Controversial opinions about Bond films

1564565567569570707

Comments

  • edited June 2020 Posts: 7,507
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I will agree on the tank chase. It seemed to be a case of needing to get Bond into a mode of transport he hadn't been in and the end result always reminded me more of an outtake from The Blues Brothers rather than Bond.


    Thank you!

    Bond should be in a modest, vulnerable car, like in the car chase from FYEO. If anyone has to be driving tanks, it should be the villain.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about, as if there's this implication that the tank chase fails because it's never suspenseful. The tank chase was never about suspense, it's about seeing Bond break out and for a rare moment be shown as an unstoppable force in a world that assumes that Bond's day has passed after the Cold War. It's supposed to be a moment of levity, where you cheer for the hero turning the tables on the villains by becoming the pursuer rather than being the pursued. To knock the chase for lacking suspense is just a total misreading.

    I think there's plenty of room for Bond to be involved in chases where he's either pursuing or being pursued. It doesn't have to be only one or the other. So long as the sequences succeed in their goals.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    jobo wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I will agree on the tank chase. It seemed to be a case of needing to get Bond into a mode of transport he hadn't been in and the end result always reminded me more of an outtake from The Blues Brothers rather than Bond.


    Thank you!

    Bond should be in a modest, vulnerable car, like in the car chase from FYEO. If anyone has to be driving tanks, it should be the villain.

    I see what you’re saying here, but maybe just once in 20+ films, Bond gets the tank. ;) we cant just keep redoing the same things.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,617
    The best thing about the tank scene is that it gave us a great level in a classic video game. The only level where you can use a vehicle.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about, as if there's this implication that the tank chase fails because it's never suspenseful. The tank chase was never about suspense, it's about seeing Bond break out and for a rare moment be shown as an unstoppable force in a world that assumes that Bond's day has passed after the Cold War. It's supposed to be a moment of levity, where you cheer for the hero turning the tables on the villains by becoming the pursuer rather than being the pursued. To knock the chase for lacking suspense is just a total misreading.

    I think there's plenty of room for Bond to be involved in chases where he's either pursuing or being pursued. It doesn't have to be only one or the other. So long as the sequences succeed in their goals.

    Thanks for the perspective, it is an interesting one. Nonetheless, I still find it poor.
  • Posts: 7,507
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    The best thing about the tank scene is that it gave us a great level in a classic video game. The only level where you can use a vehicle.

    Ah, yes of course! The argument to end all arguments ;) ;))
    jobo wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I will agree on the tank chase. It seemed to be a case of needing to get Bond into a mode of transport he hadn't been in and the end result always reminded me more of an outtake from The Blues Brothers rather than Bond.


    Thank you!

    Bond should be in a modest, vulnerable car, like in the car chase from FYEO. If anyone has to be driving tanks, it should be the villain.

    I see what you’re saying here, but maybe just once in 20+ films, Bond gets the tank. ;) we cant just keep redoing the same things.


    We have Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham for that ;)

  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about, as if there's this implication that the tank chase fails because it's never suspenseful. The tank chase was never about suspense, it's about seeing Bond break out and for a rare moment be shown as an unstoppable force in a world that assumes that Bond's day has passed after the Cold War. It's supposed to be a moment of levity, where you cheer for the hero turning the tables on the villains by becoming the pursuer rather than being the pursued. To knock the chase for lacking suspense is just a total misreading.

    I think there's plenty of room for Bond to be involved in chases where he's either pursuing or being pursued. It doesn't have to be only one or the other. So long as the sequences succeed in their goals.

    Spot on. I was toying with the idea of leaving a similar post but ultimately felt it would be a waste of time. It's a Brosnan film, we don't like that **** around here.

