It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But it's a lot more than chance encounters. With the debatable exception of Dominic Greene, every Bond villain since 1995 has been intimately linked to British Intelligence.
Do you genuinely think that all the Bond fans on here who rate QoS, DAD, and SP so lowly do so because they are entitled and whiny? And not just because they are discerning fans who have honed their opinions through years of watching, reading, and debating?
Don't think it was O'Connell who did that survey, I think it was someone else. Think they had an anonymous Twitter handle. Unless I missed a different survey.
'Linked to British Intelligence' doesn't mean Bond. Bond is doing what M tells him to in most of those cases. I mentioned nothing about M or British Intelligence and their connections. I mentioned Bond's professionalism.
The case of something like TND is an exception where Bond is chosen because he has a way in through personal connections to the villain. It helps the mission. (and to be honest, I am not keen on that element of that either.)
Either way, despite whatever had come before in either books or films, the Blofeld foster brother angle is a step too far and I wish it had never happened.
Well, no, I don't think everyone who rates DAD, QOS, or SP low is necessarily whiny or entitled. But the amount of vitriol leveled at these three films is ridiculous. I'm also hardly the first person to claim that fan communities have become whinier and more entitled with the advent of the internet. So I have to ask myself if 60% of the Bond films released since online fan communities have become a thing are really the WORST BOND EVAR, or if....yeah, people are a bit whinier and a bit more entitled.
I'm also quite confident that if TSWLM didn't exist, and it came out next year, people would lose their s**t over how stupid it is. If YOLT (the novel or film) were released for the first time now, it would be reviled. The film is dumber than DAD, and the novel is crazier than SP. And that's not to say I dislike any of it.
And I guess I just don't see how it's even a centimeter further than what we see in GE, TND, TWINE, SF, or the YOLT novel.
Your rule seems a bit arbitrary to me. M and British Intelligence can be linked to every supervillain under the sun, but their star agent shouldn't be? How would that even work? M and Bond are so close on a personal level that he can break into her home more than once and not face repercussions.
And yet, there's something going on in the world of filmmaking these days that seems to automatically lead to such concepts. After all, the latest Star Wars pulled a similar "we're all related" stunt in a big bad way. Someone seems to think we like this. ;-)
Still, there's much more to SP than just that one revelation. It doesn't destroy the film for me any more than the fact that Moon was morphed into Graves or that Alec is basically going to rob some banks. Few Bond films are without their flaws after all. Even one of my number 1 Bonds, OHMSS, revolves around the silly idea of mass hypnosis and the fact that by changing Bond's name, Blofeld won't recognise him.
Again, I don't mind people pointing out the issues with SP, but for over 5 years now, SP has been pissed on, treated as roadkill, worse even than that utterly nonsensical, ugly-looking, low-quality product of hate called NSNA. And that is several steps too far for me. That's like calling someone you despise "worse than Hitler", hyperbole for the sake of it. But I'm also glad we're having this discussion right now because I respect the fact that people are willing to admit that it has a lot to do with expectations. And yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. I didn't like TND at first, simply because it wasn't GE 2. Neither was I too pleased with QOS at first, simply because it wasn't CR 2. And just to demonstrate the weaknesses in my own thoughts: part of the reason why I really like SP is that I was never quite as enamoured with SF as many folks were. In fact, many of the issues people have with SP are issues I have with SF... So in the end, we're all more or less on the same page, but with different films in different "roles". ;-)
I didn't say Bond can't be linked to super villains. His job means of course that he will have knowledge of them and have interacted with them. But to have done so when he was a kid in such an intimate manner is a stretch too far.
Doesn't he have to face his old school bully in High Time to Kill? Equally crass imo.
Anyway, we disagree. No biggie.
Fair enough. Well argued. (Though I have to admit SP is the only one I actually actively dislike - I love the rest in their own way).
I have grown to like NSNA quite a lot. Put it way above SP. Don't come at me for it though...I don't have the energy to defend NSNA today haha.
