Controversial opinions about Bond films

1541542544546547707

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Revelator wrote: »
    TB occupies a weird position in between the classic leanness of the first Bond films and the self-parodic excess of the later entries. It's the first film in the series to feel bloated, but remains impressive and elegant in its epic scale, avoiding the incoherence of YOLT and camp of DAF. As an adaptation it's faithful to the letter of Fleming, but not always the spirit, because the characterizations in this film are disappointing. Screen Largo and Domino are dull next to their originals, Bond is less vulnerable, and only Fiona comes alive. Nevertheless, it shows the series at the height of its self-confidence and power. Thunderball is an impersonal triumph.

    I don’t see any self parody in the film. Terence Young largely keeps the serious tone with some dry humour. I thinks it’s really faithful to Fleming’s novel, bar Fiona Volpe, Who isn’t in the novel. The only change in Thunderball when compared to the previous 3 is that TB has an epic scale and more expensive/ exotic feel.
  • @Revelator Very well said. Very similar to what I've often argued (minus some of the negatives). It's that "weird position" that it occupies that I've always felt ensured its quality. Self-confidence and power, for sure.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,918
    I agree that it's not a self-parodic film, it just shows signs of the bloat that overtook the series in the later self-parodic films (and often seems more interested in gadgets and hardware than in the characters). It's vastly more faithful to Fleming than most of the later films, but the plot has been needlessly complicated with the plastic-surgery/double subplot (which lengthens an already long film). I don't want to knock TB any further, because it still has a lot of magic of the first Bonds, even if the first signs of decay have set in.
  • Posts: 12,473
    This is a million to one shot and not sure how controversial, but I’d love for Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to become a title song for a new film someday.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Revelator wrote: »
    I agree that it's not a self-parodic film, it just shows signs of the bloat that overtook the series in the later self-parodic films (and often seems more interested in gadgets and hardware than in the characters). It's vastly more faithful to Fleming than most of the later films, but the plot has been needlessly complicated with the plastic-surgery/double subplot (which lengthens an already long film). I don't want to knock TB any further, because it still has a lot of magic of the first Bonds, even if the first signs of decay have set in.

    Yeah the brother imposter stuff is clunky, likely only done to make the brother not be a traitor. I dunno why that was such a concern.
  • Posts: 1,917
    A comment on "Is Skyfall the Best Bond Film" thread got me to thinking about this controversial opinion and I thought I'd bring it here rather than there.

    Somebody mentioned in that thread about how the DB5 reveal is great. I know a lot of fans agree, the audiences I saw the film with liked it and a friend of mine highlighted that in what he liked about it. I think it's an overrated moment.

    When the DB5 showed up in GE, yeah, that was fun and fresh. We got cameos from it the next two films that didn't overdo it. The scene where Bond wins the DB5 in CR could've been a disaster but turned out fun.

    By the time we get to SF, any freshness had worn off and while still a surprise, the edge wasn't there the way it was in GE or CR. I just thought, oh it's the DB5 again, although on an upside, it was one of the very few times Newman's score makes any impression.

    And to think Bond had it converted from left to right-hand drive and had all the gadgets installed just makes it even more of a messy idea.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    BT3366 wrote: »
    And to think Bond had it converted from left to right-hand drive and had all the gadgets installed just makes it even more of a messy idea.

    Which turned out not to be the case, as it was revealed in SP that the DB5 in SF was actually given to Bond by Q. One could suppose it used to be driven by 00 agents in the past well before Bond drove it, and by the end of SP he took it as part of a severance package, all fully repaired (and updated) for Bond to drive off with Madeleine.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    IMO FRWL is the best Bond film, quality wise.

    But TB is the best in terms of scope and demonstrating all that makes 007 amazing.

    Out of Connery's Bond movies this one is my personal favourite. It has the best location, the best action, and the best women. It's also faithful to the novel. IMO it has no flaws.

    TB is also my favourite Connery, representing Bond at his most archetypical best. Sir Sean, the locations, an eye-patched villain, the definitive femme fatale, the jetpack, the DB5, scubagear action, John Barry score, Ted Moore cinematography, Ken Adam sets, unseen Blofeld, Leiter and the lovely Domino. Everything truly falls into place in this one.

    Thunderball is my second favourite Bond film behind OHMSS and it's deserved of it's place for the reasons you've mentioned, IMO. Connery is at the height of his powers in this film and oozes cool, his relationship with Largo trumps that of Bond and Goldfinger. The underwater scenes are breathtaking and were groundbreaking for the time. The cinematography is arguably the best in the series. Tom Jones. John Barry. Terence Young. The list of elements that make this film a top tier Bond film are endless.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Octopussy wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    IMO FRWL is the best Bond film, quality wise.

