Controversial opinions about Bond films

1561562564566567707

Comments

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited May 2020 Posts: 737
    So to be clear, I do not think we will see the end of Bond. Because

    (1) Eon are a business and they need to generate turnover. They need to create income now in order that they can survive and therefore create income in the future. Bond is their biggest asset and unique ISP. No one else can legally use the character. So Eon will continue to create Bond product. Sorry for sounding so capitalist there but at the end of the day Eon exist in a market, and Bond is the biggest and flashiest product that they can put on their stall.

    (2) After 2036 (I think) the JB character is out of copyright. Copyright law is very clear. So we will continue to see JB films or TV after then too, just not made by Eon.

    So the future looks ok to me

    The problem is that at the current rate they are working at, that means only two more EON produced Bond films before 2036. Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).

    It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Good point about the gunbarrel and theme; CR was the only acceptable gunbarrel deviation in the franchise as far as I'm concerned (I don't view Spectre's gunbarrel as a deviation, although I know many do).
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    A conversational opinion: after finishing Moonraker the book, I feel that Bond and M’s relationship should be more like this book, and less like the Judi Dench version in the later films. Let Bond do his work, trust him sightly, and don’t waste screen time yelling at him, or even worse taking away his 00 number, and making him go rogue.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Good point about the gunbarrel and theme; CR was the only acceptable gunbarrel deviation in the franchise as far as I'm concerned (I don't view Spectre's gunbarrel as a deviation, although I know many do).

    Yes, all the decisions in CR are fine and justified. That was the point, wasn't it? After the end when he affirms his name it should have just gone back to what it was before, only with Craig's edge and personal take on the character.
  • Posts: 16,153
    So to be clear, I do not think we will see the end of Bond. Because

    (1) Eon are a business and they need to generate turnover. They need to create income now in order that they can survive and therefore create income in the future. Bond is their biggest asset and unique ISP. No one else can legally use the character. So Eon will continue to create Bond product. Sorry for sounding so capitalist there but at the end of the day Eon exist in a market, and Bond is the biggest and flashiest product that they can put on their stall.

    (2) After 2036 (I think) the JB character is out of copyright. Copyright law is very clear. So we will continue to see JB films or TV after then too, just not made by Eon.

    So the future looks ok to me

    The problem is that at the current rate they are working at, that means only two more EON produced Bond films before 2036. Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).

    It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.

    So once the copyright expires in 2036, Bond will become a public domain character much like Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan or Dracula? Therefore pretty much any producer or production company could make their own Bond films or series?

    That could be interesting, however I somehow don't see anyone else making their own Bond franchise as successful as Eon.

    Public domain characters always seem to come back with or without successful results. Not many people I know embraced the latest DRACULA adaptation by BBC for instance.
    There was a new big screen Tarzan film a few years ago that seems all but forgotten today.
    Sherlock Holmes gets many adaptations on TV and film. Many are popular, actually. Perhaps Bond would follow in a similar fashion?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited May 2020 Posts: 7,546
    Fleming's Literary Bond (sans Thunderball I think) is in the public domain here in Canada. Very little, if anything, has come of it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The copyright expires by the end of 2034.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Fleming's Literary Bond (sans Thunderball I think) is in the public domain here in Canada. Very little, if anything, has come of it.

    I think that is because anything made with Bond as the lead character cannot be released anywhere else in the world other than Canada. That's what I read, anyway. If that restriction is removed, then potentially anyone could make a version, in the same manner in which @ToTheRight suggests.

  • edited May 2020 Posts: 230
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I feel that's somewhat unfair to the SW fandom. The continuity over there is utterly screwed, and the latest films themselves make no sense at all.

    Star Wars fans have ruined people's lives (Jake Lloyd) and otherwise treat Star Wars actors horrifically because of things they didn't like in the movie/story (Kelly Marie Tran, Daisy Ridley, both of whom had to delete their social media); I don't think you could say that about Bond fans or many other fandoms.

    Again, as a Star Wars fan, I'm not saying all of them, I'd just say they have the most vicious vocal minority.