    :P
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about, as if there's this implication that the tank chase fails because it's never suspenseful. The tank chase was never about suspense, it's about seeing Bond break out and for a rare moment be shown as an unstoppable force in a world that assumes that Bond's day has passed after the Cold War. It's supposed to be a moment of levity, where you cheer for the hero turning the tables on the villains by becoming the pursuer rather than being the pursued. To knock the chase for lacking suspense is just a total misreading.

    I think there's plenty of room for Bond to be involved in chases where he's either pursuing or being pursued. It doesn't have to be only one or the other. So long as the sequences succeed in their goals.

    Love this.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about, as if there's this implication that the tank chase fails because it's never suspenseful. The tank chase was never about suspense, it's about seeing Bond break out and for a rare moment be shown as an unstoppable force in a world that assumes that Bond's day has passed after the Cold War. It's supposed to be a moment of levity, where you cheer for the hero turning the tables on the villains by becoming the pursuer rather than being the pursued. To knock the chase for lacking suspense is just a total misreading.

    I think there's plenty of room for Bond to be involved in chases where he's either pursuing or being pursued. It doesn't have to be only one or the other. So long as the sequences succeed in their goals.

    Spot on. I was toying with the idea of leaving a similar post but ultimately felt it would be a waste of time. It's a Brosnan film, we don't like that **** around here.

    :P


    Honestly, even if I was buying that argument, it doesn´t make the scene any better...
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    jobo wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about, as if there's this implication that the tank chase fails because it's never suspenseful. The tank chase was never about suspense, it's about seeing Bond break out and for a rare moment be shown as an unstoppable force in a world that assumes that Bond's day has passed after the Cold War. It's supposed to be a moment of levity, where you cheer for the hero turning the tables on the villains by becoming the pursuer rather than being the pursued. To knock the chase for lacking suspense is just a total misreading.

    I think there's plenty of room for Bond to be involved in chases where he's either pursuing or being pursued. It doesn't have to be only one or the other. So long as the sequences succeed in their goals.

    Spot on. I was toying with the idea of leaving a similar post but ultimately felt it would be a waste of time. It's a Brosnan film, we don't like that **** around here.

    :P


    Honestly, even if I was buying that argument, it doesn´t make the scene any better...

    And at the end of the day, who cares.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    We like and dislike things because it's our opinions and we have our preferences. I do think the garage chase in TND was supposed to be replicating the tank chase in tone, depicting a reckless Bond who's gleefully handling the villains on his own terms and getting away with it. I just don't think it's done as well.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about...

    I don't think the onus is on us viewers to understand a tank chase. You either find it incredibly silly and dull or you don't. I am not going to enjoy symbolism for symbolism's sake. This isn't Bergman.

    My point was that it seemed as if people were judging it as a suspenseful chase, when it clearly wasn’t meant to be viewed as such. It’s all there in the sight gags and the jovial music. It’s a very lighthearted scene. Comparing it to a conventional chase where Bond is pursued and vulnerable is like comparing apples to oranges.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I feel like there's a subset of fans who completely misunderstand what the tank chase is supposed to be all about...

    I don't think the onus is on us viewers to understand a tank chase. You either find it incredibly silly and dull or you don't. I am not going to enjoy symbolism for symbolism's sake. This isn't Bergman.

    My point was that it seemed as if people were judging it as a suspenseful chase, when it clearly wasn’t meant to be viewed as such. It’s all there in the sight gags and the jovial music. It’s a very lighthearted scene. Comparing it to a conventional chase where Bond is pursued and vulnerable is like comparing apples to oranges.

    I agree with you. I like to think of the chase as a bit of cathartic release as well, as you mentioned in your previous post.
  • Posts: 7,415
    As I said. I dont disagree with the idea of a tank chase.. its just not done very well, and is not exciting as other chase sequences in the Bond canon!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    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 doesn’t really matter what I personally think......Marketing Executives and Producers wouldn’t ‘green light’ a gay actor as Bond. It doesn’t match the ‘Bond brand’ from a business perspective. It’s a commercial gamble that can be avoided.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It doesn’t really matter what I personally think......Marketing Executives and Producers wouldn’t ‘green light’ a gay actor as Bond. It doesn’t match the ‘Bond brand’ from a business perspective. It’s a commercial gamble that can be avoided.