    But TB is the best in terms of scope and demonstrating all that makes 007 amazing.

    Out of Connery's Bond movies this one is my personal favourite. It has the best location, the best action, and the best women. It's also faithful to the novel. IMO it has no flaws.

    TB is also my favourite Connery, representing Bond at his most archetypical best. Sir Sean, the locations, an eye-patched villain, the definitive femme fatale, the jetpack, the DB5, scubagear action, John Barry score, Ted Moore cinematography, Ken Adam sets, unseen Blofeld, Leiter and the lovely Domino. Everything truly falls into place in this one.

    Thunderball is my second favourite Bond film behind OHMSS and it's deserved of it's place for the reasons you've mentioned, IMO. Connery is at the height of his powers in this film and oozes cool, his relationship with Largo trumps that of Bond and Goldfinger. The underwater scenes are breathtaking and were groundbreaking for the time. The cinematography is arguably the best in the series. Tom Jones. John Barry. Terence Young. The list of elements that make this film a top tier Bond film are endless.

    TB is an odd one. i never watch it and end up punching the air, or feeling that here is one great Bond film. It seems muddled and poorly edited and too often ponderous. Yet I can't stop going back to it, because the positives are so damned wonderful.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That’s where I prefer the loser continuity between films. I don’t care if it fits in with the prior Craig films. Seeing the return of the DB5 from GF was a cool moment, and the audiences loved it (though, SF was enough, it never should have retired, the thrill is gone). Most of us weren’t sitting in the theatre trying to connect the dots.

    My first viewing of SF was memorable due to the audience reaction to the appearance of the DB5. Much clapping and whooping. I thought it odd as the car had appeared so many times during the series.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    I loved the return of the DB5 as a former company car now beeing Bonds own possession, tying all the films together in a loose kind of way. I especially liked the ' oh go on, eject me' moment. Of course it doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think it needs to.

    TB to me is the epitomy of Bond, and I don't think it can be surpassed. It's incredibly cool, classy, tense and it thrills in almost any way possible. It's larger than life, in a more sensible way than GF. The story is as impossible as it is possible. The soundtrack is stunning, the title track as bombastic and fitting as can be. The women as sexy and sensual as any man could dream of. All in all, the epitomy of Bond.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Is there a thread currently which discusses Goldfinger verses Thunderball? I think that would be an interesting topic.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    IMO FRWL is the best Bond film, quality wise.

    But TB is the best in terms of scope and demonstrating all that makes 007 amazing.

    Out of Connery's Bond movies this one is my personal favourite. It has the best location, the best action, and the best women. It's also faithful to the novel. IMO it has no flaws.

    TB is also my favourite Connery, representing Bond at his most archetypical best. Sir Sean, the locations, an eye-patched villain, the definitive femme fatale, the jetpack, the DB5, scubagear action, John Barry score, Ted Moore cinematography, Ken Adam sets, unseen Blofeld, Leiter and the lovely Domino. Everything truly falls into place in this one.

    You missed off Terence Young....the greatest Bond Director of all time!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Revelator wrote: »
    I agree that it's not a self-parodic film, it just shows signs of the bloat that overtook the series in the later self-parodic films (and often seems more interested in gadgets and hardware than in the characters). It's vastly more faithful to Fleming than most of the later films, but the plot has been needlessly complicated with the plastic-surgery/double subplot (which lengthens an already long film). I don't want to knock TB any further, because it still has a lot of magic of the first Bonds, even if the first signs of decay have set in.

    I get your point. But I think YOLT was the first signs of a reduction in quality (despite still being a great/ classic Bond film). OHMSS was near perfect mind.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    IMO FRWL is the best Bond film, quality wise.

    But TB is the best in terms of scope and demonstrating all that makes 007 amazing.

    Out of Connery's Bond movies this one is my personal favourite. It has the best location, the best action, and the best women. It's also faithful to the novel. IMO it has no flaws.

    TB is also my favourite Connery, representing Bond at his most archetypical best. Sir Sean, the locations, an eye-patched villain, the definitive femme fatale, the jetpack, the DB5, scubagear action, John Barry score, Ted Moore cinematography, Ken Adam sets, unseen Blofeld, Leiter and the lovely Domino. Everything truly falls into place in this one.

    Thunderball is my second favourite Bond film behind OHMSS and it's deserved of it's place for the reasons you've mentioned, IMO. Connery is at the height of his powers in this film and oozes cool, his relationship with Largo trumps that of Bond and Goldfinger. The underwater scenes are breathtaking and were groundbreaking for the time. The cinematography is arguably the best in the series. Tom Jones. John Barry. Terence Young. The list of elements that make this film a top tier Bond film are endless.

