first saw GE. His initial appearance in the PTS with Serra's score complimenting his shot was excellent, IMO.
    Although he's a secondary character, I thought Gottfried John had an amazing presence and look. I find him more interesting than some of the main villains of the latter era.
    Not only was he menacing, but had a human quality to his character. He also has some wonderful line delivery.
    I love the way he says "He escaped!". That can actually be a cliched Bond villain line referring to 007, but Gottfried John's delivery ups it several notches.
  • Posts: 7,507
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It was well executed and marketed and did its job extremely well in getting the series and it's popularity revived and freshened up, no disputing. But I take exception with it being "brilliant."

    GE really feels like the Bond answer to the films like True Lies and the big action films that took Bond's place during the hiatus. I'd describe the precredits as one of the best ever UNTIL the part they decided to take it a step too far with the ridiculous flying-into-the-plane sequence. It kinds of sets things up for the rest of the film as far as that goes. I've never thought the tank sequence was good, just like an outtake from The Blues Brothers with destruction for destruction's sake and getting Bond into a vehicle he'd never been in before in the series. The only other action sequence I really liked was the fight at the end, which harkened back to the Connery days.

    But there's still a lot of familiar that did nothing to top what had gone before - casino scene; a mad Russian general (I prefer Gen. Orlov from OP); a knockoff of Fiona Volpe and Fatima Blush; yet another threatening piece of space hardware; a gadget-rigged car, which he never even gets to use except to drive down a road; a hidden villain's HQ where everything explodes at the end.

    Then there's the whole business with trying to basically eliminate the Dalton era like setting the precredits in 1986, retconning others like giving Bond a 00 partner and close friend and an old frienemy in Zukovsky.

    There are other aspects I don't care for, but others still I really like. GE is the definition of a very mixed bag for me.

    I agree it isn't the most original, I guess just don't think originality is the be all and end all with Bond films. TSWLM's villain scheme is basically a remake of YOLT and on the surface the whole film is fairly formulaic and box ticking, but it still feels fresh and exciting and full of energy. Same with GE. It's all about the presentation imo and GE does have some novel concepts of its own (a female M calling out Bond's sexism, an evil 00, etc).

    Disagree on Orlov/Ouromov. They're both Russian generals but are very different characters imo. Orlov was mad, Ouromov was more subdued and human seeming.

    Onnatop I think is great. We've seen the mad femme fatale thing before sure but never in such an overtly sexual turned up to 11 sort of way.

    Disagree again on the tank scene. Bond coming crashing through the wall in a tank straightening his tie while the Bond theme plays is a perfect crowd pleasing moment. The actual chase is nothing special I guess but it was something different. And worth it just for that moment at the start.

    The satellite, I'll give you that. The emphasis on computers felt very fresh and modern at the time, but the actual plot of the space weapon was definitely nothing special. And yeah, the BMW was annoyingly pointless as well.

    But your last point, I don't think any of what you described is retcons. The 1986 thing I never saw as an insult (and Dalton is my favourite Bond). They needed a PTS set in the 80s so they picked a random year where there wasn't a Bond film released. Dalton wasn't sacked, he could have done GE himself if he wanted, plus Tim and Barbara were close and Brosnan has talked about admiring what he did with the part on multiple occasions. I don't think anyone involved was trying to wipe the slate clean and make people forget the Dalton era, you're not the only one to have mentioned that but I think it's just fan paranoia. Zukofsky I think is a great character and Alec's history with Bond makes him a great villain. The scene where he has Bond captured (the speech about all the vodka martinis and his funeral, and the lovely little "how is Q?", honestly surprised they never had a former 00 as a villain before) make any holes in his backstory worth it imo. And again I don't see these as retcons at all. Bond has always had off screen adventures.

    Completely agree with you on several points, particularly Orumov and Orlov. Orlov was basically a generic lunatic. Don't get me wrong, he was gloriously hammy thanks to Steven Berkoff, but nothing special.
    Orumov was far more interesting. Gottfried John gave a more nuanced performance. I very much liked the scene when he finds out Trevelyan is a Cossack, and despite everything a flicker of his patriotism kicks back in. One of the better secondary villains of the series, in my view. He probably would have worked well as a main villain in his own right.

    Ouromov made quite an impression on me when I first saw GE. His initial appearance in the PTS with Serra's score complimenting his shot was excellent, IMO.
    Although he's a secondary character, I thought Gottfried John had an amazing presence and look. I find him more interesting than some of the main villains of the latter era.
    Not only was he menacing, but had a human quality to his character. He also has some wonderful line delivery.
    I love the way he says "He escaped!". That can actually be a cliched Bond villain line referring to 007, but Gottfried John's delivery ups it several notches.

    I have heard similar outlandish praise before. I don't get it at all. But this can be said of all the villains in GE. None of them are bad (except Boris obviously), but they sure are overrated in circles.
Sign In or Register to comment.