Or better yet, how about Blofeld is just a terrible, threatening presence who is a danger to everyone? That seemed to work before pretty well. All the former MI6 agents turncoats have long been a cliché for Bond and the MI series. The persona angle is also beyond cliché these days.
May I suggest an alternate possible superpower? How about a woman who smothers people to death by sitting on their face?? And of course she "gets off" as they die. (I admit this may be a little too R-rated for James Bond.)
M: "And whatever you do, Bond, don't let Ms. Onatopp sit on your face."
Bond: "But you know what a cunning linguist I am, sir."
M: "Might kill you."
Bond: "Is it... that foul, sir?"
M: "She's weaponized her WAP."
Bond: "I take this as a challenge."
I did not enjoy reading this. :))
Famke Janssen would be able to get me into a much more... vulnerable position... than Arnold Schwarzenegger, which I think would aid her greatly in her potential quest to crush me with her thighs.
"What's that Xenia? It'll feel better if you wrap your legs around my neck? Well, okay!!"
Shame. I have to imagine it's regarded that way by the general population because of the villain/villains plot. More down to earth, less memorable.
Bond's casual wear reaches it's franchise peak in this film IMCO. This film also has several brilliant scenes and shots.
Its a lot more than the villain plot.The actual plot itself is hard to follow ( Especially for anyone who hasnt seen CR ),the crazy editing style,lack of excitment,the overall nastiness of the film and despite its budget,comes across like a made for Netflix movie.
The score is good,there are some good scenes and shots,but its reputation seems tied with Spectre as amongst the worst of the Craig entries while the general feeling that CR and SF are regarded as his best.
To me I don't separate the villain plot and the "actual" plot, whatever that is. Not very much happens in the film that doesn't have to do with Greene, Bolivia, and water/oil.
EDIT: I suppose, thinking about it, there is a bunch of Vesper stuff sprinkled throughout: in the beginning with the photo, Mathis on the plane, the epilogue, of course. It's true the film suffers a bit for being a direct sequel to CR, but I don't really know if I knock the film because of it. Were there truly a lot of audience members saying "Who the sam heck is this Vesper fella??"
The editing has been discussed ad nauseum, sure, but as a viewer I never realized it was a problem until reading about on these boards. It is frantic, sure, but never got in the way for me. Lack of excitement, overall nastiness, looks like it's made for Netflix, couldn't disagree more on these points.
Yes, the General Public Rating of the Craig Films™ (CR, SF, QoS, SP) is very boring indeed.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/franchise/james_bond_007
And yes, the sixties films get an unreasonable high score, but that's got something to do with their cult status I suppose.
I've always been a staunch defender of QoS, as I find it one of the more intresting films. It's got multiple storylines that actually work. They don't feel contrived and even though Bond is also on a personal quest, we get 1. a 'stand alone' mission like Dr No, and 2. a villain focuessed on his own plot instead of turning circles around Bond.
i love the way they wove the redemption of Bond through this storyline.
SP I find less appealing, it's parts are better than the sum. But it doesn't deserve the flak that i.e. DAD deserves... :-D
In SP, that should have been either (1) Bond grew up with Oberhauser or (2) Blofeld is behind the past four installments, but not both.
Why OP is a better film in my book is that it handles the (many) tonal shifts expertly. Whether that is because of Moore or Glen or Fraser/Wilson/Maibaum, I don't know.
I don't know if I'd call Blofeld being behind the past four instalments a coincidence. It's more like a narrative buildup culminating into the mastermind behind each operation. I'm not saying it wasn't poorly done, just that I don't think it counts as a coincidence.
That this man happened to be the son of the man who took Bond in when his parents died, definitely a coincidence.
I agree 100%.
I would like a bit more depth added to the relationship. If, for example the scene between the two that is teased in the trailer somehow turns out to be an all-time classic (which in a vaccuum Craig and Waltz would certainly be capable of) that works in the brother-angle, I think SP would sit much better.