    You'd think that, but then again EON cast Daniel Craig, who probably would have never been on the radar for any other Marketing Executives and Producers just for his blonde hair and unconventional looks. If EON wants to cast an actor who just happens to be gay in real life, that's just something that will force everyone else to either fix their hearts or die.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    It doesn’t really matter what I personally think......Marketing Executives and Producers wouldn’t ‘green light’ a gay actor as Bond. It doesn’t match the ‘Bond brand’ from a business perspective. It’s a commercial gamble that can be avoided.

    You'd think that, but then again EON cast Daniel Craig, who probably would have never been on the radar for any other Marketing Executives and Producers just for his blonde hair and unconventional looks. If EON wants to cast an actor who just happens to be gay in real life, that's just something that will force everyone else to either fix their hearts or die.

    All true. But why would they take the risk. The press would have a field day and it would overshadow the film. If having blonde hair and being perceived as ‘bland’ was treated so adversely in 2005, imagine the reaction to a ‘gay Bond’ (as they would undoubtedly dub it).
  • Posts: 15,114
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Don't love the TND parking garage sequence either. I don't think people buy tickets to see James Bond playing on his phone in the backseat of a car during a car chase, I certainly don't. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the car either.
    Also don't love the Miami sequence in CR; it just feels a little tacked on to me, in a film that tends to feel a little long. Bond also looks terrible in all of the Miami scenes, which makes a difference to me. He also does some bad spying here, as he gets made by both Dimitrios and Carlos almost right away. Ugly + Unprofessional = Not Bond. ;P

    I think you're missing out on a couple of factors here.

    Consider when TND was released that not everybody had a cell phone and having one that controlled a car was inventive and novel then. Has it aged well, no. As technology advances not everything is going to. I actually get a good sense of fun as he seems to enjoy frustrating the bad guys and this technology. I'll take it over the horrid caviar factory scene any time. Having a car that actually does something is miles better than having one he drives down a road and doesn't do anything with as in GE.

    As far as the unprofessional/bad spying, consider that this film is Bond early in his career. That's established even by M. He's winning ugly but eventually accomplishing what he sets out to do and upsets LeChiffre's plan, setting the rest in motion at the casino. As for the ugly comment, well, that's your opinion.

    It also makes me think of Roger Moore's comment about Bond being the world's most obvious secret agent. I think of TND where he announces himself and everybody knows what he is there for and countless other circumstances. So there's that.

    I was in my early 20s when TND was released and mobile phones may have been primitive, but they were getting widely used. The car was borderline deus ex machina, it did everything required and Bond did not seem in danger in the least. His confrontation with the Doctor earlier on was more suspenseful. And Bond's attitude is all wrong: he's got a big smile minutes after he grieved Paris. It's like the sequences were filmed months apart and they had forgotten what was meant to happen before.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Don't love the TND parking garage sequence either. I don't think people buy tickets to see James Bond playing on his phone in the backseat of a car during a car chase, I certainly don't. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the car either.
    Also don't love the Miami sequence in CR; it just feels a little tacked on to me, in a film that tends to feel a little long. Bond also looks terrible in all of the Miami scenes, which makes a difference to me. He also does some bad spying here, as he gets made by both Dimitrios and Carlos almost right away. Ugly + Unprofessional = Not Bond. ;P

    I think you're missing out on a couple of factors here.

    Consider when TND was released that not everybody had a cell phone and having one that controlled a car was inventive and novel then. Has it aged well, no. As technology advances not everything is going to. I actually get a good sense of fun as he seems to enjoy frustrating the bad guys and this technology. I'll take it over the horrid caviar factory scene any time. Having a car that actually does something is miles better than having one he drives down a road and doesn't do anything with as in GE.

