Controversial opinions about Bond films

1639640642644645707

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    With coincidence I want to point out fiction does not compare to what plays out in real life.

    Thankfully I don't think anyone was under the impression that it does, @RichardTheBruce! :) Though admittedly, unsettling coincidences have reared their head in my life too! None, of course, resulted in me having to save the world afterwards!
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,904
    So far, @CraigMooreOHMSS. So far.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    I'll answer when called, @RichardTheBruce, rest assured.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I think my own grievances with Spectre are built out of frustration for what could have been, given all the elements they had to work with, especially the cast and the clean slate they had ready for them with Skyfall's ending.
  • Posts: 1,650
    At the end of Skyfall, with M asking Bond if he's ready to get back to work, I was certain the story-telling arc -- which I enjoyed thoroughly, including QOS -- was over. It seemed, from that exchange of dialogue, that the next film would be a stand-alone adventure. The only one who thought that upon hearing that dialogue, am I ?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,599
    Since62 wrote: »
    At the end of Skyfall, with M asking Bond if he's ready to get back to work, I was certain the story-telling arc -- which I enjoyed thoroughly, including QOS -- was over. It seemed, from that exchange of dialogue, that the next film would be a stand-alone adventure. The only one who thought that upon hearing that dialogue, am I ?

    Should have been M handing Bond the folder to find Sciarra in Mexico City.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Since62 wrote: »
    At the end of Skyfall, with M asking Bond if he's ready to get back to work, I was certain the story-telling arc -- which I enjoyed thoroughly, including QOS -- was over. It seemed, from that exchange of dialogue, that the next film would be a stand-alone adventure. The only one who thought that upon hearing that dialogue, am I ?

    No you're not the only one who thought that way. I certainly did and I suspect many others did simply because, yes, "...ready to get back to work" is a perfect line and moment to kick on for the next adventure.
    It seems the only person who didn't feel that way was the man who directed that same moment!
    The frustrating thing for me is Blofeld, Spectre etc could still have been done as a stand alone. It didn't have to be another walk down Personal History Lane to further muddy the waters.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Never Say Never Again is still terrible, and still doesn't count as a Bond film to me...but if I were to rank it, for the first time ever I'm at least willing to admit that it's better than an EON entry (Diamonds). Granted, only by a hair, and both films are overall awful viewing experiences, but still...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,574
    Never Say Never Again is still terrible, and still doesn't count as a Bond film to me...but if I were to rank it, for the first time ever I'm at least willing to admit that it's better than an EON entry (Diamonds). Granted, only by a hair, and both films are overall awful viewing experiences, but still...

    Do you mean you genuinely think those two films are absolutely terrible and awful, or are you being hyperbolic and only mean it relative to Bond films (so they’re quite good really)? Because @DarthDimi was just saying how we all like all of them :)
  • Without ranking it as high as in my top 10, I quite like NSNA and I think it may be in my top 15 or so favorite Bond films, even though I never thought about it before.

    I guess a lot of it had to do with the fact that it was the first installment of the series I saw as a kid, but even in hindsight I find a lot of qualities in this movie. Connery is at his best, Kershner's direction is interesting (the whole visual theme of voyeurism that runs through the film, with all the shots filmed in the opening of a door for example, is an original idea for a spy thriller, in particular for Bond).
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 7,507
    Since62 wrote: »
    At the end of Skyfall, with M asking Bond if he's ready to get back to work, I was certain the story-telling arc -- which I enjoyed thoroughly, including QOS -- was over. It seemed, from that exchange of dialogue, that the next film would be a stand-alone adventure. The only one who thought that upon hearing that dialogue, am I ?

    You certainly weren't. I honestly was a bit disappointed when Spectre again begins with Bond disobeying orders, arguing with M about it, going rogue... I remember thinking; "here we go again"...

    I sure hope it is not a new formula trope that Bond and M has to have a heated argument at soe point during the film.
  • Posts: 2,171
    jobo wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    At the end of Skyfall, with M asking Bond if he's ready to get back to work, I was certain the story-telling arc -- which I enjoyed thoroughly, including QOS -- was over. It seemed, from that exchange of dialogue, that the next film would be a stand-alone adventure. The only one who thought that upon hearing that dialogue, am I ?