    [/quote]

    Of course, most are fine. The thing I find the most hilarious is when you ask the biggest and most obsessed Star Wars fans to list their favorite movies. You quickly find out they only actually like 2/9 films. It would be like people hanging-out here who like 4 Bond films and think the rest are absolute trash.
  • Posts: 230
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    I feel that's somewhat unfair to the SW fandom. The continuity over there is utterly screwed, and the latest films themselves make no sense at all.

    Star Wars fans have ruined people's lives (Jake Lloyd) and otherwise treat Star Wars actors horrifically because of things they didn't like in the movie/story (Kelly Marie Tran, Daisy Ridley, both of whom had to delete their social media); I don't think you could say that about Bond fans or many other fandoms.

    Again, as a Star Wars fan, I'm not saying all of them, I'd just say they have the most vicious vocal minority.

    You truly underestimate the fans of Doctro Who, and certainly the 007 fans are nothing to be proud about with craigisnotbond website which did very well initially.

    There are always fans that do not seem understand the difference between being a fan and real life.

    I don't personally know too many of them. I knew one pretty well, pushed me into trying-it out. I watched 3 episodes and then never again.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 631
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Of course, most are fine. The thing I find the most hilarious is when you ask the biggest and most obsessed Star Wars fans to list their favorite movies. You quickly find out they only actually like 2/9 films. It would be like people hanging-out here who like 4 Bond films and think the rest are absolute trash.

    Yes that’s very true. Alien fans are similar, many of them seem to like only the first two films which means that for them everything released after 1986 (nearly 40 years ago!) is a bust.

    Whereas I get the impression that many Bond film fans (at least the ones who post here?) do actually like the majority of the films, or at least can see the good points even in the ones they’re not so keen on, so can still gain enjoyment from them.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited May 2020 Posts: 8,182
    The thing with Star Wars is that the first two (ANH and TESB) are nearly perfect and iconic films, while the rest has ranged from pretty bad to pretty good, and fans tend to react to the extreme. ROTJ may have its flaws, but it's still a highly entertaining capper for the OT. That's also how I feel about TROS, funnily. Anything after 1980 could have been better films in many ways, but beggars can't be choosers.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,110
    marc wrote: »
    Nice, TLD is a classic favourite of mine as well.

    Yes, very entertaining movie, probably my favourite after TSWLM. I really enjoyed the LEGO version someone had posted some days ago: (I had never noticed how close the chasers really were, close to the border)
    vzok wrote: »
    Fortunately, this time it was only a LEGO cello that got damaged.

    Just passing by to say that I really enjoyed that TLD Lego tribute.
  • Posts: 631
    Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).

    It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.

    Yes, to be clear it’s actually the characters created by Ian Fleming that will lose copyright protection in the mid 2030s. So that’s JB, M, Moneypenny, Dr No, the 007 number, Largo, Tanner, Goldfinger, Leiter etc.

    Whereas the gun barrel, the theme, Blofeld’s cat, Quantum, Stromberg, Jaws etc are the intellectual property assets of Eon. They will remain in Eon’s intellectual control and cannot be touched.

    So this means that whoever makes JB film or TV show after the 2030s will still need to take care. They can use some Bond elements but not others.

    There’s a parallel with The Mummy. The basic concept of an Ancient Egyptian mummy being a monster is not in copyright. Mummies have been around for thousands of years! But what is in copyright is Universal’s very specific spin on the concept. Their mummy is an Ancient Egyptian who was cursed, mummified, comes back to life in horrible form and who therefore needs to kill people in order to get ‘life force’ to restore themselves to perfect form. If you make a film with a mummy like that then Universal’s lawyers will come after you.

    Caveat: I do not know whether Blofeld and Specte will leave copyright in the 2030s or not. This is because Blofeld was part of the McClory estate too, not just the Ian Fleming estate. The fact that Eon stayed away from Blofeld for so long suggests that they thought the copyright was complicated. They have the copyright now ok but that’s irrelevant because the McClory estate is a different legal estate from the Fleming estate. If Blofeld is legally part of the McClory estate then no one else can use him until the 2070s. One for the lawyers I suppose
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 910
    To add some controversy, I personally really like Lazenby as Bond. Not only do I think he could have improved his acting to become pretty great, but I would also have liked to see him accept a longer contract and continue until the mid-1970s. Maybe not a seven-film contract like the one he was offered, but at least three more movies after OHMSS. I'm not sure, however, that Tom Mankiewicz's writing would have suited him.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited May 2020 Posts: 4,343
    Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).