    As far as the unprofessional/bad spying, consider that this film is Bond early in his career. That's established even by M. He's winning ugly but eventually accomplishing what he sets out to do and upsets LeChiffre's plan, setting the rest in motion at the casino. As for the ugly comment, well, that's your opinion.

    It also makes me think of Roger Moore's comment about Bond being the world's most obvious secret agent. I think of TND where he announces himself and everybody knows what he is there for and countless other circumstances. So there's that.

    I was in my early 20s when TND was released and mobile phones may have been primitive, but they were getting widely used. The car was borderline deus ex machina, it did everything required and Bond did not seem in danger in the least. His confrontation with the Doctor earlier on was more suspenseful. And Bond's attitude is all wrong: he's got a big smile minutes after he grieved Paris. It's like the sequences were filmed months apart and they had forgotten what was meant to happen before.

    Yeah, I see what you're saying and can understand that POV. But one of the things I like about TND is it isn't saddled the way the other Brosnan (and Craig for that matter) films are with the personal angle. Bond gets past Paris's death and he's onto the adventure and accomplishing the mission, sparing us any brooding "It's what keeps me alive" on the beach scenes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    True, but TND is also pretty damn generic film compared to the others Brosnan and Craig films so it pretty much loses me.
  • Posts: 15,114
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Don't love the TND parking garage sequence either. I don't think people buy tickets to see James Bond playing on his phone in the backseat of a car during a car chase, I certainly don't. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the car either.
    Also don't love the Miami sequence in CR; it just feels a little tacked on to me, in a film that tends to feel a little long. Bond also looks terrible in all of the Miami scenes, which makes a difference to me. He also does some bad spying here, as he gets made by both Dimitrios and Carlos almost right away. Ugly + Unprofessional = Not Bond. ;P

    I think you're missing out on a couple of factors here.

    Consider when TND was released that not everybody had a cell phone and having one that controlled a car was inventive and novel then. Has it aged well, no. As technology advances not everything is going to. I actually get a good sense of fun as he seems to enjoy frustrating the bad guys and this technology. I'll take it over the horrid caviar factory scene any time. Having a car that actually does something is miles better than having one he drives down a road and doesn't do anything with as in GE.

    As far as the unprofessional/bad spying, consider that this film is Bond early in his career. That's established even by M. He's winning ugly but eventually accomplishing what he sets out to do and upsets LeChiffre's plan, setting the rest in motion at the casino. As for the ugly comment, well, that's your opinion.

    It also makes me think of Roger Moore's comment about Bond being the world's most obvious secret agent. I think of TND where he announces himself and everybody knows what he is there for and countless other circumstances. So there's that.

    I was in my early 20s when TND was released and mobile phones may have been primitive, but they were getting widely used. The car was borderline deus ex machina, it did everything required and Bond did not seem in danger in the least. His confrontation with the Doctor earlier on was more suspenseful. And Bond's attitude is all wrong: he's got a big smile minutes after he grieved Paris. It's like the sequences were filmed months apart and they had forgotten what was meant to happen before.

    Yeah, I see what you're saying and can understand that POV. But one of the things I like about TND is it isn't saddled the way the other Brosnan (and Craig for that matter) films are with the personal angle. Bond gets past Paris's death and he's onto the adventure and accomplishing the mission, sparing us any brooding "It's what keeps me alive" on the beach scenes.

    Well, that's the problem with TND (one of its problems) : Paris is meant to be significant and he gets over her death within minutes. It's as if their past history was an excuse for them to get in bed faster, without a long courting.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 2020 Posts: 8,182
    I think one thing a lot of fans need to reconcile with after 9 films and over 30 years is the fact that the personal angle in Bond films isn’t just a trope for the series, it’s a staple for the entire action genre.