    You certainly weren't. I honestly was a bit disappointed when Spectre again begins with Bond disobeying orders, arguing with M about it, going rogue... I remember thinking; "here we go again"...

    I sure hope it is not a new formula trope that Bond and M has to have a heated argument at soe point during the film.

    To see Bond and Mallory develop a good working relationship, through to the acceptance, by Bond, that Mallory was the new M and his boss... and then go straight to SP and Bond/Mallory arguing straight away, was thoroughly disappointing to say the least.

    Bond was such a little shit towards Mallory in the post-PTS meeting, I am surprised Mallory didnt physically kick him out the room.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 815
    Since62 wrote: »
    At the end of Skyfall, with M asking Bond if he's ready to get back to work, I was certain the story-telling arc -- which I enjoyed thoroughly, including QOS -- was over. It seemed, from that exchange of dialogue, that the next film would be a stand-alone adventure. The only one who thought that upon hearing that dialogue, am I ?

    Yeah, I thought the same thing. Now, I’m an ardent defender of Spectre, but damn, I wish this was a one-off. One thing’s for sure, if Bond 26 isn’t self-contained, it won’t be hard to see that the franchise has completely derailed itself.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    As well as completely going against what they'd set up, which is one of the main reasons for me Spectre is so frustrating, it completely undid the development between Bond and Mallory. A development I think could be somewhat similar to Bond and Nomi's in No Time to Die. That clashing of ideals and personality before finding mutual respect.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Without ranking it as high as in my top 10, I quite like NSNA and I think it may be in my top 15 or so favorite Bond films, even though I never thought about it before.

    I guess a lot of it had to do with the fact that it was the first installment of the series I saw as a kid, but even in hindsight I find a lot of qualities in this movie. Connery is at his best, Kershner's direction is interesting (the whole visual theme of voyeurism that runs through the film, with all the shots filmed in the opening of a door for example, is an original idea for a spy thriller, in particular for Bond).

    I don't really rank them but it's not a total disaster of a film, it's watchable enough. It's quite patchy and doesn't really have a flow to it, but that's the issue with Thunderball really. I'd rather watch, say, AVTAK, but NSNA has a few things to commend it.

    I worked out recently that it's Connery's final film appearance sans facial hair :D
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    mtm wrote: »
    Without ranking it as high as in my top 10, I quite like NSNA and I think it may be in my top 15 or so favorite Bond films, even though I never thought about it before.

    I guess a lot of it had to do with the fact that it was the first installment of the series I saw as a kid, but even in hindsight I find a lot of qualities in this movie. Connery is at his best, Kershner's direction is interesting (the whole visual theme of voyeurism that runs through the film, with all the shots filmed in the opening of a door for example, is an original idea for a spy thriller, in particular for Bond).

    I don't really rank them but it's not a total disaster of a film, it's watchable enough. It's quite patchy and doesn't really have a flow to it, but that's the issue with Thunderball really. I'd rather watch, say, AVTAK, but NSNA has a few things to commend it.

    I worked out recently that it's Connery's final film appearance sans facial hair :D

    They even gave him a stache in Sir Billie. ;-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Yes, I'm not counting Dragonheart in that one!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't like the "Brofeld" angle myself (otherwise I like SP), but I agree: this is the mind of contrived coincidences that often happen in Fleming and in spy fiction in general.

    I think one can make a distinction between the sort of plotting contrivances that are often necessary to kickstart a thriller (which is by nature a chain of implausible events) and the even more wildly contrived revelation of secret "family" relationships among already well-established characters, which is a hallmark of melodrama and a cheap attempt to make things personal for the hero. And of course the hallmark of the Craig series is making everything personal for Bond--turning Blofeld into a quasi-sibling of Bond marks the ludicrous apex of this tendency. The result is just bathos.