    +1.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    FoxRox wrote: »
    This is a million to one shot and not sure how controversial, but I’d love for Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to become a title song for a new film someday.

    Without a doubt!!!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Is there a thread currently which discusses Goldfinger verses Thunderball? I think that would be an interesting topic.

    That is a match yet to come on my ranking tournament thread. Discussions welcome when it is due.
  • I'm old enough to have had the good fortune to have attended every Bond film from Dr. No onwards, either on the day of general release or, very rarely, at the UK première. In all those decades I have looked forward to each successive film with an enthusiasm has not dimmed. Until now. Before the first announcements of No Time To Die I had always felt a surge of anticipation, an excitement about a new Bond film, at least in the early years fuelled in large part by occasional newspaper or magazine snippets about filming progress and, if one were really lucky, on-set televised interviews with members of the cast. But that was it. Appetites were whetted, only to be satisfied with the film's release. With No Time To Die the media coverage has been relentless. Much of it, in the early days, proved to be pure journalistic invention, leading one to question if hacks are paid by the word rather than per article. Then there was the seemingly endless wall-to-wall coverage concerning Phoebe Waller-Bridge's 'woke' contributions to the existing Bond script, a prospect that filled me with dread. So much press and general media speculation - seemingly uncontrolled by Barbara Broccoli and her EON publicity department - have been so all-pervasive that it has been hard to avoid. I cannot believe I am alone in experiencing 'Bond fatigue' in relation to No Time To Die. Will I go and see the film? Definitely - after 58 years of never missing a Bond release in the cinema I'm not going to start now. But do I have any real enthusiasm for what the new release will bring? In truth, not really. And that's a real shame.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I loved the return of the DB5 as a former company car now beeing Bonds own possession, tying all the films together in a loose kind of way. I especially liked the ' oh go on, eject me' moment. Of course it doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think it needs to.

    TB to me is the epitomy of Bond, and I don't think it can be surpassed. It's incredibly cool, classy, tense and it thrills in almost any way possible. It's larger than life, in a more sensible way than GF. The story is as impossible as it is possible. The soundtrack is stunning, the title track as bombastic and fitting as can be. The women as sexy and sensual as any man could dream of. All in all, the epitomy of Bond.

    At the Premier the laughter was such, when Bond flips the gear knob, that I didn’t even hear the ‘Go on then, eject me’ line, and as a sight gag it was awesome. It was only when I watched it again on release that I heard the line and it really ruined it for me. It doesn’t need the line to work.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    RC7 wrote: »
    I loved the return of the DB5 as a former company car now beeing Bonds own possession, tying all the films together in a loose kind of way. I especially liked the ' oh go on, eject me' moment. Of course it doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think it needs to.

    TB to me is the epitomy of Bond, and I don't think it can be surpassed. It's incredibly cool, classy, tense and it thrills in almost any way possible. It's larger than life, in a more sensible way than GF. The story is as impossible as it is possible. The soundtrack is stunning, the title track as bombastic and fitting as can be. The women as sexy and sensual as any man could dream of. All in all, the epitomy of Bond.

    At the Premier the laughter was such, when Bond flips the gear knob, that I didn’t even hear the ‘Go on then, eject me’ line, and as a sight gag it was awesome. It was only when I watched it again on release that I heard the line and it really ruined it for me. It doesn’t need the line to work.

    Interesting. I think I'll mute it the next time I watch that scene. Likewise, it's hard for me to imagine the line not being there, but I'm intrigued by the idea of it.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    I like the line there, but similarly never thought of what the scene would be like if it weren't.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited February 2020 Posts: 9,041
    I don't mind the line, and I understood it the very first time in a very agitated theatre.
    It's really just part of that nostalgic let's-revive-the-GF-DB5 thing. No worse than many others, but nothing really outstanding either.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Revelator wrote: »
    I agree that it's not a self-parodic film, it just shows signs of the bloat that overtook the series in the later self-parodic films (and often seems more interested in gadgets and hardware than in the characters). It's vastly more faithful to Fleming than most of the later films, but the plot has been needlessly complicated with the plastic-surgery/double subplot (which lengthens an already long film). I don't want to knock TB any further, because it still has a lot of magic of the first Bonds, even if the first signs of decay have set in.

    Yeah the brother imposter stuff is clunky, likely only done to make the brother not be a traitor. I dunno why that was such a concern.