    Ever since the 80s, movies like Indiana Jones, Rambo, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc have made the personal angle become such a norm in the genre that it’s a rarity to make an action film where the protagonist has no personal stake. It’s a trope that has persisted to this very day in newer films like Marvel, John Wick, Fast & Furious, that it’s now something audiences expect to see. Bond adopting it ever since LTK was one of the many attempts to make Bond relevant with modern audiences, especially given how people started to think Bond had become passé.

    So the idea of an old fashioned/traditional formula hasn’t been a thing for Bond since the 80s, and after all that time to expect a Bond film to return to the zero personal stakes of the 60s and 70s films is now unrealistic. You don’t have to like it, but let’s not pretend to be surprised when, NOT if, film a new installment gives Bond even more personal stakes. That’s just how the action genre has been for 40 years and may continue to be for awhile.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,026
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Don't love the TND parking garage sequence either. I don't think people buy tickets to see James Bond playing on his phone in the backseat of a car during a car chase, I certainly don't. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the car either.
    Also don't love the Miami sequence in CR; it just feels a little tacked on to me, in a film that tends to feel a little long. Bond also looks terrible in all of the Miami scenes, which makes a difference to me. He also does some bad spying here, as he gets made by both Dimitrios and Carlos almost right away. Ugly + Unprofessional = Not Bond. ;P

    I think you're missing out on a couple of factors here.

    Consider when TND was released that not everybody had a cell phone and having one that controlled a car was inventive and novel then. Has it aged well, no. As technology advances not everything is going to. I actually get a good sense of fun as he seems to enjoy frustrating the bad guys and this technology. I'll take it over the horrid caviar factory scene any time. Having a car that actually does something is miles better than having one he drives down a road and doesn't do anything with as in GE.

    As far as the unprofessional/bad spying, consider that this film is Bond early in his career. That's established even by M. He's winning ugly but eventually accomplishing what he sets out to do and upsets LeChiffre's plan, setting the rest in motion at the casino. As for the ugly comment, well, that's your opinion.

    It also makes me think of Roger Moore's comment about Bond being the world's most obvious secret agent. I think of TND where he announces himself and everybody knows what he is there for and countless other circumstances. So there's that.

    I was in my early 20s when TND was released and mobile phones may have been primitive, but they were getting widely used. The car was borderline deus ex machina, it did everything required and Bond did not seem in danger in the least. His confrontation with the Doctor earlier on was more suspenseful. And Bond's attitude is all wrong: he's got a big smile minutes after he grieved Paris. It's like the sequences were filmed months apart and they had forgotten what was meant to happen before.

    Yeah, I see what you're saying and can understand that POV. But one of the things I like about TND is it isn't saddled the way the other Brosnan (and Craig for that matter) films are with the personal angle. Bond gets past Paris's death and he's onto the adventure and accomplishing the mission, sparing us any brooding "It's what keeps me alive" on the beach scenes.

    Well, that's the problem with TND (one of its problems) : Paris is meant to be significant and he gets over her death within minutes. It's as if their past history was an excuse for them to get in bed faster, without a long courting.

    I'm among those who consider TND a decent Bond movie, and in my case definitely a far better film than the two that followed it, and then a few. But I never considered Paris significant. In fact, one might as well have omitted her, except for the effect of Dr. Kaufmann killing her and Bond getting very, very mad about this. Other than that, the sidestory of past relations between Bond and Paris has no meaning whatsoever. And it's one of the things in this movie that I find distracting.
  • Posts: 631
    I think one thing a lot of fans need to reconcile with after 9 films and over 30 years is the fact that the personal angle in Bond films isn’t just a trope for the series, it’s a staple for the entire action genre.

    Ever since the 80s, movies like Indiana Jones, Rambo, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc have made the personal angle become such a norm in the genre that it’s a rarity to make an action film where the protagonist has no personal stake. It’s a trope that has persisted to this very day in newer films like Marvel, John Wick, Fast & Furious, that it’s now something audiences expect to see. Bond adopting it ever since LTK was one of the many attempts to make Bond relevant with modern audiences, especially given how people started to think Bond had become passé.