    The oddest thing is that Bond doesn’t even seem all that bothered throughout the film that his foster brother is behind it all. You could easily edit/ADR out any references to being foster brothers and it doesn’t exactly change the dynamic which is that Bond had been a foil for SPECTRE and he finally reached the top boss. This is especially true with the London climax, where Blofeld is incensed not because Bond is his foster brother but because he destroyed his base and wants revenge.

    It makes the foster brother angle feel inconsequential, especially given how Craig had decided to play Bond in this film as more classical, not having a chip on his shoulder like in the previous films.
  • Posts: 787
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't like the "Brofeld" angle myself (otherwise I like SP), but I agree: this is the mind of contrived coincidences that often happen in Fleming and in spy fiction in general.

    I think one can make a distinction between the sort of plotting contrivances that are often necessary to kickstart a thriller (which is by nature a chain of implausible events) and the even more wildly contrived revelation of secret "family" relationships among already well-established characters, which is a hallmark of melodrama and a cheap attempt to make things personal for the hero. And of course the hallmark of the Craig series is making everything personal for Bond--turning Blofeld into a quasi-sibling of Bond marks the ludicrous apex of this tendency. The result is just bathos.

    The oddest thing is that Bond doesn’t even seem all that bothered throughout the film that his foster brother is behind it all. You could easily edit/ADR out any references to being foster brothers and it doesn’t exactly change the dynamic which is that Bond had been a foil for SPECTRE and he finally reached the top boss. This is especially true with the London climax, where Blofeld is incensed not because Bond is his foster brother but because he destroyed his base and wants revenge.

    It makes the foster brother angle feel inconsequential, especially given how Craig had decided to play Bond in this film as more classical, not having a chip on his shoulder like in the previous films.

    Sigh. I've said this before and I'll say it again: it's astonishing how many times I've read simple fixes here that would vastly improve that film. It remains my most frustrating Bond movie because of this huge weight of wasted potential.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't like the "Brofeld" angle myself (otherwise I like SP), but I agree: this is the mind of contrived coincidences that often happen in Fleming and in spy fiction in general.

    I think one can make a distinction between the sort of plotting contrivances that are often necessary to kickstart a thriller (which is by nature a chain of implausible events) and the even more wildly contrived revelation of secret "family" relationships among already well-established characters, which is a hallmark of melodrama and a cheap attempt to make things personal for the hero. And of course the hallmark of the Craig series is making everything personal for Bond--turning Blofeld into a quasi-sibling of Bond marks the ludicrous apex of this tendency. The result is just bathos.

    The oddest thing is that Bond doesn’t even seem all that bothered throughout the film that his foster brother is behind it all. You could easily edit/ADR out any references to being foster brothers and it doesn’t exactly change the dynamic which is that Bond had been a foil for SPECTRE and he finally reached the top boss. This is especially true with the London climax, where Blofeld is incensed not because Bond is his foster brother but because he destroyed his base and wants revenge.

    That's not really true though: Blofeld's whole obsession with Bond ('author of your pain' and all that) is because of the cuckoo resentment. He's supposed to have been toying with him all this time: there's no mention at all of wanting revenge for the crater base in the MI6 climax is there?
    Bond doesn't return that fascination with Blofeld, but that's because he never had- he didn't intend to push him out of the nest when he was a kid. It's true that he could have been shown to want vengeance for Hannes Oberhauser, but at this point in his life he's got bigger fish to fry, and perhaps the writers were wary of giving Bond another person to avenge when we've had the shadow of Vesper hanging over the last few films, and are now being told that Blofeld is in some way responsible for M's death too.
  • Posts: 1,394
    I prefer Fatima Blush to Fiona Volpe.

    And i LOVE Fiona Volpe.
  • I like NSNA’s Largo better, but that’s about all I prefer compared to Thunderball.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    There's nothing I love about Never Say Never Again, but it's more James Bond content so, of course, I enjoy it. It's just a completely different thing compared to the films of the official franchise. Even the ones made around the same time.
  • Posts: 15,218
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't like the "Brofeld" angle myself (otherwise I like SP), but I agree: this is the mind of contrived coincidences that often happen in Fleming and in spy fiction in general.