    It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.

    Yes, to be clear it’s actually the characters created by Ian Fleming that will lose copyright protection in the mid 2030s. So that’s JB, M, Moneypenny, Dr No, the 007 number, Largo, Tanner, Goldfinger, Leiter etc.

    Whereas the gun barrel, the theme, Blofeld’s cat, Quantum, Stromberg, Jaws etc are the intellectual property assets of Eon. They will remain in Eon’s intellectual control and cannot be touched.

    So this means that whoever makes JB film or TV show after the 2030s will still need to take care. They can use some Bond elements but not others.

    Point is EoN owns the elements that made JB a cinematic and pop icon in the world. This is the most important and valuable asset they own. So whoever makes an “alternative” JB film or TV show in the future will lose what makes JB iconic and unique to the public. Lot of films have been made with cool spies running around but no one has this specific flavor built throughout the decades. NSNA kind of worked only because of Connery but without his presence no one would’ve cared about that “alternative version” of the character. If EoN wants to keep going making JB films, I wouldn’t worry that much about this copyright deadline.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    matt_u wrote: »
    Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).

    It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.

    Yes, to be clear it’s actually the characters created by Ian Fleming that will lose copyright protection in the mid 2030s. So that’s JB, M, Moneypenny, Dr No, the 007 number, Largo, Tanner, Goldfinger, Leiter etc.

    Whereas the gun barrel, the theme, Blofeld’s cat, Quantum, Stromberg, Jaws etc are the intellectual property assets of Eon. They will remain in Eon’s intellectual control and cannot be touched.

    So this means that whoever makes JB film or TV show after the 2030s will still need to take care. They can use some Bond elements but not others.

    Point is EoN owns the elements that made JB a cinematic and pop icon in the world. This is the most important and valuable asset they own. So whoever makes an “alternative” JB film or TV show in the future will lose what makes JB iconic and unique to the public. Lot of films have been made with cool spies running around but no one has this specific flavor built throughout the decades. NSNA kind of worked only because of Connery but without his presence no one would’ve cared about that “alternative version” of the character. If EoN wants to keep going making JB films, I wouldn’t worry that much about this copyright deadline.

    This is a good point and the one I was trying to get across. However, the reason I said that the future was tentative was because of the amount of time between each EON produced film. If there is another 6/7 year gap, I can't say with full confidence that there wouldn't be much interest in an alternative version, especially if it was directed by an auteur like Tarantino or somebody like that.
  • Posts: 7,507
    To add some controversy, I personally really like Lazenby as Bond. Not only do I think he could have improved his acting to become pretty great, but I would also have liked to see him accept a longer contract and continue until the mid-1970s. Maybe not a seven-film contract like the one he was offered, but at least three more movies after OHMSS. I'm not sure, however, that Tom Mankiewicz's writing would have suited him.


    On these boards that is not very controversial.
  • jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    To add some controversy, I personally really like Lazenby as Bond. Not only do I think he could have improved his acting to become pretty great, but I would also have liked to see him accept a longer contract and continue until the mid-1970s. Maybe not a seven-film contract like the one he was offered, but at least three more movies after OHMSS. I'm not sure, however, that Tom Mankiewicz's writing would have suited him.

    Welcome to the MI6 boards. You're in good company here, son.
  • Posts: 15,111
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    For the record, I'm all for a gay or bi actor to play Bond. Not Luke Evans specifically (he's too old now and not too sure about his face) , but someone with his skills and his talent. I do think however that they won't cast an openly gay actor for now, fearing a potential controversy.

    My hunch is the media would probably make the casting of an openly gay actor as Bond the primary focus (rather than the film itself) in terms of publicity.

    Doesn't matter to me either way, as my controversial opinion still stands:
    I believe NTTD will probably be the last Bond film we get for a very long time, if ever.