    So the idea of an old fashioned/traditional formula hasn’t been a thing for Bond since the 80s, and after all that time to expect a Bond film to return to the zero personal stakes of the 60s and 70s films is now unrealistic. You don’t have to like it, but let’s not pretend to be surprised when, NOT if, film a new installment gives Bond even more personal stakes. That’s just how the action genre has been for 40 years and may continue to be for awhile.

    A thoughtful point.

    To be fair, Fleming started it himself, as OHMSS’s ending made it personal for Bond, and YOLT then built on that.

    But you are right, the trope is persistent and it gets everywhere.

    When the TV show Sherlock started, with Benedict Cumberbatch, I thought, this’ll be great, they’ll update all my favourite old stories. I was really looking forward to it.

    Then they destroyed the stories. They dropped the concept of someone going to Baker Street each episode to ask for Holmes’s help, and introduced a massively complex personal stakes thing with Moriarty “messing with Sherlock’s head” and an Irene Adler lust angle and then there’s Sherlock’s secret evil sister and oh Watson’s just married a special forces assassin. It felt like each episode just added a new personal stake to add to all the other personal stakes. Ridiculous. But very contemporary.

    IMO Arthur Conan Doyle had the right idea all along. Each story is self-contained, and it starts with someone asking for Holmes’s help, and then Holmes solves it.

    So the concept of Bond simply going to M’s office and being set a mission that has no personal relevance to him may now be dead and buried.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    @MakeshiftPython

    Yes, you are correct about the personal angle. I hate it, though, for the most part. Of course there's a place for it. But sometimes these guys, Bond especially, have to be professional. I like it in TWINE when Bond kills Elektra because it shows absolute professionalism. It's one of the best scenes in the series imo, even in a film I don't have much affection for. The continual emphasis on personal stakes on top of the job that needs doing is a bit tedious, though.

    You mention Lethal Weapon. The first film is one of my favourites. The second is pretty good, but they introduced the angle that one of the villains had killed Riggs' wife prior to the first film. Ludicrous. By Lethal Weapon 4 it's one big surrogate family running around solving crimes. I don't want that to happen to Bond.


  • Posts: 15,114
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Don't love the TND parking garage sequence either. I don't think people buy tickets to see James Bond playing on his phone in the backseat of a car during a car chase, I certainly don't. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the car either.
    Also don't love the Miami sequence in CR; it just feels a little tacked on to me, in a film that tends to feel a little long. Bond also looks terrible in all of the Miami scenes, which makes a difference to me. He also does some bad spying here, as he gets made by both Dimitrios and Carlos almost right away. Ugly + Unprofessional = Not Bond. ;P

    I think you're missing out on a couple of factors here.

    Consider when TND was released that not everybody had a cell phone and having one that controlled a car was inventive and novel then. Has it aged well, no. As technology advances not everything is going to. I actually get a good sense of fun as he seems to enjoy frustrating the bad guys and this technology. I'll take it over the horrid caviar factory scene any time. Having a car that actually does something is miles better than having one he drives down a road and doesn't do anything with as in GE.

    As far as the unprofessional/bad spying, consider that this film is Bond early in his career. That's established even by M. He's winning ugly but eventually accomplishing what he sets out to do and upsets LeChiffre's plan, setting the rest in motion at the casino. As for the ugly comment, well, that's your opinion.

    It also makes me think of Roger Moore's comment about Bond being the world's most obvious secret agent. I think of TND where he announces himself and everybody knows what he is there for and countless other circumstances. So there's that.

    I was in my early 20s when TND was released and mobile phones may have been primitive, but they were getting widely used. The car was borderline deus ex machina, it did everything required and Bond did not seem in danger in the least. His confrontation with the Doctor earlier on was more suspenseful. And Bond's attitude is all wrong: he's got a big smile minutes after he grieved Paris. It's like the sequences were filmed months apart and they had forgotten what was meant to happen before.