    I think one can make a distinction between the sort of plotting contrivances that are often necessary to kickstart a thriller (which is by nature a chain of implausible events) and the even more wildly contrived revelation of secret "family" relationships among already well-established characters, which is a hallmark of melodrama and a cheap attempt to make things personal for the hero. And of course the hallmark of the Craig series is making everything personal for Bond--turning Blofeld into a quasi-sibling of Bond marks the ludicrous apex of this tendency. The result is just bathos.

    The oddest thing is that Bond doesn’t even seem all that bothered throughout the film that his foster brother is behind it all. You could easily edit/ADR out any references to being foster brothers and it doesn’t exactly change the dynamic which is that Bond had been a foil for SPECTRE and he finally reached the top boss. This is especially true with the London climax, where Blofeld is incensed not because Bond is his foster brother but because he destroyed his base and wants revenge.

    That's not really true though: Blofeld's whole obsession with Bond ('author of your pain' and all that) is because of the cuckoo resentment. He's supposed to have been toying with him all this time: there's no mention at all of wanting revenge for the crater base in the MI6 climax is there?
    Bond doesn't return that fascination with Blofeld, but that's because he never had- he didn't intend to push him out of the nest when he was a kid. It's true that he could have been shown to want vengeance for Hannes Oberhauser, but at this point in his life he's got bigger fish to fry, and perhaps the writers were wary of giving Bond another person to avenge when we've had the shadow of Vesper hanging over the last few films, and are now being told that Blofeld is in some way responsible for M's death too.

    I guess it's a Kirk/Khan thing: Kirk does not obsess about Khan, but Khan does about Kirk. But I do agree with @MakeshiftPython that you take off the brother angle and you have the exact same plot, same movie. And maybe that's why it doesn't bother me too much, paradoxically.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    I like NSNA’s Largo better, but that’s about all I prefer compared to Thunderball.
    I generally like Brandauer but in NSNA I find his self-indulgent attitude a bit much.
  • Posts: 1,469
    Mallory wrote: »
    (In SP)Bond was such a little shit towards Mallory in the post-PTS meeting, I am surprised Mallory didnt physically kick him out the room.
    Agreed--in the old days, Bernard Lee M would not have put up with Bond in a situation like that. However, M did stand Bond down from all operations indefinitely, and Bond said "very good". But then M said he didn't know what Bond was playing at, so maybe that indicates some under the table trust, which M and Bond had from early on, I think (like their talk about Scaramanga in TMWTGG).
    Without ranking it as high as in my top 10, I quite like NSNA and I think it may be in my top 15 or so favorite Bond films, even though I never thought about it before...Connery is at his best.
    I too enjoy NSNA once in a while and rank it #20, but I have to disagree on that one point; I think Connery was at his best from FRWL to YOLT. One example that came to mind: imagining if, in NSNA, Connery was faced with a SPECTRE agent like Red Grant, though he did manage to overcome Lippe. NSNA does give a glimpse of a spy in his older years, including a sense of ease. Connery was 53 at the time but to me seemed somewhat aged beyond that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,574
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I prefer Fatima Blush to Fiona Volpe.

    And i LOVE Fiona Volpe.

    Yes I know what you mean: Fiona is brilliant (and watching it again recently I was struck that I found her miles better than Adolfo Celi and I was wishing she was the main baddie in the film), but Fatima is so terrifically insane that she lights the screen up every time she appears. There hadn't been a Bond baddie like her before then, and you could say Xenia owes a lot to her.
    I like NSNA’s Largo better, but that’s about all I prefer compared to Thunderball.

    Likewise, Max Largo was a Bond villain in a style we hadn't seen before: young, successful, psychopathically evil and capable of turning from screaming to laughing in the blink of eye in a very effectively scary way. And blond of course.
    And who is the villain in the very next Eon Bond film? Max Zorin. ;)

    I think there are a few other improvements over Thunderball: not least Bond actually follows a real concrete lead to take him to investigate Largo from Shrublands, not just the incredibly flimsy 'Derval had a sister' lead which takes him to the Bahamas in TB! I like to imagine a version of Octopussy, say, where instead of following the faberge egg he jets off to New Zealand because 009 had a sister who lives there :D
    Some of the dialogue in NSNA is great too.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't like the "Brofeld" angle myself (otherwise I like SP), but I agree: this is the mind of contrived coincidences that often happen in Fleming and in spy fiction in general.