    It's not a controversial opinion. It's a potentially controversial assessment. And unfortunately I think you might be right. Even if it is a success which I think it will (then again the pandemic might change seriously the movie industry).
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 7,507
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.

    He has quite a lot of passionate fans on here actually and I feel the general consensus is that the film is a classic and that Lazenby's performance is very underrated. Personally I am more reserved. I think he was serviceable in the sense that the film manages to glare over his weaknesses and highlights the scenes he does well. I fear however that had he done more films, his limitations as an actor would have been further highlighted rather than the opposite.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    For the record, I'm all for a gay or bi actor to play Bond. Not Luke Evans specifically (he's too old now and not too sure about his face) , but someone with his skills and his talent. I do think however that they won't cast an openly gay actor for now, fearing a potential controversy.

    My hunch is the media would probably make the casting of an openly gay actor as Bond the primary focus (rather than the film itself) in terms of publicity.

    Doesn't matter to me either way, as my controversial opinion still stands:
    I believe NTTD will probably be the last Bond film we get for a very long time, if ever.

    It's not a controversial opinion. It's a potentially controversial assessment. And unfortunately I think you might be right. Even if it is a success which I think it will (then again the pandemic might change seriously the movie industry).

    I certainly want this hunch proven wrong, and Bond 26 sooner than later.
    I remember feeling optimistic that B25 could be out in 2017 to wrap up Craig's reign. We'd have the first outing of a new Bond in 2019 with a second outing aimed for 2022. That might have been great.

    Hypothetical situation: say had George Lucas offered Cubby to produce RETURN OF THE JEDI, no doubt he would have turned it down simply on the grounds it was being released during a Bond year.
    Bond always came first for Cubby. I think Barbara and Michael probably would have no problem postponing Bond another couple years to focus on something else.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.
    Can you imagine an interested Connery with Savalas and Rigg? It would've been electric.
  • Posts: 16,153
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.

    I might have replaced YOLT with a faithful adaptation of MR to give Connery something low key to follow TB. Then OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT in '71 to wrap up his era. His slightly unfit look at the time could have complimented Bond's burned out, post Tracy aftermath in the novel.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.
    Can you imagine an interested Connery with Savalas and Rigg? It would've been electric.

    Add an out-for-revenge-Ferzetti in there and it would have been a dream.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.

    I might have replaced YOLT with a faithful adaptation of MR to give Connery something low key to follow TB. Then OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT in '71 to wrap up his era. His slightly unfit look at the time could have complimented Bond's burned out, post Tracy aftermath in the novel.
    That would've been great. Fun fact: Connery was actually contracted for 6 films at the time of his Playboy interview in '65, and the next film at that time was OHMSS. So Sean nearly did the entire Blofeld Trilogy back to back!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    So to be clear, I do not think we will see the end of Bond. Because

    (1) Eon are a business and they need to generate turnover. They need to create income now in order that they can survive and therefore create income in the future. Bond is their biggest asset and unique ISP. No one else can legally use the character. So Eon will continue to create Bond product. Sorry for sounding so capitalist there but at the end of the day Eon exist in a market, and Bond is the biggest and flashiest product that they can put on their stall.

    (2) After 2036 (I think) the JB character is out of copyright. Copyright law is very clear. So we will continue to see JB films or TV after then too, just not made by Eon.

    So the future looks ok to me

    The problem is that at the current rate they are working at, that means only two more EON produced Bond films before 2036. Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).

    It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.

    So once the copyright expires in 2036, Bond will become a public domain character much like Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan or Dracula? Therefore pretty much any producer or production company could make their own Bond films or series?

    That could be interesting, however I somehow don't see anyone else making their own Bond franchise as successful as Eon.

    Public domain characters always seem to come back with or without successful results. Not many people I know embraced the latest DRACULA adaptation by BBC for instance.
    There was a new big screen Tarzan film a few years ago that seems all but forgotten today.
    Sherlock Holmes gets many adaptations on TV and film. Many are popular, actually. Perhaps Bond would follow in a similar fashion?

    No. The Disney lobbyists will never let their copyright expire, and Eon can just ride their coattails.
Sign In or Register to comment.