    It takes away any moral ambiguity from the whole Derval family. I think that's why they went for it anyway. Also it gets Bond involved earlier on at Shrubland and makes him more proactive.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I agree that it's not a self-parodic film, it just shows signs of the bloat that overtook the series in the later self-parodic films (and often seems more interested in gadgets and hardware than in the characters). It's vastly more faithful to Fleming than most of the later films, but the plot has been needlessly complicated with the plastic-surgery/double subplot (which lengthens an already long film). I don't want to knock TB any further, because it still has a lot of magic of the first Bonds, even if the first signs of decay have set in.

    Yeah the brother imposter stuff is clunky, likely only done to make the brother not be a traitor. I dunno why that was such a concern.

    It takes away any moral ambiguity from the whole Derval family. I think that's why they went for it anyway. Also it gets Bond involved earlier on at Shrubland and makes him more proactive.

    It's the sole reason why he's not send to Canada, but to the Bahamas.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I wish the film had stuck a little closer to the novel where the Shrublands section was really just an absurd comedy that Bond was thrown into due to M suddenly becoming a health nut. Then when Bond comes back everyone hates the "new" Bond who wants to quit smoking and eat healthier. Not what you would expect from a Bond film, but it was an unexpected sidestep that I thought Fleming made very entertaining and wish the films had tried doing more of. It's not like EON couldn't have afforded to do that at the time, given how much goodwill the film series gained from the previous three, the last one retaining an amusing golf scene of Bond trying to out-cheat Goldfinger.
  • Posts: 2,918
    I wish the film had stuck a little closer to the novel where the Shrublands section was really just an absurd comedy that Bond was thrown into due to M suddenly becoming a health nut. Then when Bond comes back everyone hates the "new" Bond who wants to quit smoking and eat healthier. Not what you would expect from a Bond film, but it was an unexpected sidestep that I thought Fleming made very entertaining and wish the films had tried doing more of.

    Yes, that's part of what I was getting at when I said TB was true to the letter of the book but missed much of its heart and characterization. The Shrublands sequence loses some of its purpose and interest when you take away the most human elements (and replace them with stuff like the double plot or Bond blackmailing a nurse into sex).
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    I loved the return of the DB5 as a former company car now beeing Bonds own possession, tying all the films together in a loose kind of way. I especially liked the ' oh go on, eject me' moment. Of course it doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think it needs to.

    TB to me is the epitomy of Bond, and I don't think it can be surpassed. It's incredibly cool, classy, tense and it thrills in almost any way possible. It's larger than life, in a more sensible way than GF. The story is as impossible as it is possible. The soundtrack is stunning, the title track as bombastic and fitting as can be. The women as sexy and sensual as any man could dream of. All in all, the epitomy of Bond.

    At the Premier the laughter was such, when Bond flips the gear knob, that I didn’t even hear the ‘Go on then, eject me’ line, and as a sight gag it was awesome. It was only when I watched it again on release that I heard the line and it really ruined it for me. It doesn’t need the line to work.

    That line is there for those who haven t seen GF or cannot connect the imagery with anything. For us who did and could, hammering home the comedic point like that, lessens its impact.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    RC7 wrote: »
    I loved the return of the DB5 as a former company car now beeing Bonds own possession, tying all the films together in a loose kind of way. I especially liked the ' oh go on, eject me' moment. Of course it doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think it needs to.

    TB to me is the epitomy of Bond, and I don't think it can be surpassed. It's incredibly cool, classy, tense and it thrills in almost any way possible. It's larger than life, in a more sensible way than GF. The story is as impossible as it is possible. The soundtrack is stunning, the title track as bombastic and fitting as can be. The women as sexy and sensual as any man could dream of. All in all, the epitomy of Bond.

    At the Premier the laughter was such, when Bond flips the gear knob, that I didn’t even hear the ‘Go on then, eject me’ line, and as a sight gag it was awesome. It was only when I watched it again on release that I heard the line and it really ruined it for me. It doesn’t need the line to work.

    I heard the line on my first view and had a similar reaction.
    I think M should have just said "Go ahead, see if i care." and that would have worked way better, even for people who didn't know what it was. At least they would understand Bond is about to do something unpleasant to her lol.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I really don't have much of an issue with the line as it is. This is a Bond movie, and like all other Bond movies it's aimed for broad audiences.
  • Posts: 1,917
    A thought: What if Bond tried to use the ejector seat and the passenger had a seatbelt on. That would be awkward.
  • Posts: 7,507
    BT3366 wrote: »
    A thought: What if Bond tried to use the ejector seat and the passenger had a seatbelt on. That would be awkward.


    Honestly I think the ejector seat is a pretty lame idea with a lacklustre pay off. I have never understood why people rave about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.