    I think one can make a distinction between the sort of plotting contrivances that are often necessary to kickstart a thriller (which is by nature a chain of implausible events) and the even more wildly contrived revelation of secret "family" relationships among already well-established characters, which is a hallmark of melodrama and a cheap attempt to make things personal for the hero. And of course the hallmark of the Craig series is making everything personal for Bond--turning Blofeld into a quasi-sibling of Bond marks the ludicrous apex of this tendency. The result is just bathos.

    The oddest thing is that Bond doesn’t even seem all that bothered throughout the film that his foster brother is behind it all. You could easily edit/ADR out any references to being foster brothers and it doesn’t exactly change the dynamic which is that Bond had been a foil for SPECTRE and he finally reached the top boss. This is especially true with the London climax, where Blofeld is incensed not because Bond is his foster brother but because he destroyed his base and wants revenge.

    That's not really true though: Blofeld's whole obsession with Bond ('author of your pain' and all that) is because of the cuckoo resentment. He's supposed to have been toying with him all this time: there's no mention at all of wanting revenge for the crater base in the MI6 climax is there?
    Bond doesn't return that fascination with Blofeld, but that's because he never had- he didn't intend to push him out of the nest when he was a kid. It's true that he could have been shown to want vengeance for Hannes Oberhauser, but at this point in his life he's got bigger fish to fry, and perhaps the writers were wary of giving Bond another person to avenge when we've had the shadow of Vesper hanging over the last few films, and are now being told that Blofeld is in some way responsible for M's death too.

    I guess it's a Kirk/Khan thing: Kirk does not obsess about Khan, but Khan does about Kirk. But I do agree with @MakeshiftPython that you take off the brother angle and you have the exact same plot, same movie. And maybe that's why it doesn't bother me too much, paradoxically.

    I guess the plot would go more or less in the same direction, but it does lend it moments of drama and gives Blofeld some emotional stuff to taunt Bond with. The cuckoo moment in the Spectre meeting is a pretty effective 'oh crap' moment I think.

    If you removed Felix and Bond's relationship from LTK you would still end up with a film where Bond pursues Sanchez and ends up blowing him to pieces, he could just be ordered to. It follows the same plotline as the TMWTGG novel and Bond wasn't rogue in that. But the emotional connection adds a bit of a drama. Even the ninja stuff wouldn't have to change much.
  • Posts: 15,218
    I've never been a big fan of LTK to be honest. I always thought the starting point was a tired cliché from 80s action movies: hero resigns to avenge his friend. Even if I disliked the stepbrother angle, I much prefer SP overall and was just glad we got Blofeld back. My controversial opinion.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,574
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I've never been a big fan of LTK to be honest. I always thought the starting point was a tired cliché from 80s action movies: hero resigns to avenge his friend.

    Well, I tend to agree there. But loads of people love it! :)

    My point is that just because you can remove an emotional/interpersonal angle from a plot it doesn't mean that the film will work as well without it. Bond could be protecting some previously unknown government minister in Skyfall and have taken her to his family home, but it's just better that it's the M he has a relationship with and has served under for the previous two films and who has shaped his career as a 00 agent. Everyone left the film saying 'I can't believe they killed her off' - it connected to the audience.
    And yes, the Blofeld thing didn't feel quite as organic as that particular plot, but it still added an angle to the whole thing; you can tell they have a history and that elevates their scenes. If he had been a total stranger it would have made those scenes slightly less interesting.
    It doesn't totally work, but I can see why they did it.

    I quite like that just before the MI6 HQ blows up Blofeld says "Goodbye James Bond": not 'Goodbye Mr Bond' of course, because he knew him as a child and you don't call kids 'mister' :)
Sign In or Register to comment.