    Yeah, I see what you're saying and can understand that POV. But one of the things I like about TND is it isn't saddled the way the other Brosnan (and Craig for that matter) films are with the personal angle. Bond gets past Paris's death and he's onto the adventure and accomplishing the mission, sparing us any brooding "It's what keeps me alive" on the beach scenes.

    Well, that's the problem with TND (one of its problems) : Paris is meant to be significant and he gets over her death within minutes. It's as if their past history was an excuse for them to get in bed faster, without a long courting.

    I'm among those who consider TND a decent Bond movie, and in my case definitely a far better film than the two that followed it, and then a few. But I never considered Paris significant. In fact, one might as well have omitted her, except for the effect of Dr. Kaufmann killing her and Bond getting very, very mad about this. Other than that, the sidestory of past relations between Bond and Paris has no meaning whatsoever. And it's one of the things in this movie that I find distracting.

    It doesn't help that they cast a rather average actress. Teri Hatcher is good looking, sure, but I don't believe one second that Bond could have fallen in love with her.
    @MakeshiftPython I keep repeating the very same thing here: the personal angle is now an element for the whole action genre, whether you do a low key thriller or an apocalyptic scifi blockbuster. Unless the whole genre shifts, we won't see a change.

    @IGotABrudder The issue with Sherlock was not so much the personal stakes, which was symptomatic rather than a cause imo. It was the overuse of plot twists and overly complicated and contrived plots for shock value. The source material was of course far superior, but there was plenty of personal drama, only it was lived by Holmes' clients. Holmes himself was like a "detective ex machina" , the stories otherwise were proper realistic fiction. But it's easier to have a hero with no personal stakes in a plot when the format is episodic in nature.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    @MakeshiftPython

    Yes, you are correct about the personal angle. I hate it, though, for the most part. Of course there's a place for it. But sometimes these guys, Bond especially, have to be professional. I like it in TWINE when Bond kills Elektra because it shows absolute professionalism. It's one of the best scenes in the series imo, even in a film I don't have much affection for. The continual emphasis on personal stakes on top of the job that needs doing is a bit tedious, though.

    Funny, people always talk about how cold and professional Bond is when killing Elektra, but I don’t see it at all. I see a man who’s INCENSED because he fell for a woman that manipulated him, and finds out just how rotten of a person she is after he empathized with her earlier. Even right after he kills her, he approaches her body to mourn her, because even after all that he’s still emotionally mixed up and can’t help himself. And the thing about him being professional is an odd thing to say because she was ultimately unarmed, and when he kills her he obviously doesn’t look cold blooded, you can see in his face how utterly pissed off he is. He didn’t just kill her because the job called for it, he killed her because she betrayed him, and it’s DRAMATIC (in fact in the first draft she actually lives at the end, being taken into custody and Bond visits her, it was decided that killing her was more powerful ). Otherwise he would have subdued her another way, as a professional would. But he wasn’t cold blooded, he was very hot blooded.

    If anything, Bond showed more professionalism in killing Kaufman. Even though it was personal, it was more methodical. He kept his cool. That wasn’t what happened with Elektra.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,112
    Having rewatched TND recently, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It has great performances, a brisk pace, a fine score, beautiful cinematography and, above all, a plot about media manipulation and news framing that has become even more relevant over time.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    Regarding TWINE to me it plays out very focused, professional. Feelings aside, OO7 is trying to stop a nuclear explosion. He gives Elektra a chance, but his reaction to her orders on the radio are instantaneous. He shoots her in the head.

    A moment of emotion comes after, then he's off to stop the nuke.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I completely disagree @MakeshiftPython, if he killed Elektra out of anger he should have been fired and prosecuted.

    I agree with @RichardTheBruce on this one.
Sign In or Register to comment.