I remember an interview with some screenwriting guru who said that audiences will tolerate one contrivance or coincidence per film. Any more than that and credibility (even within fantastic genres such as this) starts to fall apart.
Controversial opinion: Waltz's Blofeld is still the most ruthless and downright diabolical of all the cinematic versions of the character.
I agree if this is what they had planned all along. But they didn't. It is literally a contrivance because it had no prior build up. If Blofeld had been behind Quantum, or if they had alluded to a single sinister mastermind who would be revealed in future films (even if it turned out not to be Blofeld in case they couldn't get the rights), then it would have been good.
My controversial opinion is that Blofeld, in any carnation, is a poor villain. His motivations make no sense. I could never imagine Dr No bowing down to Blofeld and being afraid of him.
My favourite Blofeld is Charles Gray. Camp he may be, but at least he's fun and got a bit of character.
I too was hoping Blofeld would have 12 brainwashed babes ready to wreck the global economy with their poison makeup kits. ;-)
Your partial list of goofy Bond baddies is a good one, and should serve as a reminder that these aren't aberrations to be tolerated: it's what Bond films are. They're generally pretty goofy movies.
It isn't much of a contrivance at all, you're right.
With due respect to any who are espousing it, the "Spectre tries to tie the last three films together and it's crazy" argument is about the most absurd argument I've seen advanced against any Bond film. CR and QOS were already tied together by QOS. And those two films, which involved a big hidden criminal organization, made clear that they hadn't revealed the big mastermind. Obviously they didn't have the Spectre film in mind at the time, but it's a perfectly expected extension of those films. You'd might as well say that it's ridiculous how Back to the Future III tries to tie all the BTTF films together.
SF, to be sure, is more of a stretch in that it's not following after CR and QOS. But if it's a bridge too far to accept that government-toppling criminal hacker Silva is part of an organization that topples governments and indulges in cybercrime, this might be the wrong series for you!
I think it depends. But as discussed before, Bond films regarded as classics are loaded with them. Goldeneye opens with Bond street racing some girl who turns out to be involved with his very next assignment. And who is she working for? Why, his best friend from his buddy cop days, 006! Lazy, lazy double coincidence betraying a massive lack of effort by the screenwriters. But most people aren't really put off by it.
And again, Spectre really only has the one proper coincidence.
Been through all this before, mate.
I like the coincidences and contrivances in the other films. I hate the one in SP. What's hard to understand about that?
I didn't mean that tying all the previous films together with Blofeld was 'crazy'. I meant that it was shit.
And that's okay, I guess. But what I said was that two of those films are already tied together, and Spectre continues the narrative there. Only SF can be a questionable one. Complaining that Spectre ties four films together--one being Spectre itself, and two others being tied together already--is just silly, whether you think it's crap or not. If people were moaning about it pulling in Silva, that's just an opinion, but the hyperbolic moaning about the four films being connected just doesn't make sense.
And we actually agree: you're okay with any amount of coincidence or intimate connections in Bond films, you just don't like this particular one. That's fine with me! I think TWINE is terrible, but I can't really give strong reasons--it just doesn't do anything for me. I can point out this or that flaw, but those flaws aren't the reason I dislike the film.
Well to be fair there's a huge difference between going after a girl that happens to be working for the opposition, and the main villain claiming to be his brother.
And anyway, why do you think him meeting Xenia was coincidental?Bond is on a mission, that much is clear.That's why he's in monaco in the first place, not to see another presentation of military hardware. He knows something's up, so he probably knows who xenia is. He was waiting for her to race along. In the meantime he's stuck with the psychologist M send to him to evaluate. In the same vain as his boat 'broke down' in TB to get close to Domino.
Did he know Alec was behind it? No, that's coincedence. But Alec is nothing more than a former collegue and 'friend' in the service. A traitor, and the fact that Bond knows him so well is just based on the fact that there are only a